S. Tambe, L. French, C. Wyborn, L. Scarlett, R. Defries, H. Nagendra, H. Kulkarni, P. Srivastava, N.K. Agrawal, B.M.S. Rathore, G. Kinhal
International Forestry Review 23 (2), 219-229, (18 June 2021) https://doi.org/10.1505/146554821832952771
KEYWORDS: public policy, policy engagement, policy spaces, power sharing, collaboration
HIGHLIGHTS
The study responds to the lack of information on India's environmental policy engagement space by engaging in a literature review and analysis.
We analyzed recent environment policy development cases to characterize the engagement interface.
On contentious issues, while policy engagements that emanated from the ‘closed’, ‘invited' and ‘claimed' spaces resulted in standoffs, those negotiated in the ‘deliberative’ space were more successful.
We developed an analytical framework of the ‘environment policy development triangle' depicting how the four distinct ‘engagement spaces’ (closed, invited, deliberative and claimed) are created along the gradient of power sharing, inclusiveness and impact.
We argue the need for the reimagining of India's environment policy making process with stakeholders discarding authoritative and confrontational engagement approaches and collaborating in newly created and strengthened deliberative spaces.
SUMMARY
Various stakeholders from science, policy and practice aspire to shape public policy. What are the engagement spaces they operate in, and what are the characteristics of these spaces and the implications for effective policy making? The literature on the public policy formulation process in developing countries is sparse, and this study attempts to bridge this gap. We analyzed India's recent environmental policy making engagements using the lens of ‘policy spaces'. We found that strong civil society coalitions have successfully ‘claimed' the policy making space. Conventional policy making operating in ‘closed' and ‘invited' spaces is yet to accept this change, resulting in frequent standoffs. However, when policies emanated from the ‘deliberative’ space, there have been successes as well. The policy development space has consequently become contested, with nature conservation, forest-based livelihoods and corporate interests all staking their claim. To break this impasse, we recommend a graduation from confrontational and authoritative engagement approaches to deliberative arenas.