• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Carbon Governance
 

Carbon Governance

on

  • 597 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
597
Views on SlideShare
582
Embed Views
15

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

4 Embeds 15

http://www.linkedin.com 11
http://www.globalclimatechangepolicy.org 2
http://globalclimatechangepolicy.org 1
https://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Carbon Governance Carbon Governance Presentation Transcript

    • The Governance of Climate Change:
      Evaluating the Governance Quality of the United Nations’ REDD-plus Programme
      Tim Cadman
      Sustainable business fellow
      University of Southern Queensland
      Assisted by
      TekMaraseni
      University of Southern Queensland
    • publications – forthcoming 2011
      Cadman, Timothy, forthcoming (April 2011), Quality and Legitimacy of Global Governance: Case Lessons from Forestry (London and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan International Political Economy Series).
      http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=395944
      Gale, Fred and Timothy Cadman, forthcoming (2011), “Whose Norms Prevail? Clientelistic Policy Networks, International Organizations and ‘sustainable forest management’”, Global Environmental Politics.
      Cadman Timothy, forthcoming (February 2011), ‘How Legitimate is Contemporary Environmental-social Governance? A Theoretical and Analytical Framework for Evaluating Responsible Investment’, in Responsible Investment in Times of Turmoil: The Future of SRI, edsWimVanderkerckove, Jos Leys, Kristin Alm, Bert Scholtens, Silvana Signori and Henry Schäfer (Berlin: Springer).
      http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/finance/book/978-90-481-9318-9
      Invitation to contribute to working book proposal:
      Governance and Climate Change Policy: Institutions and Instruments, Issues and Interests
      Contact: tim.cadman@usq.edu.au
    • contents
      Evolution & evaluation of global environmental governance
      Climate change, deforestation and ‘REDD-plus’ process
      Governance requirements
      Participant evaluation of REDD-plus
      Findings & Conclusions
    • contemporary governance (constructivist/social-institutional approach)
      State and non-state relations that are
      social-political in nature oriented towards
      collaborative approaches to problem solving(Kooiman 1993)
      ‘government to governance’ transition (Ruggie 1999, Scholte, etc.)
      Decentralised networks made up of multiple actors functioning at all levels (Haas 2002)
      Replaces the ‘regime’ concept of international relations (IR) theory and top-down, command-control models of state authority(Van Kersbergen & Van Waarden 2004)
      Forest management provides one of the best spaces to study new modes of governance(Arts 2006)
    • how to evaluate?
      Table 1: Normative hierarchical framework of principles, criteria and indicators of governance quality (following Lammerts van Beuren and Blom 1997)
      2 Principles(values):
      • Meaningful participation
      • Productive deliberation
      4 Criteria (categories):
      • Interest representation
      • Organisational responsibility
      • Decision making
      • Implementation
      11 Indicators(Parameters):
      (Cadman 2011)
      Note: Evaluation of indicators determines institutional LEGITIMACY
    • climate change, deforestation and REDD (-Plus)
      Deforestation and forest degradation account for nearly 20% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (UN REDD 2010)
      Developed countries committed USD $30 billion for the period 2010-2012 for climate change mitigation/adaptation measures including (Bleaney et al 2010)
      United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries
      maintaining standing forests by encouraging biodiversity conservation and sustainable use through a range of country-level projects (UN REDD 2010)
      As of COP 15 there is no final and binding REDD-plus agreement at present (RECOFT 2010)
    • governance & REDD+
      Ultimately, the success of an international REDD-plus mechanism will depend on governance arrangements that are:
      Broadly representative of interests(i.e. inclusive)
      Verifiably responsible (transparency and accountability),
      Effective in terms of decision-making processes
      Capable of implementing programmes that deliver emission reductions at scale.
      (Charlotte Streck, Luis Gomez-Echeverri; Pablo Gutman; Cyril Loisel; Jacob Werksman, REDD+ Institutional Options Assessment: Developing an Efficient, Effective, and Equitable Institutional Framework for REDD+ under the UNFCCC, http://www.redd-oar.org/links/REDD+IOA_en.pdf,accessed 21/05/2010).
    • mechanisms
      There are three principle REDD-plus-related mechanisms:
      UNFCCC, responsible for the intergovernmental negotiations regarding the content and format of REDD-plus;
      United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD) supported by UNDP, FAO and UNEP and manages the technical and financial (UN REDD 2010)
      and The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), which via the World Bank, provides funding (Gordon et al n.d.)
      Also FIP (Forest Investment Programme)
      Global Environmental Facility
    • UNFCCC & REDD+: multi-participant analysis
      Table 2 Percentage breakdown UNFCCC REDD+ related participants by survey, region and sector
    • Table 3: UNFCCC REDD+ related negotiations: ‘Consensus legitimacy rating’ of UNFCCC REDD+ by respondents from environment and government, global North and South: before and after COP 15 and before COP 16
    • Results Cont.
      UNFCCC
      Before COP 15: 28.0
      After COP 15: 32.4
      Before COP 16: 36.4
      (Global North/South weighted averages)
      UNFCCC
      Before COP 15: 28.16
      After COP 15: 31.99
      Before COP 16: 36.87
      (Environment/Government weighted averages)
    • Results – Asia Pacific (pre COP 16
      Table 4: Survey 3 ‘consensus legitimacy rating’ of UNFCCC REDD+ participants active in the Asia Pacific region by global North and South before Cop 16 (global North and South results also included)
      UNFCCC – A/P – Pre COP 16
      AP-North (9): 40.0
      AP- South (10): 36.1
      AP-weighted average:
      38.0 (cf. 36.87)
    • Findings - general
      Governments (the main players in global climate change negotiations) generally rated the governance quality of REDD-plus higher than environmental NGOs (especially regarding inclusiveness)
      Higher ratings given by the global South – both governmental and environmental NGOs.
      This might seem to indicate that as an initiative ‘for’ the south some of the traditional North/South imbalances are reversed.
      But: In Asia Pacific sample this trend is reversed. This may be because respondents were largely governments from the North (funding the South?), and Southern respondents were largely NGOs (less direct beneficiaries, with more governance concerns/scepticism than other stakeholders?)
      Small sample size
      There is a growing positivetrendin perceptions regarding REDD-plus legitimacy
    • Findings - specific
      Lower ratings for:
      Resources (to facilitate interest representation):1.71, 1.92, 2.10 points (out of 5)
      Dispute settlement (effective decision making):2.25, 2.53, 2.94
      Transparency (institutional responsibility): 2.72, 3.23, 3.28
      but note: Inclusiveness2.77, 3.23, 4.00 (?!)
      • Present conditions (actual perceptions)
      Higher ratings for
      Durability ([adaptiveness], flexibility, resilience, longevity): 3.31, 3.29, 3.66
      Problem solving: 2.64, 3.10, 3.64 (reduce emissions)
      • Future state (speculation)
    • Findings across REDD+
      Rating, out of 55 points, by governments and environmental NGOs, North and South, post COP 15:
      UN-REDD: 36.61 points
      – UNFCCC: 31.99 points
      FCPF: 30.52 points
      REDD-Plusweighted average:
      32.88 points
    • Conclusions
      Appears to confirm some of the academic concerns re governance arrangements
      But:
      Short-term study, and one with relatively few participants
      Some insights into the quality of governance of REDD-plus, but not definitive in its own right
      Longer-term investigation will be necessary to determine if the trends identified here are correct
      However:
      Quality-of-governance standards would make it easier for potential participants to determine whether they should engage in a given initiative or not - across sustainable development policy arenas (climate change, natural resource management, responsible investment, etc.)
    • Thank you
      tim.cadman@usq.edu.au
    • how to determine legitimacy?
      INSTITUTION
      GovernanceSystem
      Inputs
      Structure(Participatory)
      Process(Deliberative)
      Interaction
      Outputs
      Outcomes
      (Substantive and behavioural; i.e. policies and/or programmes, which solve problems and change behaviour)
      (Evaluation of governance performanceusing P,C&I framework)
      Legitimacy
      Figure 1: Normative model of contemporary institutional legitimacy (Cadman 2011, adapted)
    • INSTITUTION
      Figure 2Ideal model of institutional governance quality
      (Cadman, 2011)
      GOVERNANCE SYSTEM
      STRUCTURE
      PROCESS
      INTERACTION
      PARTICIPATION
      DELIBERATION
      INPUTS
      INTERESTREPRESENTATION
      ORGANISATIONALRESPONSIBILITY
      DECISION-MAKING
      Demo- cracy
      Agree-ment
      DisputeSettle-ment
      Inclusive-ness
      Equality
      Re-sources
      Account-ability
      Trans-parency
      OUTPUTS(standards, etc.)
      IMPLEMENTATION
      Boxed typeface indicates hierarchical relationship at the PRINCIPLE, CRITERION and Indicator levels.
      OUTCOMES
      Behavioural change
      Problem solving
      Durability
      LEGITIMACY
    • AUTHORITY
      (x-axis)
      State
      Institution A
      High
      Aggregative
      Institution B
      Figure 3:Typological framework for the classification of four hypothetical governance institutions
      (Cadman, 2011)
      Medium
      High
      Low
      INNOVATION
      (y-axis)
      New
      Old
      High
      High
      Low
      High
      DEMOCRACY
      Medium
      (z-axis)
      Deliberative
      Institution D
      High
      Institution C
      Non-state
      Institution A
      Authority - state (medium); Democracy - aggregative (medium); Innovation - old (medium)
      KEY
      Institution B
      Authority - state (high); Democracy - deliberative (medium); Innovation - new (high)
      Institution C
      Authority - non-state (medium); Democracy - deliberative (medium); Innovation - new (medium)
      Institution D
      Authority - non-state (high); Democracy - aggregative (low); Innovation - old (high)