Carbon Governance

693 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Carbon Governance

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

×