Upload
tim-cadman
View
664
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
The Governance of Climate Change:
Evaluating the Governance Quality of the United Nations’ REDD-plus
Programme
Tim Cadman Sustainable business fellowUniversity of Southern Queensland
U S Q
T O O W O O M B A
Assisted byTek MaraseniUniversity of Southern Queensland
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, eds Wim Vanderkerckove, 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
publications – forthcoming 2011
Invitation to contribute to working book proposal: Governance and Climate Change Policy: Institutions and Instruments, Issues and InterestsContact: [email protected]
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)
Principle Criterion Indicator
“Meaningful participation”
Interest representation
Inclusiveness
Equality
Resources
Organisational responsibility
Accountability
Transparency
“Productive deliberation”
Decision making
Democracy
Agreement
Dispute settlement
Implementation
Behavioural change
Problem solving
Durability
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
Survey Region
SectorTotal number per survey
Environ-mental
Social EconomicGovern-ment
Secretariat Other
1. November 2009 pre COP 15
North 49% 5% 3% 3% 0% 3%39
South 13% 0% 0% 13% 0% 3%
2.March 2009 post COP 15
North 14% 0% 0% 7% 2% 7%42
South 40% 2% 0% 23% 0% 2%
3. September 2010 pre COP 16
North 16% 2% 0 16% 0% 6%50
South 36% 0% 2% 20% 0% 2%
3.1 September 2010: Asia Pacific pre COP 16
North 11% 0% 0 26% 0% 11%19
South 47% 0% 5% 0 0% 0
Table 2 Percentage breakdown UNFCCC REDD+ related participants by survey, region and sector
UNFCCC & REDD+: multi-participant analysis
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
UNFCCCBefore COP 15: 28.0After COP 15: 32.4Before COP 16: 36.4
(Global North/South weighted averages)
UNFCCCBefore COP 15: 28.16After COP 15: 31.99Before COP 16: 36.87
(Environment/Government weighted averages)
Results Cont.
UNFCCC – A/P – Pre COP 16AP-North (9): 40.0AP- South (10): 36.1
AP-weighted average:
38.0 (cf. 36.87)
Results – Asia Pacific (pre COP 16
Indicator Inclus-iveness
Equal-ity
Resour-ces
Criterion
ScoreAccount-ability
Trans-parency
Criterion
Score
Principlescore
Demo-cracy
Agree-ment
Dispute settle-ment
Criterion
Score
Behav-ioural change
Problem solving
Dura-bility
Criterion
Score
Principlescore
Total(out of 55)
A-Pacific north (9) 4.6 4.0 2.6 11.1 3.6 3.5 7.1 18.2 3.8 3.6 3.1 10.5 3.9 3.7 3.8 11.3 21.8 40.0
A-Pacific south (10) 4.1 3.9 1.9 9.9 3.4 3.8 7.2 17.1 3.6 3.2 3.0 9.8 3.1 3.2 2.9 9.2 19.0 36.1
A-PacificWeighted Average
4.3 3.9 2.2 10.5 3.5 3.6 7.1 17.6 3.7 3.4 3.1 10.1 3.5 3.4 3.3 10.3 20.4 38.0
Weighted Average(N/S)
4.0 3.5 2.0 9.5 3.3 3.4 6.7 16.2 3.5 2.9 2.9 9.3 3.7 3.5 3.6 10.8 20.2 36.4
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)
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 positive trend in 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: Inclusiveness 2.77, 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-Plus
weighted 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
INSTITUTION
GovernanceSystem
Structure(Participatory)
Process(Deliberative)Interaction
Inputs
Outcomes
(Substantive and behavioural; i.e. policies and/or programmes, which solve problems and change behaviour)
Outputs
Legitimacy
(Evaluation of governance performanceusing P,C&I framework)
Figure 1: Normative model of contemporary institutional legitimacy (Cadman 2011, adapted)
how to determine legitimacy?
Boxed typeface indicates hierarchical relationship at the PRINCIPLE, CRITERION and Indicator levels.
INSTITUTION
GOVERNANCE SYSTEM
PARTICIPATION DELIBERATION
INTERESTREPRESENTATION
ORGANISATIONALRESPONSIBILITY
DECISION-MAKING
IMPLEMENTATION
Behavioural change Problem solving Durability
STRUCTURE PROCESSINTERACTION
INPUTS
LEGITIMACY
Inclusive-ness
Equality Re-sources
Account-ability
Trans-parency
Demo-
cracy
Agree-ment
DisputeSettle-ment
OUTPUTS(standards, etc.)
OUTCOMES
Figure 2Ideal model of institutional governance quality
(Cadman, 2011)
AUTHORITY
State(x-axis)
Aggregative
DEMOCRACY(z-axis)
High
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
High
High
High
Old New
High
Deliberative
High
INNOVATION(y-axis)
Institution B
KEY
Non-state
Institution A
Institution D
Institution C
Institution A
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)
Authority - state (medium); Democracy - aggregative (medium); Innovation - old (medium)
Figure 3:Typological framework for the classification of four hypothetical governance institutions(Cadman, 2011)