Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Ensuring quality of governance and delivering safeguards for emissions trading schemes
Citation preview
Climate Governance and REDD+
Ensuring quality of governance and delivering safeguards
for emissions trading schemes
Dr Tim CadmanInstitute for Ethics Governance and LawGriffith University
Illegal logging researcherChatham House
Financing of Forestry, Agriculture and Climate AdaptationMulti-Disciplinary Workshop
22 November, 2013 QUT
Basic conceptual issues associated with governance
• Governance: Greek κυβερνήτης - kybernetes, “steersman, pilot, guide” ) cf. cybernetics, but also Latin gubernator– tension/interplay between notions of ‘directing’ vs. ‘dictating’
the course of events: who is in control, and who has the power?• also there are various broad kinds of governance identified:
• Corporate governance (i.e. how businesses are run)• Fiduciary governance (i.e. how money is managed)• Public sector governance (i.e. how govt. agencies are run)• Etc.
• These are all inter-related - but the focus today is on global climate governance in international relations (IR), and the international political economy (IPE) of REDD+
origins and broader meaning of the term ‘governance’
2
Key elements of good governance systems
• Democracy: Representative/participatory (I. Young, Held)• Accountability & transparency: Horizontal Vs. vertical systems;
transparency validates arrangements (Bäckstrand and Lövbrand)• Interest representation: Organisational vs. individual nature –
access & inclusion (Arts, Koenig-Archibugi & Zürn)• Equality & resources (capacity): North-South divide –
Developed/Developing countries (Okereke)• Decision-making: “Discursive consensus formation” (following
Habermas – Dryzek, Susskind)• Implementation: Behaviour change, problem solving, durability (O.
Young, Skjaerseth et al) – i.e. beyond compliance Legitimacy: Input/output oriented: (procedures and and outcomes)
[Scharpf - Kjaer, Biermann & Gupta] – the the means or the ends?
3
How to conceptualise ‘good’ governance
Figure 2: Model of Governance Quality (Cadman 2011)
StructureParticipatory
Institutional context
Governance system
Interaction(Collaborative)
ProcessDeliberative
Outcomes(Substantive and Behavioural; i.e. policies and/or
programmes which solve problems and change behaviour)
Legitimacy
Inputs
Evaluation of governance quality
Outputs
4
Principle Criterion Indicator
“Meaningful participation”
Interest representationInclusiveness
Equality
Resources
Organisational responsibility
Accountability
Transparency
“Productive deliberation”Decision making
Democracy
Agreement
Dispute settlement
Implementation
Behaviour change
Problem solving
Durability
Table 2: Normative model or evaluating governance quality (Cadman 2011)
5
What types of governance arrangements for market based mechanisms?
• Global environmental policy provides one of the best spaces to study new modes of governance (Arts 2006)– State is no longer the sole venue of power
• i.e. governance is non-spatial, non-territorial
– State and non-state relations that are• Social-political in nature oriented towards• Collaborative approaches to problem solving
(Kooiman 1993)
– Decentralised networks made up of multiple actors functioning at all levels (Haas 2002)
• Non-state Market-driven (NSMD – Cashore et al)• linked to sustainable development agenda of Rio/UNCED 1992
6
Figure 2: The sustainable development regime complex: policy-related discourses, agreements, governance arrangements, instruments, market mechanisms, programmes and standards.
7
Governance Arrangements for REDD+ Readiness and Market Implementation
• Ultimately, the success of REDD+ mechanism will depend on governance arrangements that are:
– Broadly representative of interests and inclusiveness– 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).
8
Why governance matters for REDD+
• Inconsistent norms of governance – “accessibility, …predictability, justice and sustainability” (CCBA/CARE 2010,
p. 9)– “equity, fairness, consensus, coordination, efficiency” (UN-REDD 2012, p.
9)• Changing roles for rights/stakeholders
– “Consultations should facilitate meaningful participation at all levels.” (FCPF 2009, p. 2)
• “‘Full and effective participation’ means meaningful influence of all relevant rights holders and stakeholders who want to be involved throughout the process” (CCBA/CARE 2010 (2.2. and footnote 26 1 p. 7)
• The difference between degrees of tokenism or citizen power (Arnstein 1969) ➡ Are ‘safeguards’ in REDD+ a surrogate for (lack of) good governance?
9
• Cancun : “Transparent and effective national forest governance structures”
• SBSTA: “consistency, comprehensiveness and effectiveness”
99
Figure 5: REDD+ Trends in stakeholder perceptions of selected governance quality indicators (Northern and Southern countries, State and Non-state actors- Nov. ‘09 – Dec. 11)
10
‘This week saw a “finance ministerial” with almost no actual finance…Warsaw has not seen any increase in emission reductions nor increased support for adaptation before 2020 – on these things it has actually taken us backward’http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/pressroom/pressrelease/2013-11-21/ngos-social-movements-walk-out-warsaw-climate-talks
Organizations and social movements associated with this statement:Aksyon Klima PilipinasActionAidBolivian Platform on Climate ChangeConstruyendo Puentes (Latin America)Friends of the Earth (Europe)GreenpeaceIbon InternationalInternational Trade Union ConfederationLDC WatchOxfam InternationalPan African Climate Justice AlliancePeoples’ Movement on Climate Change (Philippines)WWF
Recommendations for REDD+ at the international, national and sub-national levels
Institutions, policies and regulations need to be:• Inter-linked• Trans-boundary (cross border) • Multi-sectoral (environment, society, economy)• Multi-level (macro, meso, micro)• Comprehensive regulatory approach• Reforms in forest governance issues:
– ‘Soft’ law • voluntary market mechanisms (e.g. emissions trading)
– Hard Law:• Halting new forest concessions• Addressing tenure and rights issues (e.g. Indigenous people)
• Responsible/sustainable/ethical finance and investment: not public funding as ‘aid’, NOT private philanthropy as ‘investment’ (toxic finance/carbon bubble?)
• Consistent governance standards across jurisdictions & countries to provide quality, legitimacy and market certainty
12
Relevant publications
Governing the Forests:An Institutional Analysis of REDD+ and Community-Based Forest Management in AsiaUNU-IAS, ITTO, Griffith University – IEGL
Quality-of-governance standards for carbon emissions trading:
Developing REDD+ governance through a multi-stage, multi- level and
multi-stakeholder approach
IGES, USQ, Griffith University – IEGL
NEW: Climate Change and Global Policy Regimes: Towards Institutional Legitimacywww.globalclimatechangepolicy.org
Palgrave-Macmillan – IPE Series (April 2013) 14
