Climate Governance and REDD+

Ensuring quality of governance and delivering safeguards

for emissions trading schemes

Dr Tim Cadman Institute for Ethics Governance and Law Griffith University

for

REDD+ Safeguards Fundamental; not an add-on

4~5 Dec. 2013 International House of Japan

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+ and the debate around safeguards

origins and broader meaning of the term ‘governance’

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?

How to conceptualise ‘good’ governance

Figure 2: Model of Governance Quality (Cadman 2011)

Structure Participatory

Institutional context

Governance system

Interaction (Collaborative)

Process Deliberative

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 representation

Inclusiveness

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)

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

Figure 2: The sustainable development regime complex: policy-related discourses, agreements, governance arrangements, instruments, market mechanisms, programmes and standards.

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).

Why governance matters for REDD+

• Cancun Agreements on REDD+ (Decision 1/CP.16) :

The “safeguards [that] should be promoted and supported” include:

“Transparent and effective national forest governance structures” (Appendix I, 2.(b))

• SBSTA to consider the need for further guidance to “ensure transparency, consistency, comprehensiveness and effectiveness when informing on how all safeguards are addressed and respected and, if appropriate, to consider additional guidance

• But: no consistent methods for application,

Hence the need for quality of governance standards (See Dr Lopez-Casero’s presentation)

9

Tackling poor governance is an internationally recognised prerequisite for achieving investment in long-term forest management (UNFF, FAO, ITTO, World Bank, G8, UNFCCC)

Governance structures and process 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)

• Consistent governance standards across jurisdictions & countries to provide • Quality, legitimacy and market certainty

Relevant publications

Governing the Forests: An Institutional Analysis of REDD+ and Community-Based Forest Management in Asia UNU-IAS, ITTO, Griffith University – UNU-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 – UNU-IEGL

NEW: Climate Change and Global Policy Regimes: Towards Institutional Legitimacy Palgrave-Macmillan – IPE Series (April 2013)

Thank you

Acknowledgments

Federico Lopez-Casero IGES Tek Maraseni USQ