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: 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)

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

tim.cadman@usq.edu.au

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)