Ensuring quality of governance and delivering safeguards for emissions trading schemes

1. 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
Illegal logging researcher
Chatham House
Financing of Forestry, Agriculture and Climate Adaptation
Multi-Disciplinary Workshop
22 November, 2013 QUT

2. Basic conceptual issues associated
with governance
origins and broader meaning of the term ‘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+ 2

3. 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

4. How to conceptualise ‘good’ governance
Institutional context
Inputs
Governance system
Structure
Participatory
Interaction
(Collaborative)
Process
Deliberative
Outputs
Outcomes
(Substantive and Behavioural; i.e. policies and/or
programmes which solve problems and change behaviour)
Legitimacy
Figure 2: Model of Governance Quality (Cadman 2011)
Evaluation of
governance
quality
4

5. Table 2: Normative model or evaluating governance quality (Cadman 2011)
Principle
Criterion
Indicator
Inclusiveness
Interest representation
“Meaningful
participation”
Equality
Resources
Organisational
responsibility
Accountability
Transparency
Democracy
“Productive deliberation”
Decision making
Agreement
Dispute settlement
Behaviour change
Implementation
Problem solving
Durability
5

6. 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

7. Figure 2: The sustainable development regime complex: policy-related discourses, agreements,
governance arrangements, instruments, market mechanisms, programmes and standards.
7

8. 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

9. Why governance matters for REDD+
• Cancun : “Transparent and effective national forest governance structures”
• SBSTA: “consistency, comprehensiveness and effectiveness”
• Inconsistent norms of governance
– “accessibility, …predictability, justice and sustainability” (CCBA/CARE 201
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
9

10. 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

11. Organizations and social
movements associated with this
statement:
Aksyon Klima
Pilipinas ActionAid Bolivian
Platform on Climate
Change Construyendo Puentes
(Latin America) Friends of the
Earth (Europe) Greenpeace Ibon
International International Trade
Union Confederation LDC
Watch Oxfam International Pan
African Climate Justice
Alliance Peoples’ Movement on
Climate Change
(Philippines) WWF
‘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-movementswalk-out-warsaw-climate-talks

12. 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

13. Thank
you
lopezcasero@iges.or.jp
Maraseni@usq.edu.au
t.cadman@griffith.edu.au
13

14. Relevant publications
Quality-of-governance standards for carbon emissions
trading:
Developing REDD+ governance through a multi-stage, multilevel and multi-stakeholder approach
IGES, USQ, Griffith University – IEGL
Governing the Forests:
An Institutional Analysis of REDD+ and CommunityBased Forest Management in Asia
UNU-IAS, ITTO, Griffith University – IEGL
NEW: Climate Change and Global Policy Regimes:
Towards Institutional Legitimacy
www.globalclimatechangepolicy.org
Palgrave-Macmillan – IPE Series (April 2013)
14