strengthening stakeholder governance of redd+ related documents/#4...governing the forests: an...
TRANSCRIPT
StrengtheningStakeholderGovernanceofREDD+
USQ
TOOWOOMBA
DrFedericoLópez‐CaseroForestConserva5onTeamIns5tuteforGlobalEnvironmentalStrategies(IGES)
DrTekMaraseniAustralianCentreforSustainableCatchmentsUniversityofSouthernQueensland
DevelopingPar.cipatorystandardsasanaspectofMRV
DrTimCadmanUNUIns5tuteforEthicsGovernanceandLawGriffithUniversity
Globalstudiesconducted• Usingthisframework,theresearchershaveinves5gatedglobal&
na5onalstakeholderpercep5onson– REDD+:BeforeandaSerCOP15,16,17and(now)18
• UNFCCCnego5a5ons,UNREDD,FCPF,FIP,REDD+Partnership– CDM:Interna5onalandlocal(Brazil)2010,2012
– UNFF:2010,2011• Otherpolicyarenas
– Globalhealthgovernance– Responsibleinvestment(2010,2012)
• Peer‐reviewedpublica5ons
– 1Book(2011)– 4bookChapters(2012)– 5journalar5cles(2010‐2012)
Howtoevaluategovernancequality?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
Cadman(2011)andLammertsvanBuerenandBlom(1997)
3
MethodsformonitoringandevaluaAoninthefieldcreatesVerifiersresultsin
Quality‐of‐GovernanceSTANDARDSfor
REDD+verificaAon,accreditaAonandCerAficaAon
WhygovernancemaLerstoREDD+
• Inconsistentnormsofgovernance– “accessibility,…predictability,jus5ceandsustainability”(CCBA/CARE2010,p.9)– “equity,fairness,consensus,coordina5on,efficiency”(UN‐REDD2012,p.9)
• Changingrolesforrights/stakeholders– “Consulta5onsshouldfacilitatemeaningfulparAcipaAonatall
levels.”(FCPF2009,p.2)• “‘Fullandeffec5vepar5cipa5on’meansmeaningfulinfluenceofallrelevant
rightsholdersandstakeholderswhowanttobeinvolvedthroughouttheprocess”(CCBA/CARE2010(2.2.andfootnote261p.7)➡ThedifferencebetweendegreesoftokenismorciAzenpower(Arnstein1969)
4
Tacklingpoorgovernanceisaninterna5onallyrecognisedprerequisiteforachievinginvestmentinlong‐termforestmanagement(UNFF,FAO,ITTO,WorldBank,G8)
• Cancun:“Transparentandeffec<vena<onalforestgovernancestructures”
• SBSTA:“consistency,comprehensivenessandeffec<veness”
Monitoring,ReporAngandVerifyingGovernanceQualityisCentraltoReducingDeforestaAon&ForestDegradaAon
• Pooraccountabilityandtransparencyincreasetheriskofcorrup5on,encouragingillegal/unsustainablelogging
5
• Wherekeyinterestsarenotrepresentedinforestrydecision‐making:
• informa5oncri5caltosustainableresourcemanagementislost
• lackofownershipcanreinforceexis5ngunsustainableprac5ces/behaviour
• Whereforestmanagementagreementsarepoorlyimplemented• opportuni5esforlas5ngsolu5onstodeforesta5onandforest
degrada5onarereduced
Degradedforest,MakawanpurDistrict,Nepal
Level of participation
Type of participation
Extent of participation
1. NCPR (FCPF)2009
2. SES (CCBA/CARE)2010
3. CAESSFCPF(2011)
4. SEPC(UN-REDD)2012
8 CITIZEN CONTROL “Degrees of
citizen power” 7 DELEGATED POWER
6 PARTNERSHIP
5 PLACATION “Degrees of tokenism”
4 CONSULTATION 47 43 42
3 INFORMING 39
2 THERAPY “Non-participation” 1 MANIPULATION
1.FCPF2009‐ForestCarbonPartnershipFacility(FCPF)ReadinessMechanismNaAonalConsultaAonandParAcipaAonforREDDMay6,2009
2.SES2010‐REDD+Social&EnvironmentalStandardsVersion1June2010
3.FCPF2011–ForestCarbonPartnershipFacility(FCPF)ReadinessFundCommonApproachtoEnvironmentalandSocialSafeguardsforMulApleDeliveryPartners
4.UN‐REDD2012‐UN‐REDDProgrammeSocialandEnvironmentalPrinciplesandCriteria
Table 2: Comparative textual analysis of selected REDD+ initiatives against Table 1 and Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969)
NaAonalandSub‐NaAonalStandardsDevelopment:NepalPilotProject
7
Processofdevelopingvoluntaryna5onalquality‐of‐governancestandardinNepalthroughmulA‐stage,mulA‐level,andmulA‐stakeholderprocesshasbeeninnova5ve:Stakeholders,NOTresearchers/fundersdevelopverifiersbasedongenericPC&I–appliedconsistently,subjecttocontext/level
AcAveparAcipaAonandengagementofadiverserangeofstakeholdersdemonstratestheysawthevalueofdevelopingsuchastandardthrougharobust,par5cipatoryandtransparentprocess
Theinten5onistoprovideabenchmarkgovernancestandard,againstwhichREDD+governancecanbemonitored,reportedandverifiedviaindependentthirdpartycerAficaAon
8
Fieldconsultations:REDD+pilotareas&controls(Firstpreliminarydraftoflocallevelveri;iers)
MultistakeholderForumWorkshop(Firstpreliminarydraftstandardandveri;iers)
Onlinequestionnairesurvey(Preliminarylistofveri;iers)
KeyInformantinterviews(Additionalveri;iers)
Multistakeholder
Multistage
• Aidprogrammes • Communityforestusers • Dalit • Financialinstitutions• Forest‐basedindustries • Government • Indigenousorganisations • Madhesi • NGO • Women• Other
Method for drafting and consulting a governance standard for REDD+ and the forest sector in Nepal July 2011-December 2012
Nationalconsultation
Draftstandard ONGOING
180+naAonal,sub‐naAonal&localverifiers
50+intervieweesinNepalandoverseas
66completedresponses,131aLempts,300invitees
43cross‐sectorparAcipants
300+circulaAon
Multilevel
RecommendaAonsforCOP18&Conclusions Independent,thirdparty,market‐drivenvoluntarycerAficaAon
• Monitoring/measurement(audits)
• Repor5ng(benchmarkanalysis)
• Verifica5on(issueofcer5ficatesandlabels–co‐benefits)
Country‐specificQuality‐of‐GovernancestandardsfollowinginternaAonalbestpracAcewould
• avoidissuesofna5onalsovereigntyassociatedwithmandatoryregula5on/verifica5onviaUNFCCC(voluntary,market‐driven)
ImproveREDD+performance
➡‘MRVofgovernanceandgovernanceofMRV’9
PublicaAonsGoverningtheForests:AnIns<tu<onalAnalysisofREDD+andCommunity‐BasedForestManagementinAsiaUNU‐IAS,ITTO,GriffithUniversity–UNU‐IEGL
Quality‐of‐governancestandardsforcarbonemissionstrading:DevelopingREDD+governancethroughamul<‐stage,mul<‐levelandmul<‐stakeholderapproach
IGES,USQ,GriffithUniversity–UNU‐IEGL
‘Cadman’s framework for evaluating the legitimacy of multilateral environmental agreements is one of the best I have seen; it is elegant and sophisticated without being overwhelmingly intricate. He should be commended for this latest effort.’ — Peter J. Stoett, Concordia University, Canada
Since the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, media and public attention has been focussed on the global negotiations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Little attention has been paid to the institutions that are charged with the responsibility of developing effective responses. These are often remote from the public, and communities most threatened by global warming are often excluded from decision-making. The contributors to this volume investigate a wide range of institutions within the ‘climate change regime complex’. From carbon trading to food and water availability, energy production, human security, local government and the intergovernmental climate talks themselves, they find much that should be of concern to policy makers, and the public at large. In doing so they provide a series of recommendations to improve governance legitimacy, and assist public participation in policy deliberations that will affect future generations.
Timothy Cadman is a Research Fellow in the Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance and the United Nations University Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law at Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. His first book Quality and Legitimacy of Global Governance: Case Lessons from Forestry was published in 2011.
Cover image © Rob Friedman/iStockphoto.com
International Political Economy Series
Climate Change and Global Policy RegimesTowards Institutional Legitimacy
Edited by
Timothy Cadman
90101
9 781137 006110
ISBN 978-1-137-00611-0
www.palgrave.com
Clim
ate Change and G
lobal Policy Regimes
Edited by Timothy C
adman
Series Editor: Timothy M. Shaw, Visiting Professor, University of Massachusetts Boston, USA, and Emeritus Professor, University of London, UK
NEW:ClimateChangeandGlobalPolicyRegimes:TowardsIns<tu<onalLegi<macy
Palgrave‐Macmillan–IPESeries(April2013)