Strengthening Stakeholder Governance of REDD+ related documents/#4...Governing the Forests: An...

11
Strengthening Stakeholder Governance of REDD+ USQ TOOWOOMBA Dr Federico López‐Casero Forest Conserva5on Team Ins5tute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) Dr Tek Maraseni Australian Centre for Sustainable Catchments University of Southern Queensland Developing Par.cipatory standards as an aspect of MRV Dr Tim Cadman UNU Ins5tute for Ethics Governance and Law Griffith University

Transcript of Strengthening Stakeholder Governance of REDD+ related documents/#4...Governing the Forests: An...

Page 1: Strengthening Stakeholder Governance of REDD+ related documents/#4...Governing the Forests: An Instuonal Analysis of REDD+ and Community‐ Based Forest Management in Asia UNU‐IAS,

StrengtheningStakeholderGovernanceofREDD+

USQ

TOOWOOMBA

DrFedericoLópez‐CaseroForestConserva5onTeamIns5tuteforGlobalEnvironmentalStrategies(IGES)

DrTekMaraseniAustralianCentreforSustainableCatchmentsUniversityofSouthernQueensland

DevelopingPar.cipatorystandardsasanaspectofMRV

DrTimCadmanUNUIns5tuteforEthicsGovernanceandLawGriffithUniversity

Page 2: Strengthening Stakeholder Governance of REDD+ related documents/#4...Governing the Forests: An Instuonal Analysis of REDD+ and Community‐ Based Forest Management in Asia UNU‐IAS,

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)

Page 3: Strengthening Stakeholder Governance of REDD+ related documents/#4...Governing the Forests: An Instuonal Analysis of REDD+ and Community‐ Based Forest Management in Asia UNU‐IAS,

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

Page 4: Strengthening Stakeholder Governance of REDD+ related documents/#4...Governing the Forests: An Instuonal Analysis of REDD+ and Community‐ Based Forest Management in Asia UNU‐IAS,

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”

Page 5: Strengthening Stakeholder Governance of REDD+ related documents/#4...Governing the Forests: An Instuonal Analysis of REDD+ and Community‐ Based Forest Management in Asia UNU‐IAS,

Monitoring,ReporAngandVerifyingGovernanceQualityisCentraltoReducingDeforestaAon&ForestDegradaAon

•  Pooraccountabilityandtransparencyincreasetheriskofcorrup5on,encouragingillegal/unsustainablelogging

5

•  Wherekeyinterestsarenotrepresentedinforestrydecision‐making:

•  informa5oncri5caltosustainableresourcemanagementislost

•  lackofownershipcanreinforceexis5ngunsustainableprac5ces/behaviour

•  Whereforestmanagementagreementsarepoorlyimplemented•  opportuni5esforlas5ngsolu5onstodeforesta5onandforest

degrada5onarereduced

Degradedforest,MakawanpurDistrict,Nepal

Page 6: Strengthening Stakeholder Governance of REDD+ related documents/#4...Governing the Forests: An Instuonal Analysis of REDD+ and Community‐ Based Forest Management in Asia UNU‐IAS,

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)

Page 7: Strengthening Stakeholder Governance of REDD+ related documents/#4...Governing the Forests: An Instuonal Analysis of REDD+ and Community‐ Based Forest Management in Asia UNU‐IAS,

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

Page 8: Strengthening Stakeholder Governance of REDD+ related documents/#4...Governing the Forests: An Instuonal Analysis of REDD+ and Community‐ Based Forest Management in Asia UNU‐IAS,

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

Page 9: Strengthening Stakeholder Governance of REDD+ related documents/#4...Governing the Forests: An Instuonal Analysis of REDD+ and Community‐ Based Forest Management in Asia UNU‐IAS,

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

Page 10: Strengthening Stakeholder Governance of REDD+ related documents/#4...Governing the Forests: An Instuonal Analysis of REDD+ and Community‐ Based Forest Management in Asia UNU‐IAS,

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)

Page 11: Strengthening Stakeholder Governance of REDD+ related documents/#4...Governing the Forests: An Instuonal Analysis of REDD+ and Community‐ Based Forest Management in Asia UNU‐IAS,

Thankyou

[email protected]@usq.edu.au

[email protected]