1216 Boston presentation.ppt (Read-Only)

10/11/12

1

Prof. Dr. Joyeeta Gupta, Amsterdam Global Change Institute

(

Sustainable Development Governance: "Glocal" Challenges and Opportunities

2

The structure

•  Issues •  Case studies

•  Water •  Forests •  Climate Change

•  Conclusions

3

Disciplinary approaches

Local

Global

International relationsInternational law

National LawSociologyPolitical ScienceDevelopment studies

Anthro-pology

Internationaleconomics

Micro

Macro

Spatial

Ecology

Local

Global

Local

Global

International relationsInternational lawInternational relationsInternational law



Anthro-pologyAnthro-pology

InternationaleconomicsInternationaleconomics

MicroMicro

Macro

Spatial

Macro

Spatial

EcologyEcology

Geo

grap

hy

The problem: Governance challenges in the Anthropocene

5

1. Sustainable Development (SD)

•  Complex •  Current and future •  Social, economic and environmental •  Process versus goal •  Green economy, inclusive growth,

dematerialization, decarbonization •  Contextual vs universal

•  Is sustainable development a useful fuzzy concept?

6

1. Sustainable development et al.

Social Economic

Ecological

Bio-physical Chemical Gupta &van der Zaag 2008

GWSP science plan

10/11/12

2

7

1. Playground of concepts: Sustainable development

Social Economic

Ecological

Bio-physical Chemical

Green e

cono

my Inclusive growth

Green society

Eco

syst

em s

ervi

ces

Time

Process versus goal Soft and hard sustainability

Spatial planning Infrastructure

Innovation

8

2. Compartmentalization

•  How ? •  Climate change, ozone depletion, acid rain •  Energy, water, agriculture •  Hydrosphere, Atmosphere, Lithosphere

•  Sequence: from issues to holistic approaches?

•  Is compartmentalization fragmentation? •  Is non-compartmentalization a systems

approach? •  Is a systems approach better than a

fragmented approach? Do they both have their own place in research?

9

3. Glocal multi-level governance (MLG): concepts •  Shift from:

•  government to governance •  centralization to decentralization •  hierarchy to networks •  Fomality to formal/informal hybrids

•  New relationships: •  National-international: supranational, global •  Centre-periphery: decentralization,

deconcentration •  State-society: pluralism, stakeholder participation

•  New sources of authority: •  Courts: precedents •  Customs: customary law •  Civil society: social norms •  Industry: corporate social responsibility •  Science: scientific standards

Anarchy

10

3. Glocal multi-level governance: Arenas

•  International: >  Anarchy, sovereign states, different schools

of thought on cooperation, geopolitics >  Commons, global public goods, common

concerns, common heritage

•  National arena: >  Order, citizens, different political set-ups,

different economic, social and physical infrastructure

>  National resources, national problems, public goods

•  Local arena: >  Community?, custom, institutions >  Commons, public goods

11

Glocal Governance: Trends and impacts

Shi$ towards Characteris0c Impact

Adminstra/ve law

Neither legisla/ve, nor judicial

Could push policies further Legi/macy ques/onable Rules of procedure not applied ‘Consensus’ may not be context relevant; may aggravate situa/on

Legal pluralism Mul/ple levels of governance Mul/ple actors

Domes/c rules have extra-‐territorial impacts; Export of good governance ideas to countries without understanding their contexts and needs; Mul/ple forums are expensive; forum shopping possible for rich actors; Legality; accountability?

Public-‐private law merger

Priva/zing public law?

Public/ poli/cal commons priva/zed; Policy freezing; Involuntarily sucked into private interna/onal law

12

BECHTEL VS. BOLIVIA COCHABAMBA’S WATER BILLS FROM BECHTEL

For the poorest people in Cochabamba rates went up little, barely 10 percent.

- Gail Apps, spokeswoman for Riley Bechtel January 3, 2002

That’s Bechtel Enterprises big lie about their water price hikes in Cochabamba. Now the facts and the actual water bills to prove them.

First, a note of information about water rates. In Cochabamba, under both Bechtel’s subsidiary, Aguas del Tunari, and the public utility that ran the company before and after, SEMAPA, water rates depend on how a home is classified. Basically, these classifications have to do with how many water outlets a home has. According to the water company’s current chief of pricing, Rosario Ayoroa, the classification works like this: The poorest homes (R-2) usually have an indoor toilet, no indoor shower and maybe a water tap in the yard. Typically these families survive by selling vegetables or other items in the street and work well below the current minimum wage of $67 per month. The next group (R-3) are still poor by any standard. In addition to an indoor toilet they may have an indoor shower as well and perhaps a kitchen faucet. Typically these are households headed by workers who earn somewhere between $60 to $80 per month. Once a household has more than one bathroom it is considered in a higher category (R-4), not necessarily affluent, but not poor either.

THE TRUTH ABOUT BECHTEL’S INCREASE FOR THE POOREST OF THE POOR

Now look at Bechtel’s company’s (Aguas Del Tunari) actual bills and see how big a lie it is to claim that, “For the poorest people in Cochabamba rates went up little, barely 10 percent.”

Lucio Morales (click to see copy of water bill): In November 1999, before Bechtel’s rate hikes took effect, Morales had a monthly water bill of 25 Bolivianos (about $4.15). In February, after Bechtel’s price hikes took effect, his water bill jumped to 39.80 Bolivianos ($6.63), a jump of 60% not 10%. As the bill indicates, there is not meter reading, no increase in water use. This is one of many houses that have no water meter and is billed based on a basic rate. Classified “R-2” Morales’ household is among the very poorest of the poor. This bill would amount to more than 10% of the monthly minimum wage at the time.

Public-private, nat./int.

10/11/12

3

13

Sustainable development and MLG

X2

dom

estic

-inte

rnat

iona

l

X1: centre-periphery

X3 state-s

ociety

14

4. SD governance gap

SD

pro

blem

Time

Trend

Need for trend break

SD gap

Governance

15

4. The Good Governance gap

Inno

vativ

enes

s in

gov

erna

nce

Time

Governance

Legitimacy? Legality? Accountability? Effectiveness? Efficiency? Responsiveness? Transparency?

Fragmentation, Pluralism (formality/ informality) Involving stakeholders & civil society Self-regulation Co-regulation Public-private Towards administrative law Recognition of customs?

16

High trust

High problem solving Low Trust

Low problem solving

High participation

Adaptive governance

Low participation

Adaptive management

Structured problem

Technocratic policymaking

Single loop learning

Unstructured problem

Dialogue and discourse

Triple loop learning

Moderately structured

Values or Science

Double loop learning

Moderately structured

Values or Science

Zero loop learning

Increasing citizen power

Information

Placation

Therapy

Manipulation

Educate

Take decisions

Consultation, test ideas, seek advice

Delegated power

Seek consensus

Achieve consensus

Self mgt.

Discuss different

perspectives

Debate on

diff. values

Consensus may

be out of reach

4. The split ladder of participation

17

5. The North-South challenge

EU studies

Inte

rnat

iona

l rela

tions

International Law

Southern Approaches

Power, politics, leadership Norms, legality US centric

EU centric

Bias, equity

18

5. The 'North-South' Challenge

Country A e.g. US CO2

Climate change

Sea rises

Country B e.g. Tuvalu

Country C e.g. China

Environment Equity

Country X e.g. Egypt

More

H2O

Less H2O

Nile Country Y

e.g. Ethiopia

10/11/12

4

19

5. Changing Geo-politics

§  First world, second world, third world

§  North-South politics

§  US?-EU?-BRICK?-ROW politics

§  Who will shape glocal governance?

§  Who will glocal governance be accountable to?

20

6. Perceptions of the scale of problem and solution

Discrete Continuous Scale as a construct

Problem The causes and impacts are visible within clear boundaries;

The causes and impacts have no clear boundaries; overflowing easily from any specific boundary attributed to it

Both scale of problem and governance are manipulated to gain control over a subject.

Governance Governance can be seen as de jure organized at distinct hierarchical levels e.g. municipal, provincial, national, supranational, international

The management of specific issues is not specifically attributed to specific levels of governance, but there is de facto overlapping governance undertaken by authorities with overlapping jurisdiction;

21

6. The politics of scaling: Motivation Type To scale up To scale down Understanding Account for ecosystem links

Global drivers National to local drivers Global impacts and thresholds Local impacts and thresholds

Ideologies driving decision making

Effectiveness of governance

Protect the common good Protect local communities Mobilize global community Mobilize local people Mobilize global institutions Use local institutions

Domestic interests

Postpone decisions To avoid liability for externalised effects Make domestic implementation cost-effective; Pressurize actors to create a level playing field , minimize free-riding

National security, to manage and protect national and local interests, without external interference

Promote the use of cleaner/more efficient technology

To use locally available and affordable resources; to prevent dependency

Extra-territorial interests

Gain influence over resources elsewhere

To divide & control or include & exclude

Bypass an agency because of its lack of either motivation or capacity Create a level playing field through facilitating joint action To increase the decision making space, thus enlarging the scope for trade-offs

22

7. Development (economics/ development studies) Decade Development goal Development coopera0on goal

1950s GDP, import subs/tu/on Technical help

1960s GPD + employment, bop equilibrium

Trade & investment

1970s Per capita GDP Development assistance

1980s Macro economic stability, fiscal discipline

Structural adjustment, condi/onal aid

1990s Human development, poverty reduc/on

Humanitarian aid, good governance, greening aid

2000s Sustainable development Country ownership, aid to countries with good governance

2010 Green economy/ green society/ inclusive growth

Focus on changing poverty paderns, replacing poverty with global public goods

23

7. The Evolution of the Right to Development (law) Year Event Item 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights Sets the stage for human rights issues (western perspec-

tive) 1960s Developing countries seeking NIEO Sets the stage for demanding a change in the global or-

der (southern, non-aligned movement perspective) 1966 Covenant on Political Rights Rights Legally binding, first generation rights (western demand) 1960s Covenant on Social-Economic Rights Legally binding, second generation rights (Communist

and developing countries) 1970s Articulation of the concept by developing and

developed country experts Articulation of the Right to Development – third genera-tion rights

1981 Banjul Charter Adoption of the Right as the right of peoples by African countries

1986 UN Declaration on the Right to Development Adoption by UN Human Rights Commission, Opposed by US, 8 states abstained from voting; mentions NIEO

1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (#10)

Adopted by 172 countries at World Conference on Hu-man Rights

1998 Working group on the Right to Development Monitors progress made at UN level on this right. 2000 Millennium Declaration (#11) Adopted by 147 countries 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action

(#19, 28) Discussed the right to development in the context of ra-cism and

2008 UN Human Rights Council Establishment of a process to study the human right with respect to climate change, water and sanitation.

24

7. Development paradigms and cooperation

Pollu

tion pe

r capita

GDP per capita

DC

IC

Pollu

tion pe

r capita

GDP per capita

DCDC

ICIC

Pollu

tion pe

r capita

GDP per capita

DC

IC

Pollu

tion pe

r capita

GDP per capita

DCDC

ICIC

10/11/12

5

25

7. Development paradigms and cooperation

Pollu

tion pe

r capita

GDP per capita

DC

IC

Pollu

tion pe

r capita

GDP per capita

DCDC

ICIC

1 1

2

3

26

Global Regional National

Local

Institutions (i)

time


Local

Response Instruments (RI)

time


Local

Actor pressure (P)

time


Local

Response redesign(RR)

time


Local

State (S)

time

Proximate PD (local)

Underlying (UD) (global, regional, national, local)

Causes/Drivers (D)

time

NS

GAP

Analysis

Power Knowledge Norms Scale

(I)

(G, CG)

(A, CA)

(Pa, CPa)

Acc

ess a

nd a

lloca

tion

Age

ncy

Arc

hite

ctur

e

8. The analytical framework

Building on Young et al. 1999/ 2005

Case Study: Water

28

Evolution of global water governance

1900 CE

C iviliz ations

Coloniz ationConques t

Communism

Epis temiccommunities

1500 CE

Environmen-‐talism

Globali-‐z ation

Loca

l Reg

iona

l Globa

lSp

atial s

cale

100 BCE

C iviliz ations

Coloniz ation

Relig ion

Conques t

1500 CE


Globali-‐z ation

Loca

l Reg

iona

l Globa

lSp

atial s

cale

100 BCE

T ime s cale2010 CE1900 CE

C iviliz ations

Coloniz ationConques t

Communism

Epis temiccommunities

1500 CE


Globali-‐z ation

Loca

l Reg

iona

l Globa

lSp

atial s

cale

100 BCE

C iviliz ations

Coloniz ation

Relig ion

Conques t

1500 CE


Globali-‐z ation

Loca

l Reg

iona

l Globa

lSp

atial s

cale

100 BCE

T ime s cale2010 CE

29

Evolution in Ghana

Cultural rules

Loca

l r

egio

nal

nat

iona

l in

tern

atio

nal

1874 1957

Colonial rules

1998

Post-‐ Colonial

Modern era

UK influence International Declarations,

Development Banks Aid agencies

Epistemic communities

Based on: Joseph Agyenim

Formal

Informal

30

Global Water Governance

UN Law on NNUWC

800 regional water laws

World Water Forum

UNESCO

WSSD

UNEP

UNDP

World Bank GEF

10/11/12

6

31

(Global) Water Governance: Competing Actors? UN Non UN

UN Water World Water Council

World Water Forum

Industry

Bechtel Suez

NGOs WWF IRN

Epistemic communi/es World Water Week,

GWSP

Social movement

Blue planet

UN Water Partners

CBD, FAO, IAEA, IFAD, UNICEF, UNCTAD,

CCD, DESA, UNDP, UNEP, UNISDR, UNU, WB, WHO

ECA, ECE, ECLAC, ESCAP, ESCWA, UNESCO, FCCC, Habitat, UNHCR, UNIDO,

WMO, UNWTO

Lobbying, advocacy

Litigation

Markets

UNSGAB W&S

32

Issue explosion: Competing and Cooperating Actors

UN Energy

UN Oceans

UN Development Group

UN Environment UN Water

Are water, environment and development integrally linked?

33

Governance issues

•  Fragmenta/on •  Administra/ve law: Shig from intergovernmental nego/a/ons to River Basin Commissions

•  Pluralism: conflicts in who owns water

•  Self-‐regula/on •  Co-‐regula/on (CBOs)

34

How can (global) water governance be organized?

Hierarchical integrated: W.S.D.O ? Hierarchical single issue: W.S.W.D.O? High level advisory body on water Non-hierarchical focal point Collaboration body Strengthening individual bodies Promoting coordination through law Regime clustering Decentralized network organization Business-as-usual - Mobius web system

Theo

retic

al d

esig

n op

tions

35

How is global water governance organized?

Hierarchical integrated: W.S.D.O ? Hierarchical single issue: W.S.W.D.O? High level advisory body on water: UN SG AB on Water and Sanitation Non-hierarchical focal point Collaboration body: UN Water Strengthening individual bodies Promoting coordination through law: UN Watercourses Convention, Human Rights Regime clustering Decentralized network organization Business-as-usual - Mobius web system

Theo

retic

al d

esig

n op

tions

36

Conceptual clutter

•  Problem focused: drinking water & sanitation

•  Sectoral: Hydro electricity (hydraulic paradigm)

•  IWRM (dominant concept): integration of natural & human systems, freshwater & coastal systems, green & blue water, surface & ground water, land & water, quality & quantity, upstream & downstream interests

•  Nexus approach –  Integration makes water the centre of gravity

– creates turf problems; –  Integration may make issues invisible

•  Privatization

10/11/12

7

37

Architecture: Contested principles

Ownership • Absolute Territorial Sovereignty • Absolute Integrity of State Territory • Limited Territorial Sovereignty • Ownership vs hydrological boundaries

Nature of water •  Heritage, common good, economic good, public good, source of ecosystem services

§ Rights to water • Human right • Through purchase/ permits • Through land ownership

38

Architecture: Contested Water Principles

ObjectiveArt.,1

DefinitionArt.,2

R ight,toP articipateArt.,3,,4

E quityP rincipesArt.,5,6

Duty,not,tocause,harm

Art.,7

Duty,to,coEOperateArt.,8,,9

No,priority,of,useArt.,10

P lanned,measuresArt.11E19

International

Duty,to,protectArt.23

R egulationinstallationsArt.,24E26

EmergencyS ituationsArt.,27,,28

DisputeS ettlementArt.,33

ObjectiveArt.,1

DefinitionArt.,2

DefinitionArt.,2

R ight,toP articipateArt.,3,,4

E quityP rincipesArt.,5,6

Duty,not,tocause,harm

Art.,7

Duty,to,coEOperateArt.,8,,9

No,priority,of,useArt.,10

P lanned,measuresArt.11E19

International

Duty,to,protectArt.23

R egulationinstallationsArt.,24E26

EmergencyS ituationsArt.,27,,28

DisputeS ettlementArt.,33

? ?

?

? ?

?

UN Watercourses Convention

39

Different problems, policy options for different levels

Level

Sub

sidi

arity

pus

hes

dow

nwar

ds; U

nive

rsal

nat

ure

push

es u

pwar

ds

Problem Authorities and networks

Reasons Policies

Global Global drivers & impacts

UN agencies & treaties; NGOs; MNCs

Prevent free-riding; policy coherence;

E.g. Int. norms (human right, MDGs),

Fluvial/ transboundary

Transboundary issues

UN regional agreements; EU, NGOs; RBOs

Prevent transboundary problems

E.g. MRC; EU WFD

National National water issues

Governments; NGOs; RBOs; companies

state can empower other actors to take a role

E.G sectoral policies; IWRM;

Local Direct drivers

Local govt., communities (CBOs); NGOs; lcompanies

Laboratories of policymaking; ownership of problem and solution

e.g. spatial policy;

40

Reasons for scaling up water Type: To Motivation: To Application to Water Enhance understanding

Account for the global hydrological system E.g fresh water systems are connected Account for externalities as influential factors E.g. the influence of trade/investment regimes

Determine global problem impacts/thresholds

E.g. cumulative impacts of pollution, extraction (fishing), or infrastructure

Understand underlying ideologies

Is water a “commons” or “commodity” that can be privatized? Improve legitimacy of policy

Include countries/actors in decision making E.g. to collectively put pressure on upstream countries

Protect the common good; to attain SD To manage the hydrological resource holistically

Promote domestic interests

Avoid taking measures at the domestic level To minimize own costs Avoid a race to the bottom To create markets for technologies

Promote extra-territorial interests

Gain influence over resources in another location

Gives control over how other countries manage/ share water (e.g. on Nile)

Bypass an agency Pressurizing national govts (e.g. human right to water), thereby pressurizing

Create a level playing field E.g. common principles of equity and the no harm principle Increase the decision making space E.g. the introduction of the concept of virtual water, which could

expand the space for action

41

Reasons for scaling down Type Motivation Application to Water To enhance understanding

To enhance problem understanding through greater resolution and grain regarding critical local and contextual elements

Local people are experts on their own water problems

To improve effectiveness of action

To use existing problem solving institutions and thereby to take advantage of built-in processes designed to ensure legitimacy, legality, transparency and accountability

To build on existing local and community institutions

To mobilize local people in designing and implementing solutions, using their knowledge and capabilities

To mobilize people to help themselves (RBOs/CBOs)

To strategize

To avoid liability for externalized effects To avoid responsibility for harm caused elsewhere To divide and control, or include and exclude E.g. Nile River Basin To manage and protect national and local interests; nation security arguments

To prioritize national water interests over river basin interests

To bypass an agency which is perceived as a hindrance To avoid being told by others what action should be taken

42

MLG Drought Policy In China

Policy 1

Policy 2

Policy 3

Policy 4

Policy 5

Policy 6

Policy 7

Policy 8

Policy 9

Policy 10

Policy 11

Policy 12

Policy 13

Policy 14

Policy 15

Policy 16

Policy 17

Policy 18

Policy 19

Policy 20

Policy 21

Policy 22

Policy 23

Policy 24

Policy 25

Policy 26

Policy 27

Policy 28

NationProvinceMunicipalityCounty

Governm

ental levels

GeneralCC Policy

Drought ReliefPolicies Policies on Improving Adaptive Capacity

Guidelines Legally binding obligations Administrative permit Subsidy

Enhancement of property rights Fund Award Payment for services

Hao Li et al., 2011

10/11/12

8

43 44

Case Study: Forests

45

Phases of forest governance through human history

Customary use of forests (local)

Settled agriculture – forest landuse change (regional)

Industrialization/colonization – forest exploitation (international)

Post WW2 trade in wood (international)

Onset of indirect global forest governance

Onset of direct global forest governance (ITTO)

Democratizing & decentralizing forests

Neo-liberal approaches

Glocal, multi-level approaches?

Phas

es o

f for

est g

over

nanc

e

Time

46

Global forest governance

Haug and Gupta 2013

47

Forest Governance and Ecosystem Services

Haug and Gupta 2013

48

How can (global) forest governance be organized?

Hierarchical integrated: W.S.D.O ? Hierarchical single issue: W.S.F&A.D.O? High level advisory body on forests Non-hierarchical focal point Collaboration body Strengthening individual bodies Promoting coordination through law Regime clustering Decentralized network organization Business-as-usual - Mobius web system

Theo

retic

al d

esig

n op

tions

10/11/12

9

49

How is global forest governance organized?

Hierarchical integrated: W.S.D.O ? Hierarchical single issue: W.S.W.D.O? High level advisory body on forests Non-hierarchical focal point Collaboration body: UNFF Strengthening individual bodies Promoting coordination through law: Draft law, Indigenous peoples rights Regime clustering Decentralized network organization Business-as-usual - Mobius web system

Theo

retic

al d

esig

n op

tions

50

Scaling up and down forests

1992 2006 2008 2012

G

N

L

Canada

USA

NGO -1 Malaysia

Brazil

?

REDD

51

Stylized demographic, economic, forest transitions

Time

Popu

latio

n,

Econ

omic

gro

wth

, Fo

rest

s

Traditional society

Pre-conditions for take-off

Take-off

Maturity

Mass consumption

Traditional society

Death rate falls

Birth rate falls

Stable population

Virgin forests

Forest frontier

Forest & agriculture mosaic

Forest stabilization

52

Drivers and the forest transition F

ores

t cov

er

Time I II III IV

Virgin forest Forest frontier Forest & agriculture mosaic Forest stabilization Proximate:

-  Agriculture (shifting)

-  Extraction (fuelwood, non-timber forest products)

-  Infrastructure (basic, roads)

-  Biophysical (droughts, floods, fire)

Underlying:

-  Economic (poverty)

-  Cultural (conservation values under stress)

-  Demographic (growth, migration)

-  Technological (low capacity)

-  Non-forest policies (agricultural policy)

-  Other institutional factors (customary property rights)

- Climate change

Proximate:

-  Agriculture (shifting & commercial) animal husbandry

-  Extraction (fuelwood, commercial; wood, illegal logging, non-timber forest products)

-  Infrastructure (roads, dams, energy)

-  Industry (open-pit mining )

Underlying:

-  Economic (national policy, industry, poverty)

-  Cultural (clash between conservation & exploitation values)

-  Demographic (growth, migration, density)

-  Technological (low & high capacity)

-  Non-forest policies (agricultural, transport, industrial & urban)

-  Institutional (lack of resources/ capacity, contested property rights)

-  Forest scarcity, climate change

Proximate:

-  Agirculture (stable commercial)

-  Extraction (regulated & controlled)

-  Infrastructure (stable)

-  Industry (Rehabilitated or closed-pit mining)

Underlying:

-  Economic (stable growth, beyond the threshold in the inverted U curve),

-  Cultural (balance between conservation, exploitation, recreational & aesthetic values)

-  Demographic (stable)

-  Technological (high capacity)

-  Non-forest policies (advanced agricultural, transport, industrial & urban)

-  Institutional (clear property rights)

-  Forest scarcity, climate change, shift to service economy

If the economy is open, the drivers include global demand for wood, food and biofuel

Clim

ate

chan

ge

53

Multilateral:

UNFCCC, CBD, CCD, CITES, RAMSAR, WHC, ASEAN, UN-REDD

Bilateral: Germany, Japan EU FLEGT, JICA, SNV, FCPF, GIZ/GTZ, AUSaid, Finnish aid

Private

FSC, ICRAF

Extraterritorial effects

US Lacey Act

Global policy context

Important National: Land Law (2003), Law on Forest Protection and Development (2004), National Forestry Development Strategy (2006-2020), National Forest Protection and Development Plan (2012-2020), National REDD+ programme R-PIN, National REDD+ Strategy, National REDD+ committee, REDD+ network with 4 sub-groups

Instruments

(i) Trade restrictions, (ii) Decentralization, (iiii) SFE reform,(iv) Spatial planning, (v) Land rights (x) law enforcement, (xiv) reforestation subsidy, (xv) PFES, (xviii) AR-CDM, REDD, (xix) certification

Instrument redesign: (i) Make trade restrictions bi- or multilateral and combine with governance (e.g. FLEG), (iv&v) complete forest land allocation; emphasize quality of trees over quantity; (vi) make SFE efficient; (x) implement FLEGT; (xv) PES and subsidies should take opportunity costs into account; (ix) link certification guidelines with other national standards; (xviii) request simplification of AR/CDM

REDD redesign: (a) Enhance enabling conditions; (ii) Link with domestic existing mechanisms and capacity (Prog. 661, PAs), (iii) Link with international mechanisms and capacity (FSC standards, AR-CDM monitoring, FLEGT definitions), (iv) Design REDD to ensure safeguards for other ecosystem services, (v) Develop reference levels taking into account national development needs and with reference to a possible forest transition, (vi) Define appropriate beneficiaries, (vii) Make sure beneficiaries understand and endorse key concepts (lesson from CDM), (viii) Ensure equitable benefit sharing including payment modality – e.g. use direct payment to communities used in Programme 661, pay upfront and performance based afterwords (lesson from PFES), (ix) Define payment levels - pay based on opportunity costs, (x) Implement FPIC, (xi) Avoid a pure market logic, (xii) Adopt regional approach to minimize leakage

Effect of instruments on actors, given drivers

(ii) Decentralization [+_], (iii) SFE [+-], (v) Tenure reform [+_], (x) law enforcement [+-], (xiv) reforestation subsidy [++_], (xv) PFES [++-], (xviii) CDM, REDD [+--], (xix) Certification [+-]

Socio-environment outcomes: Success with direct payments to households in PFES and Programme 661; land tenure programme inadequately implemented.

Forest cover has increased; but there is a decline in forest density and degradation of existing forests

Proximate Drivers: Industrial crops, shrimp farming, commercial logging

Underlying Drivers: poverty, economic growth, export orientation, global demand, climate change 54

Policies used during the forest transition curve

For

est c

over

Time I II III IV

Virgin forest Forest frontier Forest & agriculture mosaic Forest stabilization

Cus

tom

ary

right

s

Com

mun

ity m

anag

emen

t

Policy instrument - Implementation of SFM - Uncontested spatial policy - Binding forest rules, - Sustainable concessions - Uncontested land rights - Reporting, monitoring, law,

enforcement -  Subsidies for reforestation -  PES to maintain forests -  All wood products certified - Community participation in

management

Policy instrument -  Unilateral trade restrictions; -  Principle of SFM adopted -  Forest rules drafted -  Contested spatial policy between

ministries -  Contested land rights -  Reporting, monitoring and laws –

poorly implemented -  Grants for forest protection -  Ad hoc taxes, subsidies, PES,

micro-credit, ofsetting, certification

-  Contested local management

Policy instrument -  Decentralization -  Spatial planning

to sometimes nationalize forests

10/11/12

10

55

REDD: Win-win or Lose Lose §  Win-win

•  Raising resources •  For carbon sequestration and forest

management •  Safeguards •  Local people benefit for protecting the forest •  North-South transfer •  Climate problem partly addressed

§  Lose-lose •  No targets, less money, ODA money diverted •  Carbon not ecosystems (efficiency) •  Safeguards on paper, not de facto (CDM) •  Few resources leads to struggle over land title •  No net North-South transfer •  Climate problem not addressed -leakage

56

Climate change

57

The Developments so far

57

Period The paradigm Key outcomes 1: Before 1990 Framing the

problem 1979: First World Climate Conference 1988/9: Conferences

1990: SWCC; IPCC- FAR 2: 1991-1996 Leadership

articulated 1992: Climate Change Convention 1995: COP-1 -- Berlin Mandate; AIJ

1996: Second Assessment Report of IPCC 3: 1997-2001 Conditional

leadership 1997: COP-3 -- The Kyoto Protocol 2000: Third Assessment Report of IPCC

2001: COP-7 -- The Marrakech Accords; US withdraws

4: 2002-2007 Leadership competition

…....: US initiates many agreements 2005: Kyoto enters into force

2007: COP-13-- Bali Roadmap 5: Post 2008 Developing

countries taking lead?

2008: Global recession starts 2009: COP-15 -- Copenhagen agreement?

2010: COP-16 -- Cancun 58

How can (global) forest governance be organized?

Hierarchical integrated: W.S.D.O ? Hierarchical single issue High level advisory body on climate Non-hierarchical focal point Collaboration body Strengthening individual bodies Promoting coordination through law Regime clustering Decentralized network organization Business-as-usual - Mobius web system

Theo

retic

al d

esig

n op

tions

59

How is (global) climate governance be organized?

Hierarchical integrated: W.S.D.O ? Hierarchical single issue High level advisory body on climate Non-hierarchical focal point Collaboration body Strengthening individual bodies Promoting coordination through law Regime clustering Decentralized network organization Business-as-usual - Mobius web system

Theo

retic

al d

esig

n op

tions

60 60

Alternative framings: Preview

Liability

Leadership

Mainstream cc in Aid

Human rights

10/11/12

11

61 61

Climate cooperation: Changing NS deal

Development

N

S

Pol

lutio

n

Inverted U curve may be a zig-zag curve

Leadership paradigm

N S

N reduces emissions and helps S

Conditional leadership

US EU

S N reduces emissions

partly via helping S - CDM

Leadership sans US

EU

S

CEITS

US JSCaNZ

N helps S via

CDM

US

Leadership competition

N mainstreams cc help in

development cooperation 62 62

Emissions Trading

•  Assess total permissible emissions

South

N

Per capita

North

S

Grandfathering

North

S

– No long term target, so not assessed.

Divide between countries

– Either per capita Not politically possible

– Or grandfathering Not politically possible, except through a smart negotiating strategy

Countries can trade Efficient solution

63 63

The new currency?

64

Scaling as a tool in North-South relations Examples Explanation Implications

Emission vs adaptation

Emissions are global problem, Impacts are local problem

Reduces liability

Incremental cost discussion

Only additional costs for global benefits minus local benefits are to be financed

Artificial distinction between global/local benefits; reduces local ownership of projects and hence effectiveness

Dangerous climate change

No objective method Avoiding articulation of the long-term goals

65

The symbiotic relationship FCCC Outside FCCC

FCCC 1992 Implementation challenges Inverted U curve? US Senate

KP

Vanished from agenda? Mainstreamed in society?

Pledge and review

Targets and timetables

Science and politics

Free riders, competitiveness, Leakage Decarbonization, dematerialization, Delinking Liability Competitive approaches - APP

66

The relationship – and division of tasks

FCCC Non-FCCC

GLOBAL

LOCAL

Low carbon society,

Low carbon plans

Human rights

Engaging UN bodies

Sub-national action

Court cases

National communica

tions

FCCC Non-FCCC

ENV

DEV

Green economy

Integrate with other

Env issues

Mainstream in

development

Link with trade,

investment

10/11/12

12

67

The Climate Change Regime

FCCC

Countries

UN Agencies

NGOs

Industry

Agreements

68

Climate Change: Reasons for scaling up

Why scale up Key policy goal Time dimension 1. To enhance a comprehensive understanding of the cause-effect-impact of the problem

Understanding of scientific problem

Pre-historic times to future

2. To determine global limits To articulate the precautionary principle

100-500 years

3. To determine causality To allocate responsibility Now to 50 years

4. To develop a global policy to minimise the tendency to free ride

To enhance efficiency Now to 50 years

5. To be in a position to influence global technology development

To enhance control Now to 50 years

6. Because national and local authorities may be unable to take effective action alone

To enhance effectiveness Now to 50 years

7. To be able to understand the ideological factors that drive global consumption and production patterns

To understand underlying processes

Now to 50 years

69

Climate change: reasons for scaling down Why scale down Key policy goal Time dimension 1. To enhance an understanding of local bio-physical and chemical processes; to enhance understanding of the local contextual vulnerabilities

Understanding of the bio-geo-physical processes; Understanding the impacts

Short- to- very long term

2. To determine when climate change could become dangerous to national contexts

To determine limits of climate change

0-50 years

3. To avoid responsibility for impacts elsewhere

To avoid liability 0-50 years

4. Since some decisions can only be taken at local level

To enhance effectiveness 0-10 years

5. To understand the political contexts

Understanding the authority and limits to authority

0-10 years

6. To mobilise local people and their support

Effectiveness and legitimacy 0-10 years

70

Options at Different Levels

70

Level

Impacts

Emissions

Authority

Reasons

Policies

Global

Temp. rise; SLR; Ocean acidifies

Conc. of GHGs; Int. transport

UN; G7 and G77; BTs and PTs; Int. NGOs

Prevent free-riding; TOT

Int. targets, PAMs; FMs

Reg.

Ice melting; new sea routes;

Int. energy & transport systems

UN reg. treaties; EU Reg. NGOs

Create level playing field

Reg. PAMS; EU policies, FMs

Nat.

CZM & off-shore isl.; Human security ?

Energy; transport; ag; land-use; waste mgt

Nat. govts. NGOs

State neg. in IL; state reg.; self. reg.?

Sect. PAMs; Nuclear; Nat. Inst. incl. sp

Local

local access; housing, income; new diseases

Con. patterns; sp, infra. & housing

Local govts, communities & NGOs; Transnat. (ICLEI)

Lab. of PM; mandates and initiatives

Sp; Mgt of local services; taxes;

71

Systems in different countries

71

Italy

France

Netherlands

China

Govt form

DR

DR

Monarchy, DUR

Com. centralised

Provinces

15 & 5 auto. regions

26

12

23, 2 Sp. Admin. Reg., 5 auto. Reg.

Lower governments

Municipalities

96 metro. depts., 36,560 municipalities

487 municipalities

prefectures, counties, towns

Gov. styles

Power shift to reg. since 2001

Power shift since 1982, Non-hierarch. MLG

Consensus orientation (polder model)

Central control

72

Climate policy at different levels

72

Italy

France

Netherlands

China

Central

No np except coastal water mgt.

Sectoral cp Sectoral

cp Cp - laws & gen. principles

Provincial

Env. & energy

Infra. & housing

SP & redist. of subsidies

Devp. Policy; Action plans Delegated targets

Sub-level

-

Infra. & housing

-

Prac. guidelines

Local

Local services

Transport and SD plans

SP, Infra., housing, municipal services,

Prac. guidelines

Instr. to engage local level

Devolution Mkt mech.?

Devolutionmoney?

Subsidies, mkt. C&C;

subsidies

10/11/12

13

73

The process

Plain/ff Ac/on Defendant Court Considera/

ons Decision

Who can be P?

Who does the P represent?

Who can afford to be P?

Preven/ve Injunc/on

Correc/ve

PPP

Compensatory

Other Freedom of info.

EIA

Breach of stat. Duty Etc.

Who is D? Will D accept the jurisdic/on of the court?

Who does D rep-‐resent?

Is it fair to focus on one D?

Which court?

Which country?

Was D in line with science?

Was D in line with regula0ons?

Should courts preempt poli0cal process?

Is damage clear?

Is causa0on clear?

Did it violate human rights?

?

74

Science and liability: Uncertainty & law (Weiss 2006) Bayesian prob.

IPCC scale Informal scien0fic Legal stds of proof For legal situa0on

100% Not on scale Firmly estd. Virtually certain

99% Virtually certain Rigorously proven Beyond reasonable doubt Criminal convic/on

90-‐99% Very likely Scien/fically proven Clean & convincing evidence Quasi penal civil ac/on

80-‐90% Likely Very probable Clear showing Temporary injunc/on

67-‐80% Med. Likelihood Probable Substan/al & credible evidence

Impeachment

50-‐67% More probable than not Preponderance of evidence Civil judgments

33-‐50% Strong evidence Clear indica/on Field arrest/ search warrant

20-‐33% Increasing evidence Probable cause Ini/ate inquiry

10-‐22% Unlikely Plausible Reasonable indica/on Stop and frisk

1-‐10% Sugges/ve Grounds for suspicion

<1% Very unlikely Unlikely No grounds for suspicion

0% Not on scale Violates well estd. laws No ground for conjecture

Modest precautionary principle

Proactive PP

Risk minimization

75

Legal options: No harm Sovereignty, subject to

not causing harm; CBDRRC

Ability to pay No harm principle (CBDR)

Before Ager

Precau/onary Principle Liability

Environmental standards Injunc/ve relief

E.I.A. Compensa/on

No/fica/on of planned measures

Alloca/on of loss

Polluter pays principle

User pays

Rich

Poverty eradica/on

Tech. stds Diff. care

Fin. assistance

Poor

Capacity bldg

CBRC

Leadership paradigm

Liability paradigm

Insurance

76

Litigation

76

Export credit CO2 is pollutant

Violation of human and environmental

Rights Violation of WTO

Notice to companies

National governance: Trends

§  Merger of neo-liberal and democratic ideals •  Lean government •  Decentralization •  Public participation •  Private participation

§  Merger of scientific information and paternalism •  Technical •  Economic •  Social •  Political

78

Questions galore: Research agenda for a generation!

§  Theory •  Limits vs infinity •  Systemic versus focus: Fragmentation is inevitable •  Conceptual confusion: SD, GE, GS, IG: where to? •  Changing governance – for better or worse •  Spectrum of developed to developing

§  Practice •  Turf battles •  The politics of scaling •  Engaging everyone, who is accountable; will goals be met?

§  Markets and government •  Markets: bigger markets means greater governance!! Not just

private, but public •  Taming the global arena: Constitutionalism?

Documents

1216 Boston presentation.ppt (Read-Only)