Timothy Cadman

An assessment of the impacts of the REDD+ pilot project on community forests user groups (CFUGs) and their community forests in Nepal.

REDD+ has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, meet climate stabilisation targets and protect biological diversity. Consequently, millions of dollars are being channelled into developing countries rich in forests, for pilot projects that will provide data for the design of REDD+ projects that are based on incentives and performance. This paper evaluates the impacts of REDD+ pilot projects on community forests and associated user groups (CFUGs) in Nepal. A field study targeted eight CFUGs that participated in a REDD+ pilot project funded by the Forest Carbon Trust Fund in Nepal. The pilot project increased the participation of Dalit, Indigenous people, women and the poor, and was able to provide some social safeguards. However, when all the additional costs and foregone benefits of the project are considered, REDD+ is not an attractive market-based option for Nepalese CFUGs. A better approach would be a bilateral or multilateral approach that is not market based, but provides incentives beyond environmental and social safeguards. The results of this study will be useful in designing REDD+ policies and programmes for community forest-based REDD+ stakeholders in developing countries.

Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes

The creation of PEFC can be linked to fears amongst certain forestry interests of a monopoly of FSC certification in Europe. German publishers and printing houses had been under pressure from Greenpeace since 1993 to cease using paper sourced from old growth or poorly managed forests in Nordic countries. In 1995 the Association of German Paper Producers and the Association of German Magazine Publishers issued a statement committing themselves to products that could be sourced under a credible global programme. NGOs had not insisted on FSC, but publishers had the FSC programme in mind. In cooperation with various European forest owner groups, Finnish forestry interests collaborated in a campaign focused on Axel Springer Verlag as well as Otto Versand, two of the largest publishers and consumers of FSC paper in Germany. In December 1997 800 people from 11 European countries demonstrated outside the companies’ offices in Hamburg, condemning the companies’ support for FSC. This event has been identified as ‘the psychological point of origin of the European forest certification system’.1

The governance of REDD+: an institutional analysis in the Asia Pacific region and beyond

This paper explores the changing nature of North/South relations in contemporary climate change governance. Focusing on the United Nations Collaborative Programme to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), the paper presents a theoretical framework, through which stakeholder perceptions of REDD+ governance quality and institutional legitimacy can be evaluated. This is tested by means of a small-n survey of state and non-state participants from both the developed and developing countries, including the Asia-Pacific region. The survey results reveal generally higher ratings for REDD+ amongst Southern participants than in the North. A number of caveats are placed on the interpretation of data, and some conclusions drawn regarding contemporary climate governance and the emergence of a possible ‘South/North Divide’, challenging traditional notions of global power politics.

United Nations Forum on Forests

The IFF concluded its deliberations in February 2000, and submitted a final report suggesting that forests were in need of a more independent organ, not linked to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). Negotiations were held to develop a draft resolution, which was submitted to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). This was approved and discussions on the nature of the International Arrangement on Forests began.1 The various action-related outcomes of the IPF and IFF were codified under a new International Arrangement on Forests, the primary objective of which was to ‘promote the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests and to strengthen long-term political commitment to this end’.2 The six principal functions of this new arrangement were to: a) facilitate the implementation of the IPF/IFF/PfA b) provide a forum for policy development; c) enhance cooperation and coordination amongst relevant agencies and d) enhance cooperation and coordination internationally, through cross-sectoral North/South public—private partnerships at the national, regional and global levels; e) monitor and assess national, regional and global progress on implementation; and finally f) strengthen political commitment (e.g. through ministerial engagement).

More equal than others? A comparative analysis of state and non-state perceptions of interest representation and decision-making in REDD+ negotiations

This paper provides a quantitative analysis of stakeholder perceptions regarding the governance of the UN climate change negotiations on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD+). Governance quality and legitimacy were evaluated by means of an online survey conducted in 2011, using a normative framework of principles, criteria and indicators. The paper concentrates on national-level stakeholders active in REDD+ in Nepal, and their perceptions of governance quality, with a discussion, given the focus of this special volume, that emphasizes inclusiveness, equality and resources (indicators of interest representation) and democracy, agreement and dispute settlement (indicators of decision-making). Respondents were selected from state (i.e. governmental) and non-state (i.e. civil society) interests from a range of sectors active in REDD+ at the national level. The results show that survey respondents generally found REDD+ to be inclusive, but did not consider that there was the necessary capacity, or resources, for meaningful participation. A concluding section reviews the framework applied, and comments on the nature of multi-stakeholder relations in contemporary global governance, and REDD+ specifically.

Evaluating the governance of responsible investment institutions: an environmental and social perspective

This article addresses some of the problems associated with the integration of environmental and social values into the activities of contemporary responsible investment institutions. The first of these relates to the current participation gap between internal and external interests in responsible investment decision-making. The second problem concerns the lack of certainty regarding the normative basis under which multi-stakeholders should participate in institutional governance. Thirdly, there is at present no analytical framework with which to evaluate the institutional quality of responsible investment within the context of the global economy. In response, and building upon existing research in the realms of international relations and environmental politics, the article uses a framework of principles, criteria and indicators to evaluate responsible investment institutions. The assumptions of this framework are tested against a small-scale attitudes survey regarding the governance quality of contemporary responsible investment institutions. Recognizing the shortcomings of such a small study, the article nevertheless finds a variety of perspectives, which indicate that the integration of multi-stakeholders in responsible investment institutions still has some way to go. The article concludes with some observations on the nature of stakeholder involvement in responsible investment, comments on the extent to which the environmental social aspects of governance can be said to be institutionally embedded, and offers some reflections on the contribution of such an approach to governance analysis as a method for evaluating the contribution of responsible investment institutions to advancing sustainable development.

Whose Norms Prevail? Policy Networks, International Organizations, and 'Sustainable Forest Management'

This article investigates the origin of international norms, arguing that one pathway is via the strategic action of sector-specific policy networks. Evidence is adduced from an examination of the contested norm of sustainable forest management (SFM). It is argued that a Canadian forestry policy network, under pressure internally and externally to demonstrate its environmental and social credentials, promoted an “economistic” SFM norm in regional negotiations known as the Montreal Process. The article outlines the policy network approach, applies it to the Canadian forest sector, and analyzes how a policy network centered in the Canadian Forest Service and the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers worked to have the networks preferred conception of SFM internationally endorsed. The article highlights the importance of investigating which social actors champion which international norms and encourages reflexive policymaking by calling into question the degree to which international norms actually reflect a genuine global consensus.

A comparative analysis of global stakeholders’ perceptions of the governance quality of the clean development mechanism (CDM) and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+)

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the nascent solution of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) are two global market-based mechanisms that link developed and developing countries. This paper provides a quantitative and qualitative analysis of global-level stakeholders’ perceptions regarding the governance of the CDM focusing on environmental, social, economic, governmental and institutional participants. The research conducted was by means of an anonymous online survey using an analytical approach based on principles, criteria and indicators (PC&I). It compares these findings with the results of a similar survey conducted by the authors on REDD+. Stakeholders from both developed countries and the developing countries were asked to rate the quality of these mechanisms against 11 performance indicators using a Likert scale (1–5). Overall, the results of CDM stakeholders from both developed and developing countries were very similar, indicating a common perception. The highest and lowest total scores were obtained from institutional and social stakeholders, respectively, demonstrating that these two groups have considerable differences in perceptions from other interests. CDM failed two indicators, ‘equality’ and ‘resources’, and passed all other nine indicators only marginally. The performance of REDD+ was much higher than CDM in all aspects of governance surveyed. The major differences were in ‘equality’ and ‘problem solving’, followed by ‘transparency’ and ‘democracy’. If the CDM is to continue in the post-Kyoto period, some major systemic changes in governance are necessary. Here, there are some lessons to be learnt from REDD+.

The Legitimacy of ESG Standards as an Analytical Framework for Responsible Investment

It has become fashionable in both the scholarly and corporate worlds to lay claim to being the first to have predicted the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2008. As the cliche goes, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and given this analysis it would seem axiomatic that commentators would identify the poor governance of international and domestic financial institutions as a leverage point for reform. And indeed they did - in 1999. In commenting on the lessons to be learned from the Asian financial crisis Jeffrey Garten, Dean of the Yale School of Management at the time, delineated a scenario virtually identical to the GFC, in which lenders and investors in an inherently unstable and overstretched financial system failed to read the signs, deluded themselves about the nature of the markets they were involved in, and fled at the first indication that the good times were over (Garten 1999). This led him to conclude that better governance of financial institutions and corporations was a solution that would help mitigate the next crisis. Yet 10 years later, analysts are still calling for global governance reform, and have extended their criticisms to include intergovernmental processes, which they consider to have lost their legitimacy (Bradford and Linn 2009).

Climate finance in an age of uncertainty

There was a great deal of uncertainty in the discussions held in Bonn, Germany, 4–14 June in preparation for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations later this year in Lima, and in Paris in 2015. This hinged upon what will be contained in the new institutional arrangements for reducing emissions, to be developed in the second commitment period, which replaces the Kyoto Protocol. At the time of writing, it is not yet clear exactly what mechanisms will be put in place. The old architecture favoured market-driven mechanisms, but an ongoing alternative viewpoint that favours non-market-based approaches gained some traction, notably in discussions relating to REDD+. What is not clear is whether this is because developing countries object philosophically to the use of capital markets to stimulate emission reduction through forests, or because the current price of carbon is so low at present. There was also a considerable degree of jockeying for power regarding future funding mechanisms within the next commitment period. The Global Environment Facility has previously played a key role in managing, channelling, and disbursing developed country donor contributions via a multitude of funds, to developing countries. The Green Climate Fund, a product of the Conference of Parties 16 in Cancun (2010), is now likely to be the lead fund for climate action. It is difficult to tell if these developments will contribute anything substantive enough to reduce emissions by the necessary amount required to avoid dangerous human-induced climate change.