From its advent in 2005 within global climate change negotiations, reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and other forest-related activities (so-called REDD+) has been experimented with in developing country contexts for over a decade now, with a wide array of expectations coming to be associated with it. Three consecutive conceptualizations are identifiable: carbon-centered, where REDD+ is primarily a climate mitigation strategy; co-benefits-centered, where REDD+ becomes a triple win solution for climate, biodiversity and communities; and landscape-centered, where REDD+ activities are embedded in integrated sustainable land-use approaches. In assessing such evolving expectations against existing REDD+ experiences, a mixed picture emerges. Some expectations, specifically relating to forest carbon financing, are not being adequately met, while others, notably the delivery of co-benefits, hold out more promise. Yet this also highlights a potential paradox facing REDD+. While there is growing recognition that co-benefit generation is key, and that piece-meal, forest-carbon focused REDD+ interventions are unlikely to address the complex causes of tropical forest loss, forest carbon is still being foregrounded in measuring and reporting on REDD+ performance, and in generating results-based payments (even as these aspects remain challenging). This implies, however, that the future of REDD+ may lie not in one conceptualization coming to dominate, but rather in coexistence of heterogeneous practices. REDD+ may end up as a patchwork of projects and practices with different foci and financing mechanisms. Although this cannot prevent trade-offs, such a heterodox REDD+ may provide building blocks for the polycentric governance of the world's remaining tropical forests. © 2016 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. How to cite this article:WIREs Clim Change 2017, 8:e425. doi This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. INTRODUCTIONI n the collective global challenge posed by climate change, the idea of reducing or avoiding carbon emissions through forest conservation and sustainable use has attracted considerable attention. The global mechanism REDD+ has been, arguably, the most prominent site of multilateral political negotiations and activities on the ground with regard to mitigating forest-related carbon emissions. REDD+ stands for 'reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries.' 1 It has been negotiated under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since 2005, as a mechanism to compensate developing countries for their efforts to reduce forest-related emi...

The introduction to the special issue develops a systematic and theoretically grounded framework for assessing business power in global governance. It is shown that power is said to have shifted from the world of states to the world of business. However, in order to evaluate such a claim first a differentiation of power in its instrumental, structural, and discursive facets is necessary. It is furthermore explained that the strength of such a three-dimensional assessment is that it combines different levels of analysis and considers actor-specific and structural dimensions and their material and ideational sources. Following a short introduction to the more empirical articles is provided summarizing their commonalities and differences.

No abstract

Scholars have recently devoted increasing attention to the role and function of international bureaucracies in global policymaking. Some of them contend that international public officials have gained significant political influence in various policy fields. Compared to other international bureaucracies, the political leeway of the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has been considered rather limited. Due to the specific problem structure of the policy domain of climate change, national governments endowed this intergovernmental treaty secretariat with a relatively narrow mandate. However, this article argues that in the past few years, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat has gradually loosened its straitjacket and expanded its original spectrum of activity by engaging different sub-national and non-state actors into a policy dialogue using facilitative orchestration as a mode of governance. The present article explores the recent evolution of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat and investigates the way in which it initiates, guides, broadens and strengthens sub-national and non-state climate actions to achieve progress in the international climate negotiations. Points for practitioners The Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has lately adopted new roles and functions in global climate policymaking. While previously seen as a rather technocratic body that, first and foremost, serves national governments, the Climate Secretariat increasingly interacts with sub-national governments, civil society organizations and private companies to push the global response to climate change forward. We contend that the Climate Secretariat can contribute to global climate policymaking by coordinating and steering the initiatives of non-nation-state actors towards coherence and good practice.

Vietnam has experienced rapid economic growth over the past few decades, as well as growing environmental pressures. The country is therefore pursuing strategies for green transformations, which are the processes of restructuring to bring economies and societies within the planetary boundaries. This article addresses the opportunities, barriers, and trade‐offs for green transformations in Vietnam's energy sector and examines them from an energy justice perspective. The article draws on in‐depths expert interviews with representatives from government agencies, private firms, academic institutions, and multilateral institutions in Vietnam. The article finds that Vietnam is undergoing efforts to move away from business as usual by promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency, as well as aligning energy and climate plans with national development priorities such as energy security and economic growth. Yet there is a need for more coordinated, integrated approaches and policies that span across the 3 areas that address green transformations in Vietnam: green growth, sustainable development, and climate change. Finally, although key actors seem to be aware and may be critical of major trade‐offs such as land grabs for energy projects, the impacts on affected people need to be better understood and mitigated.

Recently established carbon governance systems are quite different in Brazil, China, and India. Such divergence is surprising as emerging economies are primarily involved in carbon governance through the clean development mechanism (CDM). One would expect similar institutional and policy outcomes in the major host countries in response to the CDM, as this market instrument is initiated primarily by Western companies and regulated hierarchically by the internationally governed CDM Executive Board. However, from a closer look at the developing features of the CDM markets in Brazil, China, or India and an analysis of dominant actors and their interactions, institutional responses, and the effectiveness of the CDM within each market, there is evidence of a high variance, combined with a strong ownership by the respective governments. Such a variety of carbon governance is interesting from a theoretical point of view as it shows that a good understanding of environmental governance patterns is still lacking in developing and emerging economies. It is also of political importance as the findings may help to diffuse some of the criticism leveled at the CDM.

Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+) has developed into one of the most important carbon governance mechanisms that the international community has at its disposal in the fight against climate change. Deforestation and degradation, particularly in the tropics, constitute one of the major drivers of climate change, the avoidance of which is often portrayed as one of the most effective and efficient options for mitigation. Whether the potential of REDD+ can really be used depends, however, not only on technical issues but even more on how the evolving mechanism is governed on various levels, ranging from the local to the international. The following article analyses some key aspects of REDD+ governance focusing on finance, legal issues, institutional considerations, and potential additional benefits.

Summary Several scholars concerned with global policy‐making have recently pointed to a reconfiguration of authority in the area of climate politics. They have shown that various new carbon governance arrangements have emerged, which operate simultaneously at different governmental levels. However, despite the numerous descriptions and mapping exercises of these governance arrangements, we have little systematic knowledge on their workings within national jurisdictions, let alone about their impact on public‐administrative systems in developing countries. Therefore, this article opens the “black box” of the nation‐state and explores how and to what extent two different arrangements, that is, Transnational City Networks and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, generate changes in the distribution of public authority in nation‐states and their administrations. Building upon conceptual assumptions that the former is likely to lead to more decentralized, and the latter to more centralized policy‐making, we provide insights from case studies in Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, and India. In a nutshell, our analysis underscores that Transnational City Networks strengthen climate‐related actions taken by cities without ultimately decentralizing climate policy‐making. On the other hand, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation tends to reinforce the competencies of central governments, but apparently does not generate a recentralization of the forestry sector at large.