Carbon Governance Arrangements and the Nation‐State: The Reconfiguration of Public Authority in Developing Countries

Abstract

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.

Forestry Decentralization in the Context of Global Carbon Priorities: New Challenges for Subnational Governments

“…Importantly, researchers feared that climate change mitigation initiatives such as REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and increasing carbon stocks) would recentralize the forestry sector (Phelps et al, 2010;Ribot and Larson, 2012). There is some evidence to suggest that this has not happened so far (Hickmann et al, 2017;Höhne et al, 2018), but this article explores this issue further.…”

“…Understanding the relations among different levels of governance, and government specifically, is essential to finding practical land use solutions (Larson and Petkova, 2011;Nagendra and Ostrom, 2012). Central governments are the legal parties to international agreements such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD), but changes in land use to support climate change mitigation need to happen in forest regions far from national capitals (Hickmann et al, 2017). Central governments often control investment policy, especially for infrastructure, subsoil resources, and the highest earning productive sectors of the economy.…”

Urbanization in the time of climate change: Examining the response of Indian cities

“…Conceptually, too, it was easier to motivate adaptation actions as their benefits accrue locally, compared with the more complicated politics around the nonlocal beneficiaries of GHG mitigation (Dubash, ; Sharma & Tomar, ). The early adaptation efforts in urban India were pioneered by two international networks, the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN) and ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability (Beermann, Damodaran, Jörgensen, & Schreurs, ; Fisher, ; Hackenbroch & Woiwode, ; Hickmann, Fuhr, Höhne, Lederer, & Stehle, ; Rajasekar, Bhat, & Karanth, ). Actions pursued for adaptation and resilience differed geographically, depending on local vulnerabilities and risks, and related infrastructure deficits (Dhyani, Lahoti, Khare, Pujari, & Verma, ; International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives‐South Asia, ; Joerin, Shaw, Takeuchi, & Krishnamurthy, ; Sharma, Singh, & Singh, ; United Nations Development Program, ; Yenneti et al, ).…”

Governance of zero deforestation cocoa in West Africa: New forms of public–private interaction

“…Reflecting this, REDD+ is the result of international negotiations between country governments as parties to the UNFCCC. As a result, scholars often describe REDD+ as top-down and thus prone to reinforcing and centralizing public authority in developing countries' political-administrative systems (Hickmann, Fuhr, Höhne, Lederer, & Stehle, 2017;Ribot & Larson, 2012). Although REDD+ may be implemented through a plethora of nonstate actors and voluntary forest carbon projects, the UNFCCC requires REDD+ countries to develop a national approach to REDD+ design, implementation, and monitoring (Ravikumar, Larson, Duchelle, Myers, & Tovar, 2015).…”

“…The responsibility of the state includes avoiding leakage and ensuring the permanence of net emission reductions within national territories (Phelps, Webb, & Agrawal, 2010), as well as ensuring compliance with social and environmental safeguards such as respect for human rights of indigenous forest communities (Visseren-Hamakers, McDermott, Vijge, & Cashore, 2012). As a result, scholars often describe REDD+ as top-down and thus prone to reinforcing and centralizing public authority in developing countries' political-administrative systems (Hickmann, Fuhr, Höhne, Lederer, & Stehle, 2017;Ribot & Larson, 2012). However, REDD+ donors, civil society, and advocacy groups often see REDD+ as an opportunity to empower nonstate actors (Dkamela, Brockhaus, Djiegni, Schure, & Mvondo, 2014;Somorin, Visseren-Hamakers, Arts, Sonwa, & Tiani, 2014).…”