Multilevel Governance for Forests and Climate Change: Learning from Southern Mexico

Abstract

Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) involves global and national policy measures as well as effective action at the landscape scale across productive sectors. Multilevel governance (MLG) characterizes policy processes and regimes of cross-scale and cross-sector participation by multiple public and private actors for improved legitimacy and effectiveness of policy. We examine multilevel, multi-actor engagement in REDD+ planning in Quintana Roo, Mexico, to find out how local perspectives align with the national policy approach to REDD+ as an integrating element of holistic rural development at territorial scale, and how current practices support procedurally legitimate MLG required to implement it. We find that there is wide conceptual agreement on the proposed approach by a variety of involved actors, in rejection of the business-as-usual sectoral interventions. Its implementation, however, is challenged by gaps in horizontal and vertical integration due to strong sectoral identities and hierarchies, and de facto centralization of power at the federal level. Continued participation of multiple government and civil society actors to contribute to social learning for locally appropriate REDD+ actions is likely to require a more balanced distribution of resources and influence across levels. Meaningfully engaging and ensuring OPEN ACCESSForests, 2014, 5 3148 the representation of local community interests in the process remains a critical challenge.

Predicting aboveground forest biomass with topographic variables in human‐impacted tropical dry forest landscapes

“…Particularly in Mexico, REDD+ policy is moving toward a landscape approach in which territorial plans at the community level will be the basis for financial support for management activities (Madrid and Deschamps , Rantala et al. , CONAFOR ).…”

Developing adaptive capacity in times of climate change in central rural Vietnam: exploring smallholders’ learning and governance

“…Several previous studies have looked at barriers related to policies and legal requirements as factors which can either be constraining or enabling adaptation actions (Amundsen et al, 2010;Juhola, 2016;Rantala et al, 2014). In addition, most existing frameworks and approaches for analysing climate change adaptation governance in hierarchical systems focus solely on barriers and therefore it is difficult to identify the potential of a governance system's overall capability to govern climate change (Ahammad, 2011;AntwiAgyei et al, 2015;Kithiia, 2011;Koch et al, 2007;Lebel et al, 2011).…”

“…To study CCA adequately requires combining of different theoretical insights that can be captured under the umbrella concept of multilevel governance (Amundsen et al, 2010;Nilsson et al, 2012;Rantala et al, 2014). In its broadest sense, multilevel governance refers to a system of continuous negotiation of nested governments at several territorial tiers: supranational, national, regional, and Barriers and enablers to climate change adaptation | 97 5 local (Hooghe, 1996;Marks, 1993).…”

“…This means that national, regional, and local level public and private actors have critical roles in developing policies and strategies to respond to climate change impacts, build adaptive capacity, and ensure social learning. Multilevel governance is therefore a useful concept in gaining understanding of the different levels that are involved in social learning and adaptive capacity building of smallholder farmers (Amundsen et al, 2010;Nilsson et al, 2012;Rantala et al, 2014).…”

“…Key aspects of multilevel governance thus include not only the structure of multilevel administrative governments, but also the patterns of interaction and the coordination systems within and between levels (Rantala et al, 2014). The essence of multilevel governance is, however, time and space bound as it depends on transforming roles of the state, increasing participation of non-state actors, involvement of complex networks and negotiations, and challenging conventional notions of the accountability of democratic institutions (Pahl-Wostl, 2009;Painter & Pierre, 2004).…”