Agency in international climate negotiations: the case of indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation

Original Paper

Abstract

This article examines the agency of indigenous peoples in designing a mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) under the emerging post-2012 agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It investigates whether indigenous peoples have agency in international negotiations and specifically the REDD design process and if so, how they have obtained it. Agency refers to the ability of actors to prescribe behaviour and to substantively participate in and/or set their own rules related to the interactions between humans and their natural environment. The aim of this study is to gain understanding of what role non-nation state actors, particularly indigenous peoples, play in shaping the REDD design process under the climate convention and what is shaping their agency. A special emphasis is placed on indigenous peoples as they may be highly vulnerable to the impacts from both climate change and certain policy responses. The article finds that, through REDD, indigenous peoples and forest community alliances are emerging in the climate regime but their agency in designing a mechanism on forest protection in a post-2012 climate regime remains indirect and weak. They are being consulted and invited to provide input, but they are not able to directly participate and ensure that their views and concerns are reflected in the outcome on REDD.

Keywords

Agency Avoided deforestation Earth system governance Indigenous peoples REDD United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

Abbreviations

CDM

Clean development mechanism

LULUCF

Land use, land use change and forestry

NGO

Non-governmental organization

REDD

Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

References

  1. Adger, N. W. (2006). The political economy of cross-scale networks in resource co-management. Ecology and Society, 10, article 9. (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art9).
  2. Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Asquith, N. M., Vargas Rios, M. T., & Smith, J. (2002). Can forest-protection carbon projects improve rural livelihoods? Analysis of the Noel Kempff Mercado climate action project, Bolivia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 7, 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnsley, I. (2009). Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD): A guide for indigenous peoples. IAS Guide: United Nations University.Google Scholar
  5. Barry, J., & Eckersley, R. (Eds.). (2005). The state and the global ecological crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Betsill, M. M., & Bulkeley, H. (2006). Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change. Global Governance, 12, 141–159.Google Scholar
  7. Betsill, M. M., & Corell, E. (Eds.). (2008). NGO diplomacy: The influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environmental negotiations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Biermann, F. (2007). ‘Earth system governance’ as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global Environmental Change, 17, 326–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J., Kanie, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., Schroeder, H., & Siebenhüner, B. (2009). Earth system governance: People, places, and the planet. Science and implementation plan of the Earth System Governance Project. Earth System Governance Report 1, IHDP Report 20. (Bonn, IHDP).Google Scholar
  10. Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J., Kanie, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., Schroeder, H., Siebenhüner, B., & Zondervan, R. (2010). Earth system governance: A research framework. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4).Google Scholar
  11. Biermann, F., & Dingwerth, K. (2004). Global environmental change and the nation state. Global Environmental Politics, 4, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Biermann, F., & Pattberg, P. (2008). Global environmental governance: Taking stock, moving forward. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009b). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9(4), 14–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Boyd, E. (2002). The Noel Kempff Project in Bolivia: Gender, power, and decision-making in climate mitigation. Gender and Development, 10(2), 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bulkeley, H., Schroeder, H., Janda, K., Zhao, J., Armstrong, A., Chu, S. Y., & Ghosh, S. (2009). Cities and climate change: The role of institutions, governance and urban planning. Report prepared for the World Bank Urban Symposium on Climate Change.Google Scholar
  17. Carpenter, C. (2001). Businesses, green groups and the media: The role of non-governmental organizations in the climate change debate. International Affairs, 77, 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., & Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11, Article 8. (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/).
  19. Cashore, B. (2002). Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non-state market driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance, 15, 503–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cashore, B., Auld, G., Bernstein, S., & McDermott, C. (2007). Can non-state governance ‘ratchet up’ global environmental standards? Lessons from the forest sector. RECIEL, 16, 158–172.Google Scholar
  21. Chagos, T. (2009). Non-state actors and REDD. Issues surrounding the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities. Climate focus North America memo [online: http://www.redd-oar.org/links/Legal%20Issues%20REDD.pdf.
  22. Colchester, M., & Ferrari, M. F. (2007). Making FPICfree, prior and informed Consentwork: Challenges and prospects for indigenous peoples. FPIC Working Papers, Forest Peoples Programme.Google Scholar
  23. Conca, K. (2005). Old states in new bottles? The hybridization of authority in global environmental governance. In J. Barry & R. Eckersley (Eds.), The state and the global ecological crisis (pp. 181–206). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Cotula, L., & Mayers, J. (2009). Tenure in REDD: Start-point or afterthought? IIED Report. (London: IIED)Google Scholar
  25. Depledge, J. (2005). The organization of global negotiations: Constructing the climate change regime. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  26. Dessler, D. (1989). What’s at stake in the agent-structure debate? International Organization, 43, 441–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dombrowski, K. (2010). Filling the gap? An analysis of NGO responses to participation and representation deficits in global climate governance. International environmental agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4).Google Scholar
  28. Eliasch, J. (2008). Climate change: Financing global forests. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  29. Fearon, J. D., & Wendt, A. (2002). Rationalism vs. constructivism: A sceptical view. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 52–72). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Fitzpatrick, D. (2005). Best practice options for the legal recognition of customary tenure. Development and Change, 36, 449–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. FOE.(2009). Views on issues relating to indigenous peoples and local communities for the development and application of methodologies. Submission from Friends of the Earth International 15 February 2009 to the UNFCCC. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/smsn/ngo/105.pdf.
  32. Fogel, C. (2004). The local, the global, and the Kyoto protocol. In S. Jasanoff & M. L. Martello (Eds.), Earthly politics: Local and global in environmental governance (pp. 103–125). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. UNFCCC—United Nations. Framework Convention on Climate Change (2004). UNFCCC Statement, International day of the world’s indigenous peoples. Available at http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/statements/application/pdf/statem040809.pdf.
  34. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  35. Griffiths, T. (2008). Seeing ‘REDD’ - Avoided deforestation and the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. Indigenous Perspectives, 9(1–2), 93–118.Google Scholar
  36. Griffiths, T., & Martone, F. (2009). Seeing ‘REDD’? Forests, climate change mitigation and the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. Moreton-in-Marsh: Forest Peoples Programme.Google Scholar
  37. Gupta, J. (2008). Global change: Analyzing scale and scaling in environmental governance. In O. R. Young, L. A. King, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers (pp. 225–258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hatcher, J., & Bailey, L. (2009). Tropical forest tenure assessment: Trends, challenges and opportunities. RRI & ITTO Report. Yokohama: ITTO. Available at: http://www.rightsandresources.files.wordpress.com. Accessed June 20, 2009.
  39. Hjerpe, M., & Linnér, B.-O. (2010). Functions of side events in governance of climate change. Climate Policy, 10, 148–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hjerpe, M., Linnér, B.-O., Simonsson, L., Wråke, M. & Zetterberg, L. (2008). The function of side events at the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. CSPR Report 08:02. (Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Norrköping, Sweden. IVL report No. B-1804).Google Scholar
  41. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97, 233–243.Google Scholar
  42. Humphreys, D. (2008). The politics of ‘avoided deforestation’: historical context and contemporary issues. International Forestry Review, 10, 433–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. IFIPCC (2007). The International Forum of Indigenous Peoples on Climate Change (IFIPCC). (Statement on REDD, 13th Session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, SBSTA27, agenda item 5/REDD).Google Scholar
  44. IGES (2009). IGES CDM Project Database, updated October 1 2009. Available at: http://www.iges.or.jp/en/cdm/report_cdm.html.
  45. Jagers, S. C., & Stripple, J. (2003). Climate governance beyond the state. Global Governance, 9, 385–399.Google Scholar
  46. Karkainen, B. C. (2004). Post-Sovereign environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 4, 72–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1999). Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics. International Social Science Journal, 51, 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Koivurova, T., & Heinämäki, L. (2005). The participation of indigenous peoples in international norm-making in the Arctic. Polar Record, 42, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lawlor, K., & Huberman, D. (2009). Reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and human rights. (In J. Campese, T. Sunderland, T. Greiber, & G. Oviedo (Eds.), Rights-based approaches: Exploring issues and opportunities for conservation. (Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR and IUCN.) Available at http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2009-014.pdf.
  50. Lightfoot, S. R. (2008). Indigenous rights in international politics: The case of ‘overcompliant’ liberal states. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 33, 83–104.Google Scholar
  51. Lipschutz, R. (2005). Power, politics and global civil society. Millennium, 33, 747–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lipschutz, R. D., & Conca, K. (1993). The state and social power in global environmental politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Litfin, K. T. (1994). Ozone discourses: Science and politics in global environmental cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Lovell, H. (2007). More effective, efficient and faster? The role of non-state actors at UN climate negotiations. (Tyndall Briefing Note 24, December 2007).Google Scholar
  55. Marauhn, T. (2007). The changing role of the state. In D. Bodansky, J. Brunnée, & E. Hey (Eds.), Oxford handbook of international environmental law (pp. 727–748). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Martone, F. (2010). Taking stock of Copenhagen: Outcomes on REDD+ and rights. (Forest Peoples Programme, January 2010).Google Scholar
  57. Mathews, J. (1997). Power shift. Foreign Affairs, 76, 50–66.Google Scholar
  58. Mihlar, F. (2008). Voices that must be heard: Minorities and indigenous people combating climate change. (Briefing, Minority Rights Group International. November 2008).Google Scholar
  59. Morgan, R. (2007). On political institutions and social movement dynamics: The case of the United Nations and the global indigenous movement. International Political Science Review, 28, 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mother Earth Journal (2009). The fallout at Copenhagen for indigenous peoples: What happened? What didn’t? Available at: http://mother-earth-journal.com/2009/12/the-fallout-at-copenhagen-for-indigenous-peoples-what-happened-what-didnt/.
  61. Okereke, C., Bulkeley, H., & Schroeder, H. (2009). Conceptualizing climate governance beyond the international regime. Global Environmental Politics, 9, 58–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Okereke, C., & Dooley, K. (2010). Principles of justice in proposals and policy approaches to avoided deforestation: Towards a post-Kyoto climate agreement. Global Environmental Change, 20, 82–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pattberg, P. (2005). The institutionalization of private governance: How business and non-profits agree on trans-national rules. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 18, 589–610.Google Scholar
  64. Pieck, S. (2006). Opportunities for transnational indigenous eco-politics: the changing landscape in the new millennium. Global Networks, 6, 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, politics and the state. Houndmills: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  66. Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42, 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Raustiala, K. (1997). States, NGOs, and international environmental institutions. International Studies Quarterly, 42, 719–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Risse, T. (2002). Transnational actors and world politics. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 255–274). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Rosenau, J. N., & Czempiel, E.-O. (Eds.). (1992). Governance without government: Order and change in world politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Sassen, S. (1996). Losing control? Sovereignty in an age of globalization. University Seminars/Leonard Hastings Schoff Memorial Lectures. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Paoletto G., & Schroeder, H. (1997). Enhancing participation of NGOs in the FCCC Process. (GEIC Paper Series, Global Environment Information Center Tokyo, October 1997).Google Scholar
  72. Schroeder, H. (2001). Negotiating the Kyoto protocol: An analysis of negotiation dynamics in international negotiations. Münster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  73. Schroeder, H., King, L. A., & Tay, S. (2008). Contributing to the science-policy interface. Policy relevance of findings on the institutional dimensions of global environmental change. In O. R. Young, L. A. King, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers (pp. 261–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  74. Schroeder, H., & Lovell, H. (2009). The role of side events in the UNFCCC Climate Negotiations. In Paper presented at the 2009 Amsterdam Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  75. Selin, H., & VanDeveer, S. (2005). Canadian–U.S. environmental cooperation: Climate change networks and regional action. American Review of Canadian Studies, 35, 353–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sending, O. J., & Neumann, I. B. (2006). Governance to governmentality: NGOs, states and power. International Studies Quarterly, 50, 651–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Seymour, F. (2008). Forests, climate change, and human rights: Managing risk and tradeoffs. CIFOR: Bogor.Google Scholar
  78. Skutsch, M., & Van Laake, P. E. (2008). REDD as multi-level governance in the making. Energy and Environment, 19, 831–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Soyez, D. (2000). Anchored locally—linked globally. Transnational social movement organizations in a (seemingly) borderless world. GeoJournal, 52, 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stern, N. (2006). The Economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  81. UNFCCC. (2006). UNFCCC Statement, International day of the world’s indigenous peoples. Available at http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/statements/application/pdf/ 20060808_rk_indigenous.pdf.
  82. UNFCCC. (2008) Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action. Draft conclusions proposed by the chair. FCCC/SBSTA/2008/L.23. Available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/sbsta/eng/l23.pdf.
  83. UNFCCC. (2009a). Issues relating to indigenous people and local communities for the development and application of methodologies. Submission by the Czech Republic on behalf of the European Community and its member states. FCCC/SBSTA/2009/MISC.1. Available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/sbsta/eng/misc01.pdf.
  84. UNFCCC. (2009b) Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action. Draft conclusions proposed by the chair. Addendum. FCCC/SBSTA/2009/L.19/Add.1. Available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/sbsta/eng/l19a01.pdf.
  85. UNFCCC. (2009c) Reordering and consolidation of the text in the revised negotiating text. Note by the secretariat. FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2. Available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf.
  86. United Nations (2004). The concept of indigenous peoples. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. PFII/2004/WS.1/3.Google Scholar
  87. Van der Werf, G. R., Morton, D. C., DeFries, R. S., Olivier, J. G. J., Kasibhatla, P. S., Jackson, et al. (2009). CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nature Geoscience., 2, 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wapner, P. (1995). The state and environmental challenges: A critical exploration of alternatives to the state-system. Environmental Politics, 4, 44–69.Google Scholar
  89. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. World Resources Institute. (2002). World resources. Washington DC: WRI.Google Scholar
  91. World Wide Fund for Nature. (2002). Forests for life: working to protect, manage and restore the world’s forests. Gland: Worldwide Fund for Nature for Nature.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oxford Centre for Tropical Forests and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Oxford, Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the EnvironmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations