Advertisement

Stakeholding as sorting of actors into categories: implications for civil society participation in the CDM

  • Magdalena Kuchler
Original Paper

Abstract

Following a deliberative shift towards public–private partnership networks in global environmental governance, the multi-stakeholder framework is increasingly advocated for engaging multiple actors in collective decision-making. As this arrangement relies on proper participatory conditions in order to include all relevant stakeholders, input legitimacy is crucial to achieving legitimate outcomes. However, ‘stakeholding’ implies that actors—recast into a specific institutional context—are sorted into new formal or informal categories. This paper scrutinizes the clean development mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol to interrogate the problematic issue of ‘stakeholding’—i.e. the ‘sorting’ of actors—in enacting the multi-stakeholder framework. Based on an analysis of 25 CDM projects that provides insight into the widest range of participation opportunities for civil society regarding specific projects, this paper considers how certain institutional context of the Mechanism’s stakeholder framework affects the involvement of civil society actors and the implications of this for balanced and fair input legitimacy. The findings suggest that, in practice, the informal corporate-induced sorting of actors into internal and external stakeholders keeps civil society actors outside the CDM’s inner circle, forcing them to voice their concerns regarding specific projects via CDM insiders or through irregular channels. Furthermore, the absence of a clear definition of stakeholder in local consultations results in the inclusion of unsorted actors, destabilizing the distribution of participation opportunities. The paper concludes that recasting the deliberative principles of openness and plurality into the CDM’s corporate-inspired stakeholding creates a specific institutional context that imposes more than one set of perhaps incompatible stakeholder categories while impairing input legitimacy.

Keywords

Stakeholder Input legitimacy Civil society Clean development mechanism Climate policy Global environmental governance 

Abbreviations

CDM

Clean development mechanism

CERs

Certified emission reductions

COP

Conference of parties

CMP

Conference of the parties serving as the meeting of the parties

CSOs

Civil society organizations

DOE

Designated operational entity

DNA

Designated national authority

EB

Executive Board

ENGOs

Environmental non-governmental organizations

GEG

Global environmental governance

GSCs

Global stakeholder consultations

GSOs

Grassroots support organizations

KP

Kyoto protocol

LSCs

Local stakeholder consultations

NGOs

Non-governmental organizations

NMM

New market mechanism

PDD

Project design document

PP

Project participant

SBI

Subsidiary body for implementation

VR

Validation report

UN

United Nations

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

References

  1. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachram, H. (2004). Climate fraud and carbon colonialism: The new trade in greenhouse gases. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 15(4), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bäckstrand, K. (2006a). Democratizing global environmental governance? Stakeholder democracy after the world summit on sustainable development. European Journal of International Relations, 12(4), 467–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bäckstrand, K. (2006b). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment, 16(5), 290–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bäckstrand, K., Khan, J., Kronsell, A., & Lövbrand, E. (Eds.). (2010). Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: Examining the promise of new modes of governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  6. Betsill, M. M., & Corell, E. (2001). NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 1(4), 65–85.CrossRefGoogle 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. Blühdorn, I. (2007). Sustaining the unsustainable: Symbolic politics and the politics of simulation. Environmental Politics, 16(2), 251–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bodansky, D. (1999). The legitimacy of international governance: A coming challenge for international environmental law? American Journal of International Law, 93(3), 596–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boström, M., & Hallström, K. T. (2010). NGO power in global social and environmental standard setting. Global Environmental Politics, 10(4), 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boström, M., & Hallström, K. T. (2013). Global multi-stakeholder standard setters: How fragile they are? Journal of Global Ethics, 9(1), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carbon Market Watch. (2011). Communication between the CDM World and the ‘outside’ world (Newsletter #16). Brussels: Carbon Market Watch. http://carbonmarketwatch.org/communication-between-the-cdm-world-and-the-%C2%B4outside-world-newsletter-16. Accessed 24 May 2015.
  13. Carbon Market Watch. (2013). Human rights: How lessons learnt from the CDM can inform the design of new market mechanisms. COP19 Side Event Summary Report, December 2013. Brussels: Carbon Market Watch.Google Scholar
  14. CDM-EB. (2011a). Executive board of the clean development mechanism sixty-first meeting, proposed agenda—annotations, annex 6: Information note on improvements of guidance regarding stakeholder and public participation. Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat.Google Scholar
  15. CDM-EB. (2011b). Executive board of the clean development mechanism sixty-second meeting, proposed agenda—annotations, annex 4: Information note on the application of the requirements for consideration of stakeholder inputs in the validation process. Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat.Google Scholar
  16. CDM-EB. (2011c). Executive board of the clean development mechanism sixty-second meeting report—annex 15: Modalities and procedures for direct communication with stakeholders. Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat.Google Scholar
  17. CDM-EB. (2013). Recommendation to the SBI: Possible changes to the CDM modalities and procedures. Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat.Google Scholar
  18. CDM Policy Dialogue. (2012). Climate change, carbon markets and the CDM: A call to action. Report of the High-Level Panel on the CDM Policy Dialogue, September 2012. Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat.Google Scholar
  19. CDM Watch. (2010). The clean development mechanism (CDM) toolkit: A resource for citizens, activists and NGOs. Brussels: CDM Watch.Google Scholar
  20. Clark, I. (2005). Legitimacy in international society. London and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Corell, E., & Betsill, M. (2001). A comparative look at NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: Desertification and climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 1(4), 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Gilbertson, T. (2009). How sustainable are small-scale biomass factories? A case study from Thailand. In S. Böhm & S. Dabhi (Eds.), Upsetting the offset (pp. 57–71). London: MayFlyBooks.Google Scholar
  24. Glasbergen, P., Biermann, F., & Mol, A. P. J. (Eds.). (2007). Partnerships, governance and sustainable development: Reflections on theory and practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  25. Haas, P. (2004). Addressing the global governance deficit. Global Environmental Politics, 4(4), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hemmati, M. (2002). Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability: Beyond deadlock and conflict. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  27. IETA. (2010). The state of the CDM 2010: Focusing on efficiency. Geneva: International Emissions Trading Association (IETA).Google Scholar
  28. International Rivers. (2013). Submission regarding human rights to the CDM, 25 March 2013. http://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/submission-regarding-human-rights-to-the-cdm-7899. Accessed 24 May 2015.
  29. Ivanova, M. (2003). Partnership, international organizations, and global environmental governance. In J. M. Witte, C. Streck, & T. Benner (Eds.), Progress or peril? Networks and partnerships in global environmental governance (pp. 9–36). Berlin: Global Public Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  30. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I., & McGee, J. (2013). Legitimacy in an era of fragmentation: The case of global climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 13(3), 56–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lafferty, W. M., & Meadowcroft, J. R. (1996). Democracy and the environment: Problems and prospects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  32. Lövbrand, E., Rindefjäll, T., & Nordqvist, J. (2009). Closing the legitimacy gap in global environmental governance? Lessons from the emerging CDM market. Global Environmental Politics, 9(2), 74–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marchetti, R. (2012). Models of global democracy: In defence of cosmo-federalism. In D. Archibugi, M. K. Archibugi, & R. Marchetti (Eds.), Global democracy: Normative and empirical perspectives (pp. 22–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Metzger, J. (2013). Placing the stakes: The enactment of territorial stakeholders in planning processes. Environment and Planning A, 45(4), 781–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Michaelowa, A. (2013). A call to action: But too late, in vain? Climate Policy, 13(3), 408–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nanz, P., & Steffek, J. (2004). Global governance, participation and the public sphere. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 314–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Newell, P., & Bumpus, A. (2012). The global political ecology of the clean development mechanism. Global Environmental Politics, 12(4), 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Olsen, K. H. (2013). Sustainable development impacts of NAMAs: An integrated approach to assessment of co-benefits based on experience with the CDM. Low Carbon Development Working Paper No. 11, November 2013. Roskilde, Denmark: UNEP Risø Centre.Google Scholar
  39. PD Forum. (2012). CDM in crisisWhat is at stake? A project developer’s perspective on the past, present and future of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). A paper produced on behalf of the Project Development Forum by Climate Bridge, November 2012. London: Project Developer Forum.Google Scholar
  40. Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., et al. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. SBI. (2013). Work of the SBI informal consultations. Agenda item 7(a): Consolidated list of possible changes to the CDM modalities and procedures received to date through inputs and discussions. Subsidiary Body for Implementation, Thirty-ninth session, Warsaw, 11–16 November 2013.Google Scholar
  42. Streck, C. (2002). The clean development mechanism: A playing field for new partnerships. In F. Biermann, R. Brohm, & K. Dingwerth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2001 Berlin conference on the human dimensions of global environmental change ‘Global Environmental Change and the Nation State’ (pp. 266–273). Potsdam: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.Google Scholar
  43. Streck, C. (2004). New partnerships in global environmental policy: The clean development mechanism. Journal of Environment and Development, 13(3), 295–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Streck, C., & Lin, J. (2008). Making markets work: A review of CDM performance and the need for reform. The European Journal of International Law, 19(2), 409–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991–2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. UNFCCC. (2005). Report of the conference of the parties serving as the meeting of the parties to the kyoto protocol on its first session, held at Montreal from 28 November to 10 December 2005. Addendum. Part two: Action taken by the conference of the parties serving as the meeting of the parties to the kyoto protocol at its first session. FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.1. Bonn, Germany: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat.Google Scholar
  47. Walters, W. (2004). Some critical notes on ‘governance’. Studies in Political Economy, 73, 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weyer, M. V. (1996). In an ideal world. Management Today, September, 34–38.Google Scholar
  49. Whitman, D. (2008). ‘Stakeholders’ and the politics of environmental policymaking. In J. Park, K. Conca, & M. Finger (Eds.), The crisis of global environmental governance: Towards a new political economy of sustainability (pp. 163–192). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Thematic Studies - Environmental Change, Centre for Climate Science and Policy ResearchLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations