Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the agency of Africa in climate change negotiations: the case of REDD+

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Emerging climate change regimes, such as the mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), are increasingly aiming to engage developing countries such as those in Africa, in sustainable development through carbon markets. The contribution of African countries to global climate negotiations determines how compatible the negotiated rules could be with the existing socioeconomic and policy circumstances of African countries. The aim of this paper is to explore the agency of Africa (African States) in the global climate change negotiations and discuss possible implications for implementing these rules using REDD+ as a case study. Drawing on document analysis and semi-structured expert interviews, our findings suggest that although African countries are extensively involved in the implementation of REDD+ interventions, the continent has a weak agency on the design of the global REDD+ architecture. This weak agency results from a number of factors including the inability of African countries to send large and diverse delegations to the negotiations as well lack of capacity to generate and transmit research evidence to the global platform. African countries also perceive themselves as victims of climate change who should be eligible for support rather than sources of technological solutions. Again, Africa’s position is fragmented across negotiation coalitions which weakens the continent's collective influence on the REDD+ agenda. This paper discusses a number of implementation deficits which could result from this weak agency. These include concerns about implementation capacity and a potential lack of coherence between REDD+ rules and existing policies in African countries. These findings call for a rethink of pathways to enhancing Africa’s strategies in engaging in multilateral climate change negotiations, especially if climate change regimes specifically targeted at developing countries are to be effective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://mptf.undp.org/factsheet/fund/CCF00.

  2. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/smsn/ngo/469.pdf.

  3. (FCCC/SB/2009/MISC.1).

  4. Interview UNFCCC, Bonn March 2013.

  5. FCCC/SBSTA/2011/INF.

  6. FCCC/SBSTA/2011/INF.

  7. (FCCC/SBSTA/2011/INF: paragraph 33).

References

  • Andonova, L. B., Betsill, M. M., & Bulkeley, H. (2009). Transnational climate governance. Global environmental politics, 9, 52–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelsen, A. (2008). Moving ahead with REDD: issues, options and implications. Bogor: Cifor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arhin, A. A. (2014). Safeguards and dangerguards: A framework for unpacking the black box of safeguards for REDD+. Forest Policy and Economics, 45, 24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arhin, A., & Atela, J. (2015). Forest carbon projects and policies in Africa: An overview. In I. Scoones & M. Leach (Eds.), Carbon conflicts and forest landscapes in Africa. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atela, J. O., Quinn, C. H., Minang, P. A., Duguma, L. A., & Houdet, J. (2016). Implementing REDD+ at the national level: Stakeholder engagement and policy coherences between REDD+ rules and Kenya’s sectoral policies. Forest Policy and Economics, 65, 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. Environmental Policy and Governance, 16, 290–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, K. (2008). Accountability of networked climate governance: The rise of transnational climate partnerships. Global Environmental Politics, 8, 74–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, G., & Britton, H. E. (2006). Women in African parliaments. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, F., Minang, P. A., Adkins, B., & Freund, J. T. (2014). REDD+ projects and national-level readiness processes: A case study from Kenya. Climate Policy, 2014, 1–13.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., Betsill, M., Gupta, J., Kanie, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., et al. (2010). Earth system governance: A research framework. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10, 277–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin, O., & Crona, B. (2009). The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What rational patterns make a difference. Global Environmental Change, 19, 366–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouteligier, S. (2011). Exploring the agency of global environmental consultancy firms in earth system governance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11, 43–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., & Mardiah, S. (2013). Governing the design of national REDD: An analysis of the power of agency. Forest Policy and Economics, 2014, 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbera, E., & Schroeder, H. (2011). Governing and implementing REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy, 14, 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crona, B. I., & Bodin, Ö. (2006). What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecological Society, 11, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dauvergne, P. (2012). Handbook of global environmental politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2011). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dellas, E., Pattberg, P., & Betsill, M. (2011). Agency in earth system governance: refining a research agenda. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, N., & Counsell, S. (2010). How McKinsey ‘cost curves’ are distorting REDD. http://www.redd-monitor.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/McReddEnglish.pdf.

  • FCCC/SB/2009/MISC.1. Provisional list of participants to the 30th SBSTA Session held in Bonn, June 2009. In. UNFCCC, available online: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/sb/eng/misc01.pdf.

  • FCCC/SBSTA/2009/3. Report of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice on its thirtieth session, held in Bonn from 1 to 10 June 2009. In. UNFCCC, available online: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/sbsta/eng/03.pdf.

  • Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. (2014). 2014 Annual Report. In. FCPF Washington DC.

  • Frost, P. (2001). Zimbabwe and the United Nations framework convention on climate change. In. Overseas Development Institut, Working Paper London.

  • Fry, I. (2008). Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: Opportunities and pitfalls in developing a new legal regime. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 17, 166–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giger, N., Rosset, J., & Bernauer, J. (2012). The poor political representation of the poor in a comparative process. Representation, 48, 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A., Pistorius, T. & Vijge, M. J. (2015). Managing fragmentation in global environmental governance: The REDD+ Partnership as bridge organization. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16, 355–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, J., & Van der Zaag, P. (2009). The politics of water science: On unresolved water problems and biased research agendas. Global Environmental Politics, 9, 14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay, I. (2000). Qualitative research methods in human geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (2007). 4th assessment report: climate change 2007 Geneva: IPCC.

  • Kalaba, F., Quinn, C., & Dougill, A. (2014). Policy coherence and interplay between Zambia’s forest, energy, agricultural and climate change policies and multilateral environmental agreements. International Environmental Agreements, 14, 181–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, J., & Scoones, I. (2003). Understanding environmental policy processes; Cases from Africa. London: Earthscan/James and James.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohlbacher, F. (2006). The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research.

  • Lawson, S. (2014). Consumer goods and deforestation: An analysis of the extent and nature of illegality in forest conversion for agriculture and timber plantations. Washington, DC: Forest Trends and UKaId.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makina, A. (2013). Managing climate change: The Africa Group in multilateral environmental negotiations. Journal of International Organizations Studies, 4, 36–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, E. E., & White, M. D. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55, 22–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mbeva, K., Ochieng, C., Atela, J., Khaemba, W., & Tonui, C. (2015). Intended Nationally Determined Contributions as a Means to Strengthening Africa’s Engagement in International Climate Negotiations. Climate Resilient Economies Working Paper 001/2015. African Centre for technology Studies. Nairobi

  • Midgaard, G., & Underdal, A. (1977). Multiparty conferences. In D. Druckman (Ed.), Negotiation: Social–psychological perspectives (pp. 335–336). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minang, P. (2009). Africa in post 2012 climate change negotiations: Some policy perspectives presentation made at the Pan African Parliamentary Conference in Yaoundé, Cameroon.

  • Najam, A., Huq, S., & Sokona, Y. (2003). Climate negotiations beyond Kyoto: Developing countries concerns and interests. Climate Policy, 3, 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nhamo, G. (2011). REDD+ and the global climate policy negotiating regimes: Challenges and opportunities for Africa. South African Journal of International Affairs, 18, 385–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games & common-pool resources. Ann Arbor’: The University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, J. (2003). Environmental justice and governance: Theory and lessons from the implementation of the European Union’s habitat directive. Norwich: University of East Anglia, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment. Working Paper EDM 03-05.

  • Pearson, T., Walker, S., & Brown, S. (2006). Afforestation and reforestation under the clean development mechanism: Project formulation manual. In. International Tropical Timber Organization.Technical Series, 25.Pp. 53.

  • Pitkin, H. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1933–1949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosset, J., Giger, N., & Bernauer, J. (2013). More money, fewer problems? Cross-level effects of economic deprivation on political representation. West European Politics, 36, 817–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saleemul, H., & Sokona, Y. (2001). Climate change negotiations. A view from the south. ENDA.

  • Schroeder, H. (2010). Agency in international climate negotiations: the case of indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10, 317–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, H., & Lovell, H. (2012). The role of non-nation-state actors and side events in the international climate negotiations. Climate Policy, 12, 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silayan, A. (2005). Equitable distribution of CDM projects among developing countries. In. HWWA-Report.

  • Stringer, L. C., Dyer, J. C., Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., Twyman, C., & Mkwambisi, D. (2009). Adaptations to climate change, drought and desertification: Local insights to enhance policy in southern Africa. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 748–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng-Zeng, F. (2009). Financing science and innovation in Africa: institutional development and challenges. In F. Kalua, A. Awotedu, L. Kamwanja, & J. Saka (Eds.), Science, technology and innovation for public health in Africa. Johannesburg: NEPAD Office of Science and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thai, V., Handschuh, S., & Decker, S. (2008). IVEA: An information visualization tool for personalized exploratory document collection analysis. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M. C., Baruah, M., & Carr, E. R. (2011). Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 14, 100–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNfairplay. (2011). A report to the UNFCCC on negotiating capacity and access to information. In Youth Climate.

  • UNFCCC. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In UN Summit Rio de Janeiro

  • UNFCCC. (2011). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010.

  • UNREDD. (2015). UN-REDD Programme Fund Factsheet. http://mptf.undp.org/factsheet/fund/CCF00.

  • UN-REDD. (2010). The UN-REDD Program Strategy 2010-2015. Washington D.C.: FAO, UNDP, UNEP.

  • Vatn, A., & Vedeld, P. (2013). National governance structures for REDD+. Global Environmental Change, 23, 422–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallbott, L. (2014). Indigenous peoples in UN REDD+ negotiations: “Importing Power” and lobbying for rights through discursive interplay management. Ecology and Society, 19, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. (2005). The Third World and global environmental negotiations: interests, institutions and ideas. Global Environmental Politics, 5, 48–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolmer, W., Keeley, J., Leach, M., Mehta, L., Scoones, I., & Waldman, L. (2006). Understanding policy processes. A review of IDS research on the environment. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2011). Carbon Finance; The World Bank weighs in. Washington: World Bank.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the International Research Scholarship of the University of Leeds, the STEPS Centre at the University of Sussex and the African Centre for Technology Studies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. African Centre for Technology Studies, P.O. Box 45917-00100, Nairobi, Kenya

    Joanes Odiwuor Atela & Kennedy Liti Mbeva

  2. Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

    Claire Hellen Quinn

  3. Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3EN, UK

    Albert A. Arhin

  4. ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins of the World Agroforestry Centre, UN Avenue, Gigiri, P.O. Box 30677-00100, Nairobi, Kenya

    Lalisa Duguma

Authors
  1. Joanes Odiwuor Atela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claire Hellen Quinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Albert A. Arhin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lalisa Duguma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kennedy Liti Mbeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanes Odiwuor Atela.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Atela, J.O., Quinn, C.H., Arhin, A.A. et al. Exploring the agency of Africa in climate change negotiations: the case of REDD+. Int Environ Agreements 17, 463–482 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9329-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9329-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation