Transaction costs in the evolution of transnational polycentric governance
Polycentric systems of governance may help address two key challenges in the transnational governance of socioecological systems, the problems of fragmentation and fit, but there is limited understanding of the processes through which polycentric governance systems emerge. This paper draws on institutional economics and accounts of international regime formation to develop an ideal-type model of the evolution of transnational polycentric governance. In particular, the model highlights systematically different transaction costs across different phases of polycentric governance evolution. These costs result in important trade-offs between building a broad coalition during agenda setting and addressing complexity in implementation. The plausibility of the model is probed using the case of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), drawing on global-level data on REDD+ collaboration, as well as fieldwork in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. This case suggests that low transaction costs in the agenda-setting phase led to a confused vision for what REDD+ should be, ultimately hampering implementation.
KeywordsREDD Polycentricity Governance Transaction costs
Funding for this research was provided by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the European Communities, the United Kingdom Department for International Development, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia, through the Center for International Forestry Research’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (GCS-REDD+), which developed the methodology for fieldwork in Central Kalimantan. Additional funding was provided by the Environmental Policy Initiative and the Mershon Center for International Security Studies, both at The Ohio State University, which had no input into research design. Methods for the GCS-REDD+ Component 1 on policy networks were developed with support from the Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks (COMPON) Project, headquartered at the University of Minnesota. The author is grateful for comments from Anthony Brunello, Erick Howenstine, Devin Judge-Lord, and two anonymous reviewers.
- Angelsen, A., & McNeill, D. (2012). The evolution of REDD+. In A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, W. D. Sunderlin, & L. V. Verchot (Eds.), Analysing REDD+ (pp. 31–49). Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
- Atmadja, S. S., Indriatmoko, Y., Utomo, N. A., Komalasari, M., & Ekaputri, A. D. (2014). Kalimantan forests and climate partnership, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. In E. O. Sills, S. S. Atmadja, C. de Sassi, A. E. Duchelle, D. L. Kweka, I. A. P. Resosudarmo, & W. D. Sunderlin (Eds.), REDD+ on the ground (pp. 209–308). Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
- Betsill, M. M., & Corell, E. (Eds.). (2008). NGO diplomacy: The influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environmental negotiations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage & closure: An introduction to social capital. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Busch, J., Ferretti-Gallon, K., Engelmann, J., Wright, M., Austin, K. G., Stolle, F., et al. (2015). Reductions in emissions from deforestation from Indonesia’s moratorium on new oil palm, timber, and logging concessions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(5), 1328–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Butler, R. A. (2010). Borneo province selected for Indonesia’s first pilot under REDD program. Mongabay.com, 30 December. http://news.mongabay.com/2010/1229-redd_pilot_central_kalimantan.html. Accessed 15 March 2015.
- Chasek, P. S., Downie, D. L., & Brown, J. W. (2014). Global environmental politics (6th ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
- de Sassi, C., Sunderlin, W. D., Sills, E. O., Duchelle, A. E., Ravikumar, A., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., et al. (2014). REDD+ on the ground: Global insights from local contexts. In E. O. Sills, S. S. Atmadja, C. de Sassi, A. E. Duchelle, D. L. Kweka, I. A. P. Resosudarmo, & W. D. Sunderlin (Eds.), REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe (pp. 420–444). Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
- Eliasch, J. (2008). Climate change: Financing global forests. London: Government of the United Kingdom.Google Scholar
- Folke, C., Pritchard, L., Berkes, F., Colding, J., Swedin, U. (1998). The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions. Bonn, Germany: International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change Working Paper.Google Scholar
- Gilligan, M. J. (2009). The transaction costs approach to international institutions. In H. V. Milner & A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Power, interdependence, and nonstate actors in world politics (pp. 50–65). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Global Administrative Areas (2012). GADM database of global administrative areas, Version 2.0. http://www.gadm.org. Accessed 20 March 2015.
- Government of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. (2013). Strategi daerah REDD+ Kalimantan Tengah. Palangkaraya, Indonesia: Government of the Central Kalimantan.Google Scholar
- Government of Papua New Guinea and Government of Costa Rica. (2005). Submission by the governments of Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica: Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: Approaches to stimulation action. Montreal: Eleventh Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.Google Scholar
- Indriatmoko, Y., Atmadja, S. S., Ekaputri, A. D., & Komalasari, M. (2014a). Rimba Raya Biodiversity Reserve Project, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. In E. O. Sills, S. S. Atmadja, C. de Sassi, A. E. Duchelle, D. L. Kweka, I. A. P. Resosudarmo, & W. D. Sunderlin (Eds.), REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe (pp. 348–361). Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
- Indriatmoko, Y., Atmadja, S. S., Utomo, N. A., Ekaputri, A. D., & Komalasari, M. (2014b). Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation Project, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. In E. O. Sills, S. S. Atmadja, C. de Sassi, A. E. Duchelle, D. L. Kweka, I. A. P. Resosudarmo, & W. D. Sunderlin (Eds.), REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe (pp. 309–328). Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2000). Land use, land-use change, and forestry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Keohane, R. O., Haas, P. M., & Levy, M. A. (1993). The effectiveness of international environmental institutions. In P. M. Haas, R. O. Keohane, & M. A. Levy (Eds.), Institutions for the earth: Sources of effective international environmental protection (pp. 3–24). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- McKinsey & Company. (2009). Pathways to a low-carbon economy: Version 2 of the global greenhouse gas abatement cost curve. New York: McKinsey & Company.Google Scholar
- Norman, M., & Nakhooda, S. (2014). The state of REDD+ finance. Center for global development climate and forest paper series 5. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.Google Scholar
- Olbrei, E., & Howes, S. (2012). A very real and practical contribution? Lessons from the Kalimantan Forest and Climate Partnership. Climate Law, 3(2), 103–137.Google Scholar
- Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Prakash, Aseem, & Gugerty, Mary Kay (Eds.). (2010). Advocacy organizations and collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- REDD+ Partnership. (2015). The voluntary REDD+ database. Rome and Cambridge, UK: Food and Agriculture Organization and United Nations Environment Program World Conservation Monitoring Centre. http://www.fao.org/forestry/vrd/download. Accessed 25 February 2015.
- Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.Google Scholar
- Sumargo, W., Nanggara, S. G., Nainggolan, F. A., & Apriani, I. (2009). Portret keadaan hutan Indonesia periode tahun 2000-2009. Jakarta: Forest Watch Indonesia.Google Scholar
- Sunderlin, W. D., & Sills, E. O. (2012). REDD+ projects as a hybrid of old and new forest conservation approaches. In A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, W. D. Sunderlin, & L. V. Verchot (Eds.), Analysing REDD+ (pp. 177–191). Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
- Sunderlin, W. D., Sills, E. O., Duchelle, A. E., Ekaputri, A. D., Kweka, D., Toniolo, A., Ball, S., Doggart, N., Pratama, C. D., Padilla, J. T., Enright, A., & Otsyina, R. M. (2015). REDD+ at a critical juncture: Assessing the limits of polycentric governance for achieving climate change mitigation. International Forestry Review, 17(4), 400–413.Google Scholar
- Thompson, O. R. R., Paavola, J., Healey, J. R., Jones, J. P. G., Baker, T. R., & Torres, J. (2013). Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD +): Transaction costs of six Peruvian projects. Ecology and Society, 18(1), 17.Google Scholar
- Trexler, M., Kosloff, L., & Gibbons, R. (1999). Overview of forestry and land-use projects pursued under the pilot. In R. K. Dixon (Ed.), The U. N. framework convention on climate change activities implemented jointly (AIJ) pilot: Experiences and lessons learned (pp. 121–167). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Young, O. R. (1997). Rights, rules, and resources in world affairs. In O. R. Young (Ed.), Global governance: Drawing insights from the environmental experience (pp. 1–23). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Yulianti, N., Hayasaka, H., & Usup, A. (2012). Recent forest and peat fire trends in Indonesia: The latest decade by MODIS hotspot data. Global Environmental Research, 16(1), 105–116.Google Scholar