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

  • Joanes Odiwuor Atela
  • Claire Hellen Quinn
  • Albert A. Arhin
  • Lalisa Duguma
  • Kennedy Liti Mbeva
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Africa Actors Agency REDD+ design Implementation 

References

  1. Andonova, L. B., Betsill, M. M., & Bulkeley, H. (2009). Transnational climate governance. Global environmental politics, 9, 52–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelsen, A. (2008). Moving ahead with REDD: issues, options and implications. Bogor: Cifor.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. Environmental Policy and Governance, 16, 290–306.Google Scholar
  7. Bäckstrand, K. (2008). Accountability of networked climate governance: The rise of transnational climate partnerships. Global Environmental Politics, 8, 74–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bauer, G., & Britton, H. E. (2006). Women in African parliaments. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. 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. Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Corbera, E., & Schroeder, H. (2011). Governing and implementing REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy, 14, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Dauvergne, P. (2012). Handbook of global environmental politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2011). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. (2014). 2014 Annual Report. In. FCPF Washington DC.Google Scholar
  23. Frost, P. (2001). Zimbabwe and the United Nations framework convention on climate change. In. Overseas Development Institut, Working Paper London.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Giger, N., Rosset, J., & Bernauer, J. (2012). The poor political representation of the poor in a comparative process. Representation, 48, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hay, I. (2000). Qualitative research methods in human geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. IPCC. (2007). 4th assessment report: climate change 2007 Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keeley, J., & Scoones, I. (2003). Understanding environmental policy processes; Cases from Africa. London: Earthscan/James and James.Google Scholar
  32. Kohlbacher, F. (2006). The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Makina, A. (2013). Managing climate change: The Africa Group in multilateral environmental negotiations. Journal of International Organizations Studies, 4, 36–48.Google Scholar
  35. Marsh, E. E., & White, M. D. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55, 22–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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. NairobiGoogle Scholar
  37. Midgaard, G., & Underdal, A. (1977). Multiparty conferences. In D. Druckman (Ed.), Negotiation: Social–psychological perspectives (pp. 335–336). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Minang, P. (2009). Africa in post 2012 climate change negotiations: Some policy perspectives presentation made at the Pan African Parliamentary Conference in Yaoundé, Cameroon.Google Scholar
  39. Najam, A., Huq, S., & Sokona, Y. (2003). Climate negotiations beyond Kyoto: Developing countries concerns and interests. Climate Policy, 3, 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games & common-pool resources. Ann Arbor’: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. Pitkin, H. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Saleemul, H., & Sokona, Y. (2001). Climate change negotiations. A view from the south. ENDA.Google Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Silayan, A. (2005). Equitable distribution of CDM projects among developing countries. In. HWWA-Report.Google Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Thai, V., Handschuh, S., & Decker, S. (2008). IVEA: An information visualization tool for personalized exploratory document collection analysis. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thompson, M. C., Baruah, M., & Carr, E. R. (2011). Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 14, 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. UNfairplay. (2011). A report to the UNFCCC on negotiating capacity and access to information. In Youth Climate.Google Scholar
  57. UNFCCC. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In UN Summit Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  58. UNFCCC. (2011). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010.Google Scholar
  59. UNREDD. (2015). UN-REDD Programme Fund Factsheet. http://mptf.undp.org/factsheet/fund/CCF00.
  60. UN-REDD. (2010). The UN-REDD Program Strategy 2010-2015. Washington D.C.: FAO, UNDP, UNEP.Google Scholar
  61. Vatn, A., & Vedeld, P. (2013). National governance structures for REDD+. Global Environmental Change, 23, 422–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wasserman, S. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Williams, M. (2005). The Third World and global environmental negotiations: interests, institutions and ideas. Global Environmental Politics, 5, 48–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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
  66. World Bank. (2011). Carbon Finance; The World Bank weighs in. Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.African Centre for Technology StudiesNairobiKenya
  2. 2.Sustainability Research InstituteUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  3. 3.Department of GeographyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  4. 4.ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins of the World Agroforestry CentreNairobiKenya

Personalised recommendations