Exploring the agency of Africa in climate change negotiations: the case of REDD+
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.
KeywordsAfrica Actors Agency REDD+ design Implementation
- Angelsen, A. (2008). Moving ahead with REDD: issues, options and implications. Bogor: Cifor.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
- Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. Environmental Policy and Governance, 16, 290–306.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. 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
- 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
- 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.Google Scholar
- Frost, P. (2001). Zimbabwe and the United Nations framework convention on climate change. In. Overseas Development Institut, Working Paper London.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.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.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.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.Google Scholar
- 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
- Pitkin, H. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Saleemul, H., & Sokona, Y. (2001). Climate change negotiations. A view from the south. ENDA.Google Scholar
- Silayan, A. (2005). Equitable distribution of CDM projects among developing countries. In. HWWA-Report.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
- UNfairplay. (2011). A report to the UNFCCC on negotiating capacity and access to information. In Youth Climate.Google Scholar
- UNFCCC. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In UN Summit Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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.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.Google Scholar