Global Forest Governance and Climate Change

Interrogating Representation, Participation, and Decentralization

Emmanuel O. Nuesiri

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9783319719450
• eBook ISBN:
  9783319719467
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Environment & Energy Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This edited collection assesses governance in forestry programmes and projects, including REDD+ governance. It examines political representation, participation and decentralisation in forest governance, providing insight as to how forest governance arrangements can be responsive to the socio-economic interests of local people and communities who live adjacent to and depend on forests.

Global Forest Governance and Climate Change argues that inclusive complementary representation of local communities is required for strong participatory processes and democratic decentralisation of forest governance. Responsiveness to local people's socio-economic interests in forestry initiatives require paying attention to not just the hosting of participatory meetings and activities, but also to the full cast of appointed, self-authorized, and elected representative agents that stand, speak, and act for local people.

This book will be of interest to students and academicsacross the fields of climate change governance, forestry, development studies, and political economy. It will also be a useful resource for policy makers and practitioners responsible for forestry and climate change initiatives.

© The Author(s) 2018

Emmanuel O. Nuesiri (ed.)Global Forest Governance and Climate ChangePalgrave Studies in Natural Resource Management https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71946-7_1

Begin Abstract

1. Global Forest Governance and Climate Change: Introduction and Overview

Emmanuel O. Nuesiri¹

(1)

Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

Emmanuel O. Nuesiri

End Abstract

Aim of This Book

Climate change is the most pressing problem facing the world today. The recent devastation experienced by small island states in the Caribbean and the USA, caused by hurricanes Harvey and Irma , has again stirred contentious debates about climate change and the fate of humanity.¹ This comes after US President Donald Trump’s announcement that he is pulling out of the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement . The announcement was a significant victory for climate change deniers with strong ties to the president (Davenport & Lipton, 2017, June 3). Nevertheless the rest of the world (and some States in the USA) are moving ahead with the Paris Agreement (Geiling, 2017, July 12; Mohan, 2017, July 9). Article 5 of the Paris Agreement details the role of forests in the global response to climate change, through the reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation [REDD+]) mechanism (see Climate Focus, 2015; United Nations, 2015). The aim of this book is to assess whether REDD+ is indeed a viable global mechanism for addressing climate change, in which contexts and under what conditions.

The adoption of REDD+ is being supported globally by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) , the United Nations REDD Programme (UN-REDD) , and the World Bank through its Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the Forest Investment Program (FIP) . However, REDD+ would lead to loss of livelihoods for many forest-dependent people because it would restrict their access to forests set aside for carbon sequestration (Accra Caucus, 2013; Roe, Streck, Pritchard, & Costenbader, 2013). To address this socio-economic problem, a number of social and environmental safeguards have been proposed by the United Nations (UN) and the World Bank, including the requirement that all REDD+ projects be implemented under the principle of securing the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of affected local people (UN-REDD, 2013). The UN-REDD goes as far as committing itself to strengthening local democracy as a social safeguard against elite capture of benefits packages for local people that may be affected by REDD+ (UN-REDD, 2008).

The implementation of these social safeguards including FPIC is based on the adoption of participatory processes inclusive of local people during consultations, design, implementation, and monitoring of REDD+ initiatives. The underlying assumption being that participation of local people in decision-making spaces about REDD+ will ensure equity and fairness in the distribution of costs and benefits associated with the adoption of REDD+ by developing country governments. This book sets out to interrogate this assumption through case studies that examine participatory forest governance processes in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The chapters examine participatory processes associated with ongoing REDD+ adoption initiatives and also examine participatory processes associated with other types of forestry programmes such as Joint Forest Management in India. However, all the chapters interrogate the question of whether participation as currently practised in the case study countries is sufficient for an inclusive REDD+ responsive to the interests of local forest-dependent people.

Theoretical Arguments: Inclusive and Complementary Political Representation

This book has come about partly as a result of research carried out by the Responsive Forest Governance Initiative (RFGI) , a three-year research programme jointly executed by the University of Illinois Urban Champaign (U of I), the Council for Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA) Dakar, Senegal, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) . The RFGI was funded by a grant from the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) . Thus six of the nine chapters in this book (Chaps. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10) are in part informed by insights from RFGI research. The RFGI programme held that decision-making about forest resources should be inclusive of, and responsive to, the socio-economic interests of local people (Ece et al., 2017; Ribot, 2016). Responsiveness calls for participation that supports the presence of local people in decision-making, and supports decisions that ‘respond to and reflect local needs and aspirations’ (Ribot, 2017, p. 3). Representation that is responsive is fundamental to strong effective participatory processes, to legitimacy of decision-making, and to substantive democratic decentralization of forest governance in changing climate.

Inclusion of local people in forest governance does not end with getting local people to attend participatory forums. It is important to pay close attention to power dynamics and asymmetries among the different types of representatives in participatory processes in order to avoid what Cooke and Kothari (2001) term the tyranny of participation. It is often the case that local people are represented in participatory processes, by persons selected on the basis of their local livelihood, with the assumption that a farmer is best placed to speak for farmers and a woman is best placed to speak for women. This type of descriptive representation is indeed welcomed in cases where a group has experienced a long history of marginalization (Mansbridge, 1999; Pitkin, 1967), and the only way their interests will feature in decision-making spaces is to have an individual that resembles the group present in decision-making spaces . However, descriptive representatives in many cases do not have a broad enough mandate to represent their communities; in addition they often lack experience of engagement in formal deliberative spaces, thus customary authorities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are often invited to also represent local people and communities in participatory processes.

Customary authorities and NGOs are symbolic representatives of local communities; they are able to legitimately stand and speak for local communities because they share similar ‘beliefs, attitudes, assumptions’ (Pitkin, 1967, p. 99). They also share similar aspirations with their constituents; likewise NGOs working to alleviate poverty share similar aspirations with poor local forest communities and on this basis can make a self-appointed representative claim on behalf of such communities (see Montanaro, 2017; Saward, 2010). Symbolic representatives include self-appointed agents like NGOs and celebrities, and also institutions like customary authorities appointed following cultural norms; these do not have legal obligations to be responsive and accountable to local communities as is the case with elected local representatives like mayors, local government chairpersons, and municipal councillors.

These elected local representatives are formally authorized by local people to speak and act on their behalf. They are obliged to be responsive to local communities they represent because of their constitutional recognition as the third tier of government with resources with which to provide public services to meet the needs of their electorate. When they are not responsive, they can be voted out, and they are also liable to legal prosecution for abuse of authority (Schedler, 1999). They are therefore the substantive representatives of local people. Substantive representation is viewed as morally superior to descriptive and symbolic representation for the formal checks it places on representatives (Pitkin, 1967), making it the preferred mechanism for representative democracy and democratic decentralization (Eaton & Connerley, 2010; Manin, Przeworski, & Stokes 1999; Rehfeld, 2011; Urbinati & Warren, 2008). Consequently, they are essential actors to be included in participatory processes that aim to be responsive to local socio-economic interests. However, elected local governments alone are insufficient to represent the varied interests of local communities.

Inclusive, strong, and responsive representation of local people in participatory processes is more likely when the three types of representatives complement one another (see Fig. 1.1) (Celis, Childs, Kantola, & Krook, 2008; Saward, 2010; Young, 2000). Local interests are varied and differentiated along lines of age, gender, wealth status, and race; this strengthens the case for inclusive complementary representation of local communities in participatory forums (Dovi, 2002, 2009; Mansbridge, 1999; Urbinati, 2000; Williams, 1998; Young, 2000). Inclusive representation strengthens participation, ensures legitimacy of decision-making, and is at the core of initiatives for democratic decentralization of forest resources management.

Fig. 1.1

Inclusive and complementary political representation (Source: Author’s adaptation based on Pitkin (1967), Young (2000), and Saward (2010))

Chapter Summaries

The chapters of this book are arranged according to their continental location; the African cases come first, followed by the Asian cases, and then the Latin American cases. Following the introduction, Nuesiri in Chap. 2 assesses UN-REDD commitment to strengthen local democracy as a safeguard against elite capture of REDD+ benefits for local people. He does this by examining local representation during the consultative process associated with the design of the Nigeria-REDD proposal. He finds that local representation was through selected individuals from local communities (descriptive representatives), and through customary authority and NGOs (symbolic representatives); elected local government authorities, the substantive representatives of local people were excluded from the consultative process. He also finds that the exclusion of elected local governments is linked to godfather politics in Nigeria, which enables state governors to unfairly subordinate local government authority and constrain their responsiveness to local needs. In approving the Nigeria-REDD proposal, the UN-REDD reinforced power asymmetries between political godfathers and elected local governments, consequently aiding the subversion of local democracy in Nigeria. He asserts that the UN-REDD would be fulfilling its democracy objectives and protecting local people from elite capture of Nigeria-REDD, if it engages substantively with elected local government authorities, following the benchmark set by the European Union Micro Projects Programme.

Samndong in Chap. 3 studies REDD+ in two pilot sites in Equateur province of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). He specifically interrogates community participation through information collected from household questionnaires, interviews, and focus group discussions. He found that community participation in REDD+ in DRC is mere ‘tokenism’. The communities were consulted and informed about REDD+ but did not achieve managerial power and influence over the REDD+ project. The decision for the comm...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Global Forest Governance and Climate Change: Introduction and Overview
• 2. Godfather Politics and Exclusionary Local Representation in REDD+: A Case Study of the Design of the UN-REDD-Supervised Nigeria-REDD Proposal
• 3. The Illusion of Participation: Tokenism in REDD+ Pilot Projects in the Democratic Republic of Congo
• 4. Institutional Choice and Substantive Representation of Local People in Carbon Forestry in Uganda
• 5. Displacement, Power and REDD+: A Forest History of Carbonized Exclusion
• 6. Examining the Supply and Demand of Effective Participation and Representation
• 7. Experience of Participatory Forest Management in India: Lessons for Governance and Institutional Arrangements Under REDD+
• 8. REDD+ and the Reconfiguration of Public Authority in the Forest Sector: A Comparative Case Study of Indonesia and Brazil
• 9. Evolution of the Mexico’s REDD+ Readiness Process Through the Lens of Legitimacy
• 10. When REDD+ Fails to Support Democratic Representation: Legitimizing Non-Democratic Practices in the Amazon
• Back Matter