Suchergebnisse

This paper addresses the question of legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia. It develops a legitimacy framework that builds on elements of Scharpf (J Eur Pub Policy 4(1):18–36, 1997) input and output legitimacy concept and the political economy lens described by Brockhaus and Angelsen (Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices, CIFOR, Bogor, 2012). Using data collected through key informant interviews and focus groups, we identify and explore stakeholder perceptions of legitimacy. The analysis reveals a complex interplay between input and output legitimacy, finding that state, non-state and hybrid actors perceive output legitimacy (i.e. project outcomes) as highly dependent on the level of input legitimacy achieved during the governance process. Non-state actors perceive proxies for input legitimacy, such as participation and inclusion of local people, as goals in themselves. In the main, they perceive inclusion to be integral to the empowerment of local people. They perceive output legitimacy as less important because of the intangibility of REDD+ outcomes at this stage in the process. The findings also highlight the challenges associated with measuring the legitimacy of REDD+ governance in Indonesia.

Background: The transition of the Ruhr region in Germany from a hard coal belt into a knowledge-based economy with a dynamic service sector and state of the art universities over the past 60–80 years has been widely touted as a successful example of how just and fair low carbon energy transitions can unfold. Methods: This paper leverages documentary analysis of data across a wide array of sources to test these claims and identify lessons by creating a novel just energy transition framework. Results: The study finds economic motivation, mindset and reorientation—not environmental concerns—to be the defining features for at least the first two decades of this shift. The lack of willingness to acknowledge environmental impacts and market realities has delayed the transition and led to wasteful allocation of resources towards supporting the hard coal mining industry. The prominence given to distributional justice cushions the victims of this transition financially, but does not allow a broad based coalition to advance the transition process. It is in the second phase (mid-1980s onwards that we see procedural aspects of justice come forth and support greater ownership and sustainability of the transition to emerge, while the evidence of recognition justice continues to be scant. Conclusions: There are many nuanced successes in the Ruhr's example, along with some failures worth highlighting. It is in the breakdown of this transition into two distinct phases and their nuances (particularly in the domain of justice) that fresh insights emerge and allow for a better understanding of what constitutes a suitable energy transition in a particular socio-economic and political context. As the international community embarks on ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets, it can maximise the benefits and minimise the damages and costs by considering these realities on the ground.

This article introduces the special issue "REDD+ crossroads post Paris: politics, lessons and interplays". The contributions to the special issue demonstrate, first, that REDD+ design in the studied countries has generally lacked social legitimacy and sidelined key actors that have an important role in shaping land-use sector dynamics. Second, they show that REDD+ early actions have tended to oversimplify local realities and have been misaligned with other policy goals and local needs. Third, REDD+ efforts have remained constrained to the forestry or climate mitigation policy sectors and have thus suffered from a lack of harmonization across local, national and international concerns, specifically of contradictory policy. As REDD+ moves from its preparedness to its implementation phase, more research efforts should be aimed at analysing the power relations that underpin and determine the design and implementation of REDD+ policies and actions, the potential for and limits to the vertical and horizontal harmonization of land-use policies and management, and the processes of resistance to or accommodation of REDD+ practices on the ground. In doing so, we advocate for multi-and transdisciplinary research that does not take for granted the benefits of REDD+ and which critically scrutinizes the multiple goals of this ambitious international policy framework, and where it sits within the broader Paris Agreement implementation agenda.

This paper addresses the question of legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia. It develops a legitimacy framework that builds on elements of Scharpf (J Eur Pub Policy 4(1):18–36, 1997) input and output legitimacy concept and the political economy lens described by Brockhaus and Angelsen (Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices, CIFOR, Bogor, 2012). Using data collected through key informant interviews and focus groups, we identify and explore stakeholder perceptions of legitimacy. The analysis reveals a complex interplay between input and output legitimacy, finding that state, non-state and hybrid actors perceive output legitimacy (i.e. project outcomes) as highly dependent on the level of input legitimacy achieved during the governance process. Non-state actors perceive proxies for input legitimacy, such as participation and inclusion of local people, as goals in themselves. In the main, they perceive inclusion to be integral to the empowerment of local people. They perceive output legitimacy as less important because of the intangibility of REDD+ outcomes at this stage in the process. The findings also highlight the challenges associated with measuring the legitimacy of REDD+ governance in Indonesia.

Unidad de excelencia María de Maeztu MdM-2015-0552 ; This article introduces the special issue "REDD+ crossroads post Paris: politics, lessons and interplays". The contributions to the special issue demonstrate, first, that REDD+ design in the studied countries has generally lacked social legitimacy and sidelined key actors that have an important role in shaping land-use sector dynamics. Second, they show that REDD+ early actions have tended to oversimplify local realities and have been misaligned with other policy goals and local needs. Third, REDD+ efforts have remained constrained to the forestry or climate mitigation policy sectors and have thus suffered from a lack of harmonization across local, national and international concerns, specifically of contradictory policy. As REDD+ moves from its preparedness to its implementation phase, more research efforts should be aimed at analysing the power relations that underpin and determine the design and implementation of REDD+ policies and actions, the potential for and limits to the vertical and horizontal harmonization of land-use policies and management, and the processes of resistance to or accommodation of REDD+ practices on the ground. In doing so, we advocate for multi-and transdisciplinary research that does not take for granted the benefits of REDD+ and which critically scrutinizes the multiple goals of this ambitious international policy framework, and where it sits within the broader Paris Agreement implementation agenda.

This article challenges the assumption that the boundaries of state versus non-state and public versus private can readily be drawn. It argues that the roles of actors -- as state or non-state -- and the forms of authority -- public or private -- are not pre-given but are forged through the process of governing. Drawing on neo-Gramscian and governmentality perspectives, it suggests that a more dynamic account of the state can offer a more nuanced means of analysing the process of governing global environmental affairs. In order to understand this process and the outcomes of governing climate change, we argue that analysis should focus on the hegemonic projects and programmes through which the objects and subjects of governing are constituted and contested, and through which the form and nature of the state and authority are accomplished. We suggest that this is a process achieved and held in place through 'forging alignment' between diverse social and material entities in order to achieve the 'right disposition of things' through which the will to govern climate change can be realized (Murray Li, 2007a). We illustrate this argument by examining the governing of climate change in two global cities, London and Los Angeles. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Sage Publications Ltd. & ECPR-European Consortium for Political Research.]

This paper investigates the role of forest tenure in creating a sustainable and effective mechanism on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). It draws together existing knowledge and experience of forest tenure issues as they play out in real contexts, and evaluates their implications for REDD+. In particular, it challenges the argument that simply harmonising different tenure systems will lead to improved tenure security and ensure that REDD+ does not disenfranchise local communities. By bringing to light the ways in which local tenure could shape the implementation of REDD+, this paper provides insights that can contribute to the design of a sustainable, effective and equitable REDD+ agreement. The findings suggest that a more nuanced and locally specific understanding of tenure security and ownership are required in order to create favourable grounds for REDD+ implementation.

This article challenges the assumption that the boundaries of state versus non-state and public versus private can readily be drawn. It argues that the roles of actors — as state or non-state — and the forms of authority — public or private — are not pre-given but are forged through the process of governing. Drawing on neo-Gramscian and governmentality perspectives, it suggests that a more dynamic account of the state can offer a more nuanced means of analysing the process of governing global environmental affairs. In order to understand this process and the outcomes of governing climate change, we argue that analysis should focus on the hegemonic projects and programmes through which the objects and subjects of governing are constituted and contested, and through which the form and nature of the state and authority are accomplished. We suggest that this is a process achieved and held in place through 'forging alignment' between diverse social and material entities in order to achieve the 'right disposition of things' through which the will to govern climate change can be realized (Murray Li, 2007a). We illustrate this argument by examining the governing of climate change in two global cities, London and Los Angeles.