Building authority and legitimacy in transnational climate change governance: Evidence from the Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force
Introduction
The number of transnational climate change initiatives (TCCIs) has accelerated in recent decades, shifting the global climate change regime from one based on formal treaties to a transnational regime complex that includes networks of public and private actors engaged across borders in climate actions to advance public goals (Abbott, 2012, Betsill et al., 2015, Bulkeley et al., 2014a, Kuyper et al., 2018, Roger et al., 2017). The 2015 Paris Agreement formally recognises the value of climate initiatives led by actors other than nation states and encourages independent climate action by ‘non-Party stakeholders’, including ‘civil society, the private sector, financial institutions, cities and other subnational authorities’ and invites them to ‘scale up their efforts’ (UNFCCC, 2016). Initiatives vary in focus from mitigation to adaptation measures and may have specific sectoral foci (Hale, 2016).
The performance of these initiatives has so far been mixed, which raises questions about whether such initiatives can command and deliver substantial global climate change solutions (Hale and Roger, 2014). Two deeply interlinked features of power, namely authority – the likelihood to command obedience – and legitimacy – the moral acceptance of authority –, are indispensable to effective governance (Uphoff, 1989), and scholars have questioned the extent to which TCCIs possess these features (Bäckstrand and Kuyper, 2017, Bulkeley et al., 2014a, Koppell, 2008).
The sources of authority and legitimacy differ across TCCIs, depending on who the members are (Nasiritousi et al., 2016, Pattberg and Stripple, 2008). With regards to sources of authority there is a fundamental difference between private or hybrid (joint private and public) transnational initiatives and transgovernmental networks (TGNs) that include exclusively public actors. Only TGNs can draw on individual members’ legal authority. TGNs differ also in terms of legitimacy from hybrid networks, because TGNs are less representative of society at large, yet in many cases members are democratically elected. Composition of transnational initiatives also affects the main functions that they specialize in, which may in turn affect their legitimacy and ability to deliver public goals (Bulkeley et al., 2014a). TGNs formed exclusively by subnational governments are less numerous than private and hybrid networks, but their number has grown over time.
This paper contributes to filling two knowledge gaps regarding the role of subnational governments in transnational climate change governance. First, it identifies how TGNs formed exclusively by subnational public actors exert authority and claim legitimacy and how input and output-oriented legitimacy interact in these initiatives. Second, the study offers a global rather than exclusively or mainly northern perspective of TCCIs through an in-depth investigation of the Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force (GCF), which is the main TGN bringing together subnational governments around climate mitigation in tropical forests.
The paper first investigates the main sources of authority and legitimacy claims of TGNs and highlights features that distinguish them from hybrid and private initiatives. It distinguishes between the legal and extra-legal sources of authority of individual members and of the collective network entity and focuses on the two dimensions of legitimacy. It then investigates these in the case study of the GCF. After presenting the methods, the paper explores the sources of authority that the GCF draws on, how it legitimizes its governance activities and associated challenges. The discussion identifies and explores three key trade-offs emerging from the analysis across the two dimensions of legitimacy and related to uneven political geographies.
Section snippets
Authority in transgovernmental climate change networks
Authority can be defined as ‘the ability to induce deference in others’ (Avant et al., 2010, Koppell, 2008). Such deference confers power, indicating that authority in practice reflects the institutionalization of power. The global governance literature discusses a variety of typologies of authority (Avant et al., 2010, Barnett and Finnemore, 2004, Lake, 2010, Zürn et al., 2012). One broad distinction is between legal and extralegal sources of authority (Simon et al., 1991). Legal or formal
Case study: The Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force
The empirical analysis focuses on the main TGN working on climate and tropical forests formed exclusively by subnational governments, the majority of which are from the Global South: The Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force (GCF). Nine subnational governments (2nd tier governments, such as states, provinces or regions) from Brazil, Indonesia and the US established the GCF in 2009. At the time of this study it had grown to 38 members from 10 countries including 9 members from Brazil, 7 each
Methods
The empirical analysis is based on text analysis of the GCF documents, such as governance and stakeholder policies, declarations, strategic plans, and members’ speeches at GCF events, semi-structured interviews and a short survey on the GCF’s goals with GCF related actors. A total of 38 interviews with the GCF delegates (33) from all countries represented in the task force at the time, one vice-governor, the GCF secretariat (3) and one supporting organization were undertaken between 2017 and
The building of the GCF’s authority
The GCF claims authority from both legal and extralegal sources and it primarily targets global climate change actors, including UNFCCC institutions, foreign governments, intergovernmental organizations and large-scale businesses. Specifically, it draws on three sources linked to members’ individual legal authority: members’ autonomy in political decision making of its, the principle of subsidiarity justifying their autonomy, and the significance of the GCF’s territorial representation. But
Discussion
Below we discuss three main trade-offs related to authority and dimensions of legitimacy for TGNs that emerged from the above analysis of the GCF and that hamper the delivery of effective and equitable climate action (Biermann and Gupta, 2011). We also reflect on uneven political geographies shaping those TGNs whose actors are predominantly from the Global South.
Conclusion
The last decades have seen the emergence of a variety of TCCIs. However, TGNs whose members are mainly from the Global South are quite rare and face unique opportunities and challenges with regard to asserting their authority and maintaining their legitimacy. Authority and legitimacy are important because they impact the ability of networks to support and deliver effective and equitable climate change responses. Our study offers four insights on some major challenges and trade-offs. First, as a
Author contribution
Monica Di Gregorio has formulated the research and methods, undertaken the investigation and contributed most of the writing. Maria Brockhaus and Heike Schroeder have contributed to the conceptualization of the research. Kate Massarella has undertaken the data analysis and contributed to the writing of the draft and final paper. Heike Schroeder, Maria Brockhaus and Thu Thuy Pham have contributed to reviewing and editing of successive drafts of the paper.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
A high number of people, including students from the University of Leeds, contributed to data collection efforts, transcribing, translating and management of the data. Thanks for the excellent work of Freya Elliott, Gabriela Simonet, Marina Cromberg, Natalia Cisneros, Emilio Perales, Christine Wairata, Ana Clara Rezende, Evaristo Carlos, Anthony Zineski, Florie Chazarin and Mariyah Intan Ravenska. A special thanks goes to the GCF delegates, members, coordinators, secretariat and supporters who
References (101)
Global forest conservation initiatives as spaces for participation in Colombia and Costa Rica
Geoforum
(2015)- et al.
Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: a research framework
Ecol. Econ.
(2011) Beyond copenhagen: REDD plus, agriculture, adaptation strategies and poverty
Global Environ. Change
(2009)- et al.
Governing and implementing REDD+
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2011) - et al.
In pursuit of carbon accountability: the politics of REDD+ measuring, reporting and verification systems
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
(2012) - et al.
Policy innovation in a changing climate: sources, patterns and effects
Global Environ. Change-Hum. Policy Dimensions
(2014) REDD+, transparency, participation and resource rights: the role of law
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2011)- et al.
Climate policy innovation in the South – Domestic and international determinants of renewable energy policies in developing and emerging countries
Global Environ. Change
(2014) The transnational regime complex for climate change
Environ. Plann. C Government Policy
(2012)Sovereignty regimes: territoriality and state authority in contemporary world politics
Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.
(2005)
Lost geographies of power
Transnational climate governance
Global Environ. Polit.
Who Governs the Globe?
Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness
Eur. Environ.
Accountability of networked climate governance: the rise of transnational climate partnerships
Global Environ. Polit.
Democracy and global enviornmental politics
The democratic legitimacy of orchestration: the UNFCCC, non-state actors, and transnational climate governance
Environ. Polit.
California’s cap-and-trade system: diffusion and lessons
Global Environ. Polit.
Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics
Pursuing an indigenous platform: exploring opportunities and constraints for indigenous participation in the UNFCCC
Global Environ. Polit.
Multisectoral networks in global governance: towards a pluralistic system of accountability
Govern. Opposit.
Legitimacy in intergovernmental and non-state global governance
Rev. Int. Polit. Econ.
Legitimacy problems and responses in global environmental governance
Building productive links between the UNFCCC and the broader global climate governance landscape
Global Environ. Polit.
Transnational networks and global environmental governance: the cities for climate protection program
Int. Stud. Quart.
Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change
Global Govern. Rev. Multilateralism Int. Organ.
Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework 1
Eur. Law J.
Jurisdictional approaches to REDD+ and low emissions development: Progress and prospects. Working Paper
Governance and the geography of authority: modalities of authorisation and the transnational governing of climate change
Environ. Plann. A Econ. Space
Transnational Climate Change Governance
The uneven geography of transnational climate change governance
Authority of second-tier governments to reduce deforestation in 30 tropical countries
Front. For. Global Change
Foreign aid in Africa: Learning from Country Experiences
The legitimacy of the collective authority of the Security Council
Am. J. Int. Law
Effective and geographically balanced? An output-based assessment of non-state climate actions
Clim. Policy
All male panels? Representation and democratic legitimacy
Am. J. Polit. Sci.
Deliberative Democracy and Beyond : Liberals, Critics, Contestations
A new framework for understanding subnational policy-making and local choice
Policy Stud.
Power and purpose in transgovernmental networks: insight from the global nonproliferation regime
The Practice of Political Authority: Authority and the Authoritative
Accountability and abuses of power in world politics
Am. Polit. Sci. Rev.
Cited by (14)
Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review
2022, Ecosystem ServicesCitation Excerpt :As such, it is our hope to stimulate new research efforts directed at ES other than the central themes described above in order to engender more pathways towards forest conservation. Such effects may be stimulated domestically through jurisdictional approaches to building a sustainable development model for tropical forests (e.g. Di Gregorio, Massarella, Schroeder, Brockhaus, & Pham, 2020) or internationally through the growing efforts to restrict trade of commodities linked to (illegal) deforestation (e.g. Schilling-Vacaflor & Lenschow, 2021). To use the alterative map presented here to address research gaps in a way that impacts policy-making, it is advisable that research groups and organizations, domestic or foreign, do so with an emphasis on policy-relevance for producing new ES knowledge.
Is voluntarism an effective and legitimate way of governing climate adaptation? A study of private forest owners in Sweden
2022, Forest Policy and EconomicsCitation Excerpt :New governance modes moving away from top-down regulatory approaches to decentralized, multi-level governance, with multiple-actor participation and network governance are suggested to better meet these challenges. The effectiveness and legitimacy of governance can be considered core principles in resource governance (Pellizzoni, 2004; Lockwood, 2010; Di Gregorio et al., 2020). Effectiveness of policy concerns how reliably an instrument can bring expected outcomes, in this case adaptation to climate change (e.g., Taylor et al., 2012).
From collaboration to contestation? Perceptions of legitimacy and effectiveness in post-Paris climate governance
2021, Earth System GovernanceCitation Excerpt :However, the literature is split on whether broadly inclusive processes will be effective in curbing emissions. On the one hand, the literature on collaborative governance suggests input and throughput legitimacy – the inclusion of actors in deliberative, transparent, and accountable ways – will generate effective policy outcomes (Mena and Palazzo 2012; Hogl et al., 2012; Di Gregorio et al., 2020; Jager et al., 2020). On the other hand, alternate literature suggests that bringing a wide range of actors together with diverse interests highlights differences, deepens conflicts of interest, narrows win-sets, and stymies collective efforts (Hovi et al., 2019; Streck 2020; Allan 2019).
Climate change governance: Responding to an existential crisis
2021, The Impacts of Climate Change: A Comprehensive Study of Physical, Biophysical, Social, and Political IssuesReproducing injustice: Why recognition matters in conservation project evaluation
2020, Global Environmental ChangeCitation Excerpt :Or are they just being used to demonstrate success (Svarstad and Benjaminsen, 2017)? A reframing of the evaluation process itself would then be required; shifting the focus from upward accountability to the donors to downward accountability to the project recipients and other local stakeholders (Di Gregorio et al., 2020). It would also require framing projects as dynamic objects that intersect with the complex histories and contexts of people and ecosystems, and that influence and are influenced by broader social and political processes, rather than framing them as isolated entities contained in time and space (Asiyanbi and Massarella, 2020).