Multi-level governance and policy integration of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the land use sector in Indonesia

Transcription

1 SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Multi-level governance and policy integration of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the land use sector in Indonesia Monica Di Gregorio, Leandra Fatorelli with Dodik Ridho Nurrochmat, Intan Maya Sari, Sonya Dyah Kusuma Dewi University of Leeds 3 July 2015

2 Research questions Which kind of synergies/trade-offs exist between mitigation (M) and adaptation (A) in forest and agriculture? To what extent are M and A governance structures effectively integrated and policies coherent? What are the main cross-level policy challenges to the integration of M and A? How can these challenges be overcome and existing opportunities for integration be realised?

3 Why should we consider Mitigation and Adaptation in an integrated way? Example of linkages (synergies & trade-offs) between adaptation and mitigation in forestry and agriculture Co-benefits Trade-offs a +A +M m +M +A a +A -M m +M - A AGRIC: Changes in fertilizer and pesticide use, water saving and soil conservation can maintain and sequester carbon (Maraseni et al. 2012) FOREST: Carbon payments can diversify livelihoods and improve economic resilience to climate shocks (Campbell 2009) AGRIC: adaptation in agriculture (nitrogen fertilization, energy-intensive irrigation, expansion in peatland) can increase carbon emissions (Moser 2012) FOREST: Maximizing carbon may reduce options for ecological adaptation (fast growing tree monocultures) (Ravindranath 2007) AGRIC&FOREST: Successful agricultural adaptation can reduce conversion of forests (Lobell et al. 2013) AGRIC&FOREST: Conserving carbon also protects other ecosystems functions and services that facilitate adaptation (e.g. microclimate regulation, wood and fodder as safety nets) (Locatelli et al. 2011) FOREST: Adaptation measures in forestry can decrease carbon stocks or increase the vulnerability of carbon stocks in the long term (e.g. shortening plantation rotation, suppressing fire) (Rosenzweig & Tubiello, 2007) FOREST &AGRIC: Forest and biofuel plantations for climate change mitigation may impede the adaptation of communities (decreased food security, competition for land) (Smith 2010) Small letter: source: e.g. a: adaptation action m: mitigation action Impact Caps: outcomes, e.g. +A: positive adaptation outcomes; +M: positive mitigation outcomes

4 Why investigate multi-level governance? Global benefits Mitigation: carbon emission reductions Global governance UNFCCC, global standards, multi-lateral initiatives Local benefits Adaptation: environmental services, livelihood diversification National governance bilateral initiatives, REDD+ strategies, Adaptation plans and policies Local governance REDD+ and adaptation policies, projects and outcomes

5 Methods Policy documents analysis (26): Content analysis coding for any evidence of references to interactions between M and A of climate change and key land use policy documents Interviews and survey with 120 policy actors at three jurisdictional levels: Information exchanges and collaboration on A and M between policy actors Understanding of climate change adaptation and mitigation, opinions about integrating M and A, challenges and opportunities Indonesia National West Kalimantan Province Kapuas Hulu District

6 Policy Integration (governance structures): Mitigation agenda (REDD+/forest) dominates in land use systems Adaptation is considered important, but limited funding and expertise, focuses on agriculture, little concern/knowledge about adaptation in forests M and A addressed separately apart from Spatial and Development Planning Shift from vertical policy integration to horizontal policy integration: authority over CC policies shifted from President s Office to Ministerial control (Min Forestry and Environment and Min of Nat Development Planning)

7 Policy Coherence (harmonize M + A, and development policy objectives): Adaptation documents discuss co-benefits and trade-offs with mitigation and recognize synergies Mitigation documents ignore adaptation, but stress the requirements that mitigation action should not contradict development objectives Mainstreaming adaptation into development more important than mitigation-development linkages/trade-offs or triple wins Lack of discussion of trade-offs between development objectives and climate change objectives in Development Plans

8 Most influential Policy actors: Up to 2014 Mitigation President's Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight REDD+ agency Center for International Forestry Research Norway Greenpeace Mitigation& Adaptation Ministry of Forestry Ministry of Environment National Climate Change Council Ministry of National Development Planning Governor of West Kalimantan Asian Development Bank GIZ (Germany) World Bank World Wide Fund for Nature Friends of the Earth, Indonesia Adaptation Ministry of Agriculture Disaster Management Agency Meteorological and Geophysics Agency World Agroforestry Center

9 Most influential Policy actors: Since 2015 Mitigation President's Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight REDD+ agency Center for International Forestry Research Norway Greenpeace? Mitigation& Adaptation Ministry of Environment & Forestry National Climate Change Council Ministry of National Development Planning Governor of West Kalimantan Asian Development Bank GIZ (Germany) World Bank World Wide Fund for Nature Friends of the Earth, Indonesia Adaptation Ministry of Agriculture Disaster Management Agency Meteorological and Geophysics Agency World Agroforestry Center

10 Information and collaboration networks no organizations density connectedness fragmentation Information exchange on mitigation Information exchange on adaptation Information on joint mitigation and adaptation approaches/actions Collaboration on mitigation Collaboration on adaptation Collaboration on joint mitigation and adaptation approaches/ actions Information networks are more dense than collaboration networks Exchanges of information and collaborations on mitigation are more widespread than on adaptation. Exchanges of information and collaboration on joint approaches to mitigation and adaptation are quite limited

11 Multi-level governance Cross-level interactions among scale-dependent regimes can have 5 patterns (Young 2006): Dominance (national level actors); separation; merger; negotiated agreement (competition for control); system change (led by nat actors) The mechanisms that determine which of these patterns will occur include: authority/power differentials: national state actors dominate interactions (M) no transfer of resources yet, adaptation actors less powerful and less well resourced decentralization: high levels of decentralization, but strong recentralization trends in climate change mitigation (REDD+) contrasting discourses: no polarization of discourse, but nat level more science framing, local level limited understanding of climate change adaptation (and mitigation) policy coalitions: high agreement that M and A should be pursued together, but in practice main policy actors and forums pursue them separated.

12 Key challenges in linking adaptation and mitigation Linking adaptation and mitigation is difficult... agree disagree ranking index because coordinating the multiple actors across sectors and scales is very complex high importance because different actors have different priorities with regards to adaptation and mitigation because of insufficient technical knowledge and guidance about addressing them together because there is little dialogue between adaptation and mitigation actors because current climate change policy frameworks treat them as separate action arenas because it makes implementation more complex low importance

13 Conclusion Policy Integration: Dismanteling of vertical policy integration of CC threatens to slow down progress in the mitigation agenda. Adaptation policy actors call for integration of adaptation with mitigation Policy Coherence: Biggest challenge is to reconcile Development objectives and Mitigation targets no comprehensive analysis of how to address tradeoffs. Policy Actors and centralization: Ministry of Environment and Forestry by far the most influential actor in mitigation, tendency to recentralize control in ministries and central government. Cross-level interactions: Contested Dominance (national level actors): Recentralization of forest management decisions, and limited understanding of climate change adaptation at local level Are there policy coalitions that can counter recentralization?

14 Thank you! This research is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council of the United Kingdom [grant number ES/K00879X/1] and the Australian Government and is a collaborative project with University of Leeds, CIFOR and the Bogor Agricultural University in Indonesia

15 Determinants of cross-level relations Dominance (power differentials across scales) based on: Reputational power Centrality, Brokerage across levels.. Coalitions: based on density of interactions Do coalitions cross levels? Do dense interactions reflect a common understanding of synergies?