What Difference Does CBDR Make? A Socio-Legal Analysis of the Role of Differentiation in the Transnational Legal Process for REDD+

Abstract

This article offers a socio-legal analysis of the role played by the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) in the development, diffusion, and implementation of jurisdictional REDD+ activities throughout the developing world. It employs a qualitative research method known as process tracing to uncover whether and, if so, to what extent and how actors have used CBDR to support the emergence and effectiveness of the transnational legal process for REDD+. The article argues that the transnational legal process for REDD+ reflects a conception of CBDR in which developing country governments may take on voluntary commitments to reduce their carbon emissions, with the multilateral, bilateral, and private sources of financial support and technical assistance provided by developed countries, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and corporations. This creative conception and application of CBDR has fostered the construction and diffusion of legal norms for REDD+ because it has influenced the interests, ideas, and identities of public and private actors in the North and South. However, the early challenges associated with the implementation of REDD+ reveal a worrying gap between the financial pledges made by developed countries and the costs associated with the full implementation of REDD+, as well as contradictions in the very way in which the responsibilities of various countries have been defined in the context of REDD+. The analysis has important implications for the transnational governance of REDD+, as well as for scholarship on the role of differentiation in the pursuit of effective and equitable climate change solutions.

The transnational policy process for REDD+ and domestic policy entrepreneurship in developing countries

“…Over the last decade, policy actors from developing countries have participated in countless networks, meetings, and dialogues organized under the auspices of the UNFCCC, the UN-REDD Programme, the World Bank FCPF, and a wide range of other multilateral, bilateral, and private initiatives for REDD+ (Corbera and Schroeder, 2011; Reinecke et al., 2014). These spaces have created important opportunities for these actors to develop and internalize international norms that conceive of REDD+ as a legitimate response that is aligned with prevailing norms concerning the scale of the climate crisis and the legitimate scope of global climate governance (Jodoin and Mason-Case, 2016: 271–272). In developing countries, the internalization of these norms has been most notably reflected in the leadership and rhetoric of government leaders that have expressed an abiding commitment to the implementation of REDD+ and invoked a moral responsibility for combating climate change and protecting the environment (Jodoin and Mason-Case, 2016: 273–274).…”

“…These spaces have created important opportunities for these actors to develop and internalize international norms that conceive of REDD+ as a legitimate response that is aligned with prevailing norms concerning the scale of the climate crisis and the legitimate scope of global climate governance (Jodoin and Mason-Case, 2016: 271–272). In developing countries, the internalization of these norms has been most notably reflected in the leadership and rhetoric of government leaders that have expressed an abiding commitment to the implementation of REDD+ and invoked a moral responsibility for combating climate change and protecting the environment (Jodoin and Mason-Case, 2016: 273–274). Another important international norm that has emerged relates to the importance of recognizing and protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples in the pursuit of REDD+ activities (Jodoin, 2017).…”

“…To be sure, this support has played an important role in the decision of many developing countries to launch new processes to develop and adopt policies for jurisdictional REDD+ (Angelsen, 2016; Brockhaus et al., 2016). The governments of multiple developing countries have initiated jurisdictional REDD+ readiness efforts in order to seize the opportunities that this offered to gain access to financial resources and technical assistance made available by multilateral and bilateral funds and organisations (Jodoin and Mason-Case, 2016: 273). As well, multilateral, bilateral, and non-governmental readiness initiatives have also sought to strengthen the technical capabilities of developing country governments with respect to the implementation of REDD+, especially in terms of MRV and finance (Minang et al., 2014).…”