ast month saw the conclusion of the Egypt COP27 climate summit, with a renewed focus on implementing emission commitments old and new and financing climate mitigation for poor countries bearing the brunt of climate change. While conservation, particularly of earth’s major rainforests, figured heavily, the missing ingredient in the climate debate continues to be the only legitimate avenue for achieving long-lasting policy outcomes: democracy. Critically absent from the debates around climate change action, democratic governance should be the cornerstone of any global climate agenda.
While emissions reduction pledges grab headlines, climate projections rest on assumptions about the absorptive capacity of forests and oceans—the “sponge” to soak up emissions. Thus, agreements such as that between Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Indonesia announced to preserve their respective rainforests are important. But look closer, and even where countries do make commitments, they are often unable to deliver. The biggest risk facing the world’s forests, ecosystems, and biodiversity—and thus, initiatives designed to mitigate climate change—comes from the lack of democratic consolidation, the full application of democratic norms, processes, and institutions. The best way to ensure better environmental outcomes throughout the world is to build stronger, inclusive states that can sustainably deliver on far-reaching agendas.
The scale and richness of forests such as the Amazon, Congo, and the Indonesian islands of Sumatra and Borneo illustrate the incredible challenges to preserving forests. These biomes distinguish themselves from others through their remoteness and vastness, which typically means a lack of state presence including government services, citizen security, and infrastructure. Their resources in terms of mineral reserves, timber and agricultural production are equally immense.
The chronic underdevelopment, poverty, and lawlessness that reigns in these jungles clashes with market forces that place a premium on their resources, incentivizing short-term survival solutions. This includes extractive behaviors from the very communities living in these remote areas, who understandably turn to timber and mineral extraction, animal trafficking, or illicit crops. In the absence of state presence, if forests are not perceived to offer any economic subsistence if left standing, there is little to prevent underprivileged groups from clearing land for more “productive” crops such as cattle, soy, or palm oil.
Today’s disastrous environmental outcomes in the Amazon, Congo, and Sumatra/Borneo, however, are not exclusively the result of these structural conditions. Rather, they stem from governance challenges and the inability of countries to deliver on a vision for the future for these regions. While presidents are democratically elected in remote national capitals, these territories are characterized by insecurity, corruption, and weak local governments. Reversing these trends calls for doubling down on key features of democracy, including checks and balances, consensus-building, transparency, and public participation.
The first step is to rebalance state presence in remote areas. A primary challenge to governing in regions like the Amazon is centralized governance, which weakens the ability of local governments to govern large swaths of territory. In large parts of the Amazon, residents living in remote municipalities have never been to their regional capitals. Basic services, including education, water, electricity, and health facilities, are not present beyond those urban centers. Decentralizing resources and improving coordination among levels of government can expand channels for the involvement of subnational entities in the formulation and implementation of relevant policies. Co-responsibility in the management of the environment can also promote a virtuous cycle for entrusting governments outside the capital with greater means. However, it also requires top-down oversight and judicial control of local administrations to ensure the enforcement of shared environmental rules.
Additionally, an effective and sustainable approach to managing climate change entails ensuring multi-stakeholder buy-in, including of private sector actors. The openness of the democratic process allows for broad-based engagement via the legislative process and additional avenues for providing input, maximizing the chances of a “whole of society” consensus. Central governments need to address the needs and incentives of all stakeholders by jointly devising alternative paths to development and establishing achievable timelines, necessary exceptions, and transition periods.
Lastly, to put pressure on governments to adopt and uphold commitments, citizens and civil society need to have access to accurate and timely information, be consulted in the development and monitoring of conservation, mitigation, and adaptation plans, and be free from harassment and intimidation. This also means reintroducing climate change in the national conversation, allowing for a robust debate without red lines. Decisions perceived to be dictated by “experts” and not subject to democratic debate will be less-effectively implemented. They may even generate public backlash against the whole concept of climate change.
Climate pledges are good, as long as the countries making them can credibly deliver on long-term commitments to environmental protection and sustainable development. Only democracies feature a process for producing legitimate—if occasionally imperfect—responses to the trade-offs that come with any ambitious climate agenda, increasing the likelihood of durable action. Similarly, while autocracies occasionally deliver on climate and environment, the conservation of vast extensions of rainforest demands a degree of institutional coordination and reciprocal oversight, multi-stakeholder agreement and citizen engagement that cannot be achieved outside the democratic system.
To be sure, democratic governance is messy, does not necessarily result in better environmental outcomes, and climate change discussions are already complex enough to make them about democracy credentials. Yet discussions that are ultimately about overcoming collective action problems cannot evade considering the best available tool in the toolkit. As world leaders, scientists, and activists look beyond COP27, linking climate action to the consolidation of democratic states will continue to be a necessary even if improbable task.
a global affairs media network
Democratic Governance Must Underpin Any Global Climate Agenda
Photo by Matthew TenBruggencate via Unsplash.
December 17, 2022
Last month saw the conclusion of the Egypt COP27 climate summit, with a renewed focus on climate action. However, critically absent from these debates, democratic governance should be the cornerstone of any global climate agenda, write Intl. Republican Institute's Casey Cagley and Eguiar Lizundia.
L
ast month saw the conclusion of the Egypt COP27 climate summit, with a renewed focus on implementing emission commitments old and new and financing climate mitigation for poor countries bearing the brunt of climate change. While conservation, particularly of earth’s major rainforests, figured heavily, the missing ingredient in the climate debate continues to be the only legitimate avenue for achieving long-lasting policy outcomes: democracy. Critically absent from the debates around climate change action, democratic governance should be the cornerstone of any global climate agenda.
While emissions reduction pledges grab headlines, climate projections rest on assumptions about the absorptive capacity of forests and oceans—the “sponge” to soak up emissions. Thus, agreements such as that between Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Indonesia announced to preserve their respective rainforests are important. But look closer, and even where countries do make commitments, they are often unable to deliver. The biggest risk facing the world’s forests, ecosystems, and biodiversity—and thus, initiatives designed to mitigate climate change—comes from the lack of democratic consolidation, the full application of democratic norms, processes, and institutions. The best way to ensure better environmental outcomes throughout the world is to build stronger, inclusive states that can sustainably deliver on far-reaching agendas.
The scale and richness of forests such as the Amazon, Congo, and the Indonesian islands of Sumatra and Borneo illustrate the incredible challenges to preserving forests. These biomes distinguish themselves from others through their remoteness and vastness, which typically means a lack of state presence including government services, citizen security, and infrastructure. Their resources in terms of mineral reserves, timber and agricultural production are equally immense.
The chronic underdevelopment, poverty, and lawlessness that reigns in these jungles clashes with market forces that place a premium on their resources, incentivizing short-term survival solutions. This includes extractive behaviors from the very communities living in these remote areas, who understandably turn to timber and mineral extraction, animal trafficking, or illicit crops. In the absence of state presence, if forests are not perceived to offer any economic subsistence if left standing, there is little to prevent underprivileged groups from clearing land for more “productive” crops such as cattle, soy, or palm oil.
Today’s disastrous environmental outcomes in the Amazon, Congo, and Sumatra/Borneo, however, are not exclusively the result of these structural conditions. Rather, they stem from governance challenges and the inability of countries to deliver on a vision for the future for these regions. While presidents are democratically elected in remote national capitals, these territories are characterized by insecurity, corruption, and weak local governments. Reversing these trends calls for doubling down on key features of democracy, including checks and balances, consensus-building, transparency, and public participation.
The first step is to rebalance state presence in remote areas. A primary challenge to governing in regions like the Amazon is centralized governance, which weakens the ability of local governments to govern large swaths of territory. In large parts of the Amazon, residents living in remote municipalities have never been to their regional capitals. Basic services, including education, water, electricity, and health facilities, are not present beyond those urban centers. Decentralizing resources and improving coordination among levels of government can expand channels for the involvement of subnational entities in the formulation and implementation of relevant policies. Co-responsibility in the management of the environment can also promote a virtuous cycle for entrusting governments outside the capital with greater means. However, it also requires top-down oversight and judicial control of local administrations to ensure the enforcement of shared environmental rules.
Additionally, an effective and sustainable approach to managing climate change entails ensuring multi-stakeholder buy-in, including of private sector actors. The openness of the democratic process allows for broad-based engagement via the legislative process and additional avenues for providing input, maximizing the chances of a “whole of society” consensus. Central governments need to address the needs and incentives of all stakeholders by jointly devising alternative paths to development and establishing achievable timelines, necessary exceptions, and transition periods.
Lastly, to put pressure on governments to adopt and uphold commitments, citizens and civil society need to have access to accurate and timely information, be consulted in the development and monitoring of conservation, mitigation, and adaptation plans, and be free from harassment and intimidation. This also means reintroducing climate change in the national conversation, allowing for a robust debate without red lines. Decisions perceived to be dictated by “experts” and not subject to democratic debate will be less-effectively implemented. They may even generate public backlash against the whole concept of climate change.
Climate pledges are good, as long as the countries making them can credibly deliver on long-term commitments to environmental protection and sustainable development. Only democracies feature a process for producing legitimate—if occasionally imperfect—responses to the trade-offs that come with any ambitious climate agenda, increasing the likelihood of durable action. Similarly, while autocracies occasionally deliver on climate and environment, the conservation of vast extensions of rainforest demands a degree of institutional coordination and reciprocal oversight, multi-stakeholder agreement and citizen engagement that cannot be achieved outside the democratic system.
To be sure, democratic governance is messy, does not necessarily result in better environmental outcomes, and climate change discussions are already complex enough to make them about democracy credentials. Yet discussions that are ultimately about overcoming collective action problems cannot evade considering the best available tool in the toolkit. As world leaders, scientists, and activists look beyond COP27, linking climate action to the consolidation of democratic states will continue to be a necessary even if improbable task.
