Climate Partnership Research Articles

The European Union’s climate policy towards Ukraine: normative power Europe in action?

The EU’s aspirations for leadership are also evident in regional and global climate policy, especially given the urgency of the problem of rising global temperatures. Since 2014, EU member states have been actively involved in shaping the organisation’s legislative framework on climate policy. This article set out to determine when the EU gained the capability to act as a normative green power and to assess whether the EU acted as an established normative power in forming a climate partnership with Ukraine from the 1990s to the first half of 2024. The research is organized into two chapters. Chapter 1 explores two dimensions of the behavioral logic of different foreign policy actors: norm compliance and norm diffusion. Normative actors of foreign policy, unlike non-normative ones, are guided by the logic of appropriateness in the process of compliance with norms and the logic of argumentation in the process of diffusion of norms. Chapter 2 identifies the periods when the EU complied with climate norms according to the logic of appropriateness and spread climate norms in Ukraine according to the logic of arguing. After analyzing two dimensions of the EU’s behavioral logic in detail, it can be concluded that it was only after 2019 that the EU began to act as an established normative power in building a climate partnership with Ukraine. In other words, from this point onward, the EU both complied with climate norms according to the logic of appropriateness and diffused them in Ukraine according to the logic of arguing. The European Climate Law, enacted in 2021, further demonstrated the EU’s dedication to complying with climate norms based on the logic of appropriateness, establishing legislative obligations to achieve climate neutrality by 2050.

From One Project to Another: Unintended Consequences and People’s Expectation of Climate Mitigation Project in Central Kalimantan

This paper discusses the dynamics of environmental interventions supported by aid projects and community responses as the subject of intervention. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork, I looked into how connections between local and global entities occurred, between the local villagers in Central Kalimantan and the climate mitigation project of REDD +. Both of these entities met when the global discourse on climate change started to gain ground. This paper discusses how environmental interventions lead to different expectations and unintended consequences. I see community responses as choices and decisions which were historically constructed. These choices, expectations, and decisions are related to people’s experience with previous intervention agents and local livelihood dynamics. This local-global interaction has yielded unintended outcomes and led to different expectations for a REDD+’s demonstration activities project. When these two entities - local people and KFCP (Kalimantan Forest Climate Partnership) - meet in the global agenda to mitigate climate change, friction emerges due to a variety of interests in the village. My findings demonstrate how a reforestation program could lead to a socio-economic inequality. Land conflicts are likely to occur because of alternative livelihood programs which introduced rubber seeds.

The Kake Climate Partnership: Implementing a knowledge co-production framework to provide climate services in Southeast Alaska

This paper provides a case study analysis of knowledge co-production with an Indigenous community and Tribe in Southeast Alaska. The 24-month study provided climate services and information in support of climate adaptation and mitigation with community identified priorities of food sovereignty and food security. Our objectives are to (1) describe an application of a theoretical framework that is specific to co-production among Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners, and (2) reflect on the ways in which this application supports relevance and use of climate services in an Indigenous community. Methods included text analysis of written research logs, review of monthly project briefings and structured discussions among a diverse author team. We found that co-production can be used to explicitly define a collective vision among partners that is a transformative way of doing applied climate and environmental science. As such, the role of the university researcher shifted from focusing on personal research interests to a focus on supporting local needs and priorities. When the climate services process is centered on Tribal and community priorities and locally identified science needs, the climate science aspect becomes just one element in the implementation of a larger local vision and goals. Challenges our team encountered during the study were related to logistics, communication, juggling priorities of multiple partners, capacity, and conducting community-based research during a global pandemic. We recommend that future efforts to co-produce climate services through research, adaptation planning, and mitigation be institutionalized and maintained over decadal, not annual, timescales.

Императив сотрудничества Россия — Евросоюз в сфере климатической политики сохраняется

After February 24, 2022, as a result of the confl ict in Ukraine, the situation in Europe and the world as a whole has undergone signifi cant changes, moving the issues of the climate agenda away from the priority list. But political-military aggravation in Europe does not eliminate climate change problems. The authors summarize the implications of the EU Green Deal for Russia and propose two scenarios for the possible collaboration between two actors: climate partnership and «business as usual». The main parameters of the two scenarios are outlined. Though climate partnership scenario seemed unrealistic by early June 2022, cooperation on the green agenda remains vital for both sides both in terms of dealing with global and regional challenges and for stabilizing Russia-EU interaction as a whole. The authors suggest recommendations to help Moscow and Brussels construct an optimal cooperation on climate in the medium-term perspective. The article is based on a study completed in 2021.

China–EU Climate Complex Interdependence Amid COVID-19 and Geopolitical Tensions: Prospects for Future

The world is facing multiple challenges: Climate change, biodiversity loss, and extreme environmental degradation. Moreover, it has entered a new era marked by greater instability and uncertainty, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia–Ukraine conflict, and other geopolitical tensions. Relations between China and the European Union (EU) cannot stay immune amid these changes. In order to achieve climate neutrality at an early date, despite having different political institutions, domestic priorities, economic systems, and diverse values, both Beijing and Brussels are managing their bilateral ties and leading international efforts at climate mitigation. However, escalating rifts, different perceptions, and opposing domestic and global approaches are undercutting the efficacy of their partnership. This paper aims to deeply evaluate their climate partnership based on a common stance of generating a low-carbon economy and green transition amid geopolitical tensions, great power rivalry, and post-pandemic uncertainty. With suitable vision and strong commitments, China and the EU recognize a “win–win” opportunity in the green transition. So, regardless of mounting pressures, there is a chance that China–EU relations will not deteriorate considerably. Although geopolitical circumstances might not allow for a smooth transition, both can still reap real benefits from a deep interdependence on certain key issues.

Changing Architecture of Georgian Renewable Energy Normative System: The Dos and Don’ts from the European Union

In quest of its energy policy intertwined with national climate strategy, Georgia has endeavoured to modernize the energy normative framework with the special focus on renewables as the fastest growing source of energy in the country. On the flip side, the European Union, as a ‘regulatory superpower’ urges the third countries to intensify their efforts alongside the EU and expands internal energy law and policy application to non-Member States. In this natural affinity, the EU-Georgia energy and climate partnership comes as no surprise cooperation anchored by the so-called EU’s conditionality policy. This article offers a bird’s eye view of Georgia’s energy sector emphasizing on the emergence of new renewable energy legal regime that is designed in response to the EU course. The article also displays some of the future trends zooming in on a flagship European Green Deal initiative and examines its possible implications for the country. In a nutshell, legal impact analysis aiming to record and explain how a particular law or rather a group of subject-linked laws (EU energy law) works within a certain geographical setting (in this case Georgia). Energy law, EU law, renewable energy, climate change, Europeanization, European Green Deal, Clean Energy Package, Georgia

Can public agencies facilitate efficient sustainable energy strategies? A climate partnership model

ABSTRACT Can public agencies efficient facilitate sustainable energy strategies that can be used to increase the efficiency of global climate policy? We focus on the specific case of climate partnership between Denmark, a global leader within wind power, and China, the world’s largest CO2 emitter. Based on theory and empirical data, we argue that the strategy of climate partnership can help both partners obtain a more sustainable energy policy with a larger positive effect on climate change as well as increase the income of both state and businesses through an increased level of green exports. The climate partnership model between Denmark and China, as facilitated by the Danish Energy Agency, creates such a win-win situation supported by the main stakeholders. This low-cost policy suggests that public agencies worldwide such as the European External Action Service (EEAS) should expand the number of such efficient climate partnerships.

Contested values and climate change mitigation in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia

Contested values and climate change mitigation in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia

The invisible commodity: Local experiences with forest carbon offsetting in Indonesia

A core component of the Paris Agreement is reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). Originally envisioned as a form of payments for ecosystem services, REDD+ has played out in a myriad of ways on the ground. Examining the transition of REDD+ from theory to practice, this article provides an ethnographic account of local experiences with the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership in Indonesia. Challenges with the invisibility of “carbon” as a resource—both literally and figuratively—was a common theme as community members questioned the feasibility of carbon as a commodity and expressed concerns that if REDD+ did succeed, their land rights might be usurped by more powerful interests. Concurrent to REDD+, communities were navigating imminent threats from forest fires and oil palm expansion. Village government leaders saw REDD+ as a potential buffer against these threats, but due to a history of failed development interventions they proceeded carefully in REDD+. Because the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership was funded by bi-lateral aid, it was less susceptible to fluctuations in the carbon market but more vulnerable to changes in Australia’s administration and aid priorities, which ultimately led to the project’s closure in 2014. Since the project’s closure, villages have experienced the expansion of oil palm plantations onto community lands, and local forests and croplands have been engulfed in massive peatland fires—both threats that REDD+ was designed to confront. A key lesson from the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership is that if the international community wants to work with local communities to make a lasting impact, it is essential that their engagement be built upon commitment, transparency, and trust.

Learning through practice? Learning from the REDD+ demonstration project, Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP) in Indonesia

Despite a growing recognition of the importance of social learning in governing and managing land use, the understanding and practice of learning has received limited attention from researchers. In global environmental programs and projects aimed at supporting sustainable land use in developing countries, learning is often promoted but without explicit learning goals. The focus may be on capacity building and community participation, and on testing policy tools, rather than on collaborative social learning. In this study, we looked behind the rhetoric of learning in the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP), a large demonstration project for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) in Indonesia. The novelty of such mechanisms, linked to international forest carbon outcomes, means that learning lessons provides a rationale for REDD+ pilot activities. We used a qualitative approach to examine the nature and type of learning that occurred in the KFCP. While the stated project aims were to support policy experimentation and apply learning, the project design was highly technical, and project decision-making did not explicitly encourage joint problem solving. Despite the project’s shortcomings, we identified that learning did occur by the end of the project in ways that were different to the initial goals. Our findings suggest that flexibility and openness in project design and implementation can enable different local actors to define shared learning agendas in ways that are meaningful for them. Designing and implementing environmental projects, and learning goals within them, should attend to the needs and aspirations of those who will have to live with their long-term consequences. Learning should be integrated into international environmental programs and projects at all levels, including for policy and funding bodies, rather than focusing on local capacity building and similar project ‘benefits’. Interviewees’ eagerness to learn suggests that building approaches to social learning into program design has the potential to yield opportunities for learning beyond REDD+ to other forms of policy experimentation and governance innovations.

Deliberative engagement and REDD+ in Indonesia

Processes of stakeholder engagement and free prior and informed consent (FPIC) are a key feature of the global climate program Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). In Indonesia, governments, multilateral/bilateral agencies and NGOs have applied engagement and FPIC in the development of REDD+ initiatives at national and sub-national scales. This article develops a theoretical framework by adapting governmentality to deliberative democracy and then analyses how participation and engagement are used as powerful tools to govern the introduction of REDD+. The framework is applied to two sub-national REDD+ initiatives, the Central Sulawesi Pilot Province and the Kalimantan Forest and Climate Partnership. The engagement and participatory forums employed in these cases operate to alter and discipline the activities of local agents who regulate, manage and use forestry resources. They provide a political space to introduce new knowledge and external narratives on appropriate and legitimate ways to govern land-use development. As a highly managed post-political domain they enable contested issues around forests to be debated and potentially resolved, but within a prescribed managerial framework focussed on carbon mitigation. Through engagement and discursive interaction the multiple landholders, communities, businesses and government agencies are activated as subjects and citizens of these new carbon based endeavours. Those applying engagement and FPIC need to recognise the unbalanced power relations inherent within these processes; and ensure they form an integral part of a much broader and longer term deliberative exchange, rather than required steps along the trajectory of project or program delivery.

Does working on-call from home affect salivary alpha-amylase profiles?

Processes of stakeholder engagement and free prior and informed consent (FPIC) are a key feature of the global climate program Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). In Indonesia, governments, multilateral/bilateral agencies and NGOs have applied engagement and FPIC in the development of REDD+ initiatives at national and sub-national scales. This article develops a theoretical framework by adapting governmentality to deliberative democracy and then analyses how participation and engagement are used as powerful tools to govern the introduction of REDD+. The framework is applied to two sub-national REDD+ initiatives, the Central Sulawesi Pilot Province and the Kalimantan Forest and Climate Partnership. The engagement and participatory forums employed in these cases operate to alter and discipline the activities of local agents who regulate, manage and use forestry resources. They provide a political space to introduce new knowledge and external narratives on appropriate and legitimate ways to govern land-use development. As a highly managed post-political domain they enable contested issues around forests to be debated and potentially resolved, but within a prescribed managerial framework focussed on carbon mitigation. Through engagement and discursive interaction the multiple landholders, communities, businesses and government agencies are activated as subjects and citizens of these new carbon based endeavours. Those applying engagement and FPIC need to recognise the unbalanced power relations inherent within these processes; and ensure they form an integral part of a much broader and longer term deliberative exchange, rather than required steps along the trajectory of project or program delivery.

Social learning through a REDD+ ‘village agreement’: Insights from the KFCP in Indonesia

AbstractThis paper examines the process for establishing a ‘village agreement’ using the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP) as a case study. REDD+ is designed as a ‘performance‐based’ mechanism and requires a contractual agreement between the parties involved. Since its implementation will affect the life of forest‐dependent communities, it is vital that villagers have sufficient ability to negotiate their interests during the agreement process. This paper investigates the degree of ‘social learning’ essential for developing actors' capacity to negotiate rules and interests with outsiders involved in the agreement process (between KFCP and the seven villages involved) and how this meshes with notions of ‘participation’. It found that while ‘social learning’ occurred as a result of the well‐designed participatory process conducted by KFCP, villagers' ability to secure their interests was influenced by a learning experience accumulated from their previous engagement with several development/conservation projects. This finding contributes to literature by emphasising how historical context plays a significant role in the success of present learning and the efficacy or otherwise of a contractual agreement. Therefore historical aspects should be taken into account in site selection and the design of future REDD+ projects.

Climate change disputes and justice in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia

AbstractIn 2010, the province of Central Kalimantan in Indonesia was established as a Climate Change pilot province to reduce emissions from deforestation and through peat land forest rehabilitation. Today, international agencies, carbon traders, local and national governments, non‐governmental organisations, and local populations have participated in debates and disputes over the establishment of carbon forests and forest protection areas in Central Kalimantan. One such scheme, promoted by the government of Australia (Kalimantan Forest and Climate Partnership), intended to establish a REDD+ pilot project within an area that covers about 120 000 hectares in Kuala Kapuas in Central Kalimantan, the field location of this research. This specific dispute offers a case study based on ethnographic research that helps to illustrate how widespread climate change debates and disputes become embedded at local and national levels in Indonesia. The dispute over REDD+ will be discussed within a framework of dispute theories which focus on moments of crisis, wherein participants must present arguments and justify their actions and theories of justice. The article shows that competing and conflicting conceptions of justice that emerge in the dispute may bring to a halt a climate change pilot project in the locality.

Kalimantan's biodiversity: developing accounting models to prevent its economic destruction

Purpose – The purpose of this article is to explore the current and historical state of accounting for biodiversity in Kalimantan (Borneo). It is also to evaluate various models for stand-alone biodiversity reporting in the context of the work undertaken in Kalimantan by the United Nations Collaborative Program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in Developing Countries (the REDD program). Economics and politics play a dominant role in hindering biodiversity conservation in the region. This article develops and presents an integrated biodiversity measuring, monitoring and reporting model with the aim of undermining the biodiversity damaging activities in the region. The model enables the provision of comprehensive information on biodiversity to support and inform stakeholders' decision-making and economic activities in relation to Kalimantan. Design/methodology/approach – Kalimantan was selected as a case study site to identify the destruction of biodiversity caused by businesses driven by narrow and selfish economic motives. A number of measuring, monitoring and reporting models for biodiversity are analysed under Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD's) Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership's reporting framework. Findings – Various social, political and economic impediments to the conservation of Kalimantan's biodiversity currently exist. A comprehensive and multifaceted framework of biodiversity reporting and disclosure needs to be implemented in order to promote accountability for Kalimantan's biodiversity. Such a framework is needed to ensure transparency in relation to the activities of stakeholders that impact biodiversity in the region. Biodiversity reporting can also promote the monitoring and control of the use of Kalimantan's land and labour by businesses. It can inform the economic decision-making at both the international and regional levels that needs to occur in order to protect and rehabilitate Kalimantan's biodiversity and biodiversity habitat. Practical implications – In this article an integrated biodiversity measuring, monitoring and reporting model is presented. In addition to Kalimantan, this model can also be applied to biodiversity reporting in any economically developing region that requires international intervention, investment and guidance to ensure the protection of its biodiversity. The framework developed expands on the current REDD reporting framework for Kalimantan. Originality/value – This is an original research paper.

Cooperative Game Analysis of the Establishment of Global Climate Partnership

The selection of global climate partners and the establishment of global climate partnership touch vital interests all over the world. Under the global climate game, the cooperation and confrontation behavior among contracting parties is analyzed in the course of establishment of global climate partnership. Taken as a whole, the complex game process of the establishment of global climate partnership is submitted to analysis according to game theory. In the meantime, a partner selection model of climate cooperative partnership is built and some phenomena of the benefit struggles are explained in detail and policy and suggestion are drawn.

A Very Real and Practical Contribution? - Lessons from the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership

On 9 September 2007, Australian Ministers and the Indonesian President announced a $100 million Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP). This would involve protecting 70,000 hectares of peat forests, re-flooding 200,000 hectares of dried peatland, and planting 100 million trees in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Since then, the ambitions of KFCP have been quietly but drastically scaled back. The area expected to be re-flooded by the project is now just over 10 per cent of the original target. And little progress has been made on the ground. Four years on, blocking of the large canals required for re-flooding has yet to commence, and only 50,000 trees have been planted against the initial target of 100 million. What has happened to what was labelled at its launch as 'a very real and very practical contribution', one which would yield 'immediate and tangible results'? We analyze KFCP both as an aid 'announceable' and as a REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) demonstration project, and reach two main conclusions. First, KFCP illustrates the damage that an emphasis on announcing new projects and a lack of attention to reporting on project progress can cause aid. Not enough has been done to publicly reposition KFCP as a much smaller, demonstration project. Second, slow progress made in implementing KFCP (and other REDD projects), when juxtaposed against the continued rapid rate of land conversion in Indonesia, suggests that the current approach is not working. There is no easy solution. Reducing deforestation in Indonesia is a difficult task because the drivers of deforestation – which range from weak governance to a strong industry lobby and the attractive economics of palm oil – are strong and difficult to tackle. If it is worth continuing, then the focus on pilots and processes which has characterized Australia’s engagement in Indonesia’s forestry sector in recent years should be re-oriented towards a more ambitious engagement. This should be supported by a vigorous high-level policy dialogue and at least the realistic prospect of a large amount of public funds.

A very real and practical contribution? Lessons from the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership

On 9 September 2007, Australian government ministers and the Indonesian president announced a A$100 million Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP). This would involve protecting 70,000 hectares of peat forests, reflooding 200,000 hectares of dried peatland, and planting 100 million trees in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Since then, the ambitions of the KFCP have been quietly but drastically scaled back. The area expected to be reflooded by the project is now just over 10 per cent of the original target. And little progress has been made on the ground. Four years on, blocking of the large canals required for reflooding has yet to commence, and only 50,000 trees have been planted. What has happened to what was labelled at its launch as “a very real and very practical contribution”, one that would yield “immediate and tangible results”? We analyse the KFCP both as an aid “announceable” and as a REDD project, and reach two main conclusions. First, the KFCP illustrates the damage that an emphasis on “announcing” new projects, and a lack of attention to reporting on project progress, can cause to aid. Not enough has been done to publicly reposition the KFCP as a much smaller, demonstration project.

A very real and practical contribution? Lessons from the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership

On 9 September 2007, Australian government ministers and the Indonesian president announced a A$100 million Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP). This would involve protecting 70,000 hectares of peat forests, reflooding 200,000 hectares of dried peatland, and planting 100 million trees in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Since then, the ambitions of the KFCP have been quietly but drastically scaled back. The area expected to be reflooded by the project is now just over 10 per cent of the original target. And little progress has been made on the ground. Four years on, blocking of the large canals required for reflooding has yet to commence, and only 50,000 trees have been planted. What has happened to what was labelled at its launch as “a very real and very practical contribution”, one that would yield “immediate and tangible results”? We analyse the KFCP both as an aid “announceable” and as a REDD project, and reach two main conclusions. First, the KFCP illustrates the damage that an emphasis on “announcing” new projects, and a lack of attention to reporting on project progress, can cause to aid. Not enough has been done to publicly reposition the KFCP as a much smaller, demonstration project.

Rio de Janeiro: Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas

Energy conservation and climate change impacts are priority issues for planning in the US and are becoming so around the world. Adrienne Greve writes about her experience as an invited speaker in the first international conference of the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil which discussed the planning and housing needs of the low income populations.