book1

argue that developed countries should take the lead in reducing emissions;
developed countries in return argue that they were unaware of the impacts
of emissions previously and that it is fairer to allocate burden sharing on the
basis of current emission levels.
Studying stakeholders’ a� tudes regarding the evolving governance of
REDD+ provides insights into the rela� ve infl uence of specifi c sectors, and
the quality of the ini� a� ves as a whole. The surveys use an analy� cal model
based on a framework of principles, criteria and indicators of governance
quality. The framework of the study is based on a review of governance
a� ributes iden� fi ed from the fi elds of interna� onal rela� ons, compara� ve
poli� cs, public administra� on and broader governance theory.
The results would appear to confi rm some academic concerns regarding
the quality of REDD+ governance arrangements. It reveals the poten� al
existence of a par� cipa� on gap between fi nancial ‘insiders’ (such as
government) and ‘outsiders’ (environmental NGOs) regarding REDD+
governance quality. But the results are from a short-term study, and one
with rela� vely few par� cipants. The surveys nevertheless do provide some
insights into the quality of governance but are not defi ni� ve in their own
right. However it is worth making the point that quality-of-governance
standards would make it easier for poten� al and actual par� cipants in
global environmental governance systems like REDD+ to determine whether
they should engage in a given ini� a� ve or not. Standards would also allow
poten� al and actual investors to determine the ‘governance risk’ of climate
change investments.
On “Green Governance” BK Pokharel sets sustainable development in
Nepal’s poli� cal context. Following restora� on of democracy in 1990, forest
sector governance is one of the few sectors in Nepal which is undergoing
massive transforma� on from conven� onal technocra� c stereo-typed
bureaucracy to a pro-poor and democra� c public service. S� ll, it faces a
paradox: on the one hand the forest service has started to collaborate with
civil society organisa� ons; on the other hand, it suff ers from ill-governance
prac� ces in ma� ers of policies and regula� ons. The decision making process
is heavily infl uenced by short-term poli� cal and personal interests lacking
democra� c a� ributes of public hearing, mass mee� ngs and public poll.
Forestry sector was supported by various donors for period ranging
from 5 years to more than 20 years. They contributed on an average US$20
million per year, totalling about US$190.8 million in the last twenty years.
Most of the aid is spent in kind as facilita� on support, infrastructure and
capacity building, consultancy services to enhance quality service delivery,
social empowerment and technical assistance, and only 20-30% of the total
aid is es� mated to have spent in cash at local user group and household
levels. But local investment of forest users’ is much higher than that of total
development aid. For instance, in Nepal-Swiss Community Forestry Project
(NSCFP), it is es� mated that cost borne by community forestry user groups
was almost 71% of total cost, whereas donors’ and government’s share is
only 16% and 13% respec� vely. Role of donors in forestry has been signifi cant
XXII