Social‐ecological reflexivity of extractive industry governance? The case of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative in Indonesia

The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) sets standards to improve the governance of extractive industries and thereby stimulate sustainable development. Member countries implement this standard through a multi-stakeholder group (MSG) which facilitates deliberation between government, civil society and business representatives. This deliberation could enable what we call ‘social-ecological reflexivity’: the ability to reconfigure oneself in response to critical reflection on one's performance in governing not only the economic, but also the social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. Such reflexivity is crucial for countries to not only comply with the EITI standard, but also improve governance quality to address the social and environmental impacts from extractive industries. Drawing on a fully operationalised conceptual framework, we analyse social-ecological reflexivity in the implementation of the EITI in Indonesia, a country that is heavily impacted by extractive industries. We draw on content analysis of the MSG meeting minutes and EITI-Indonesia reports between 2012 and 2019. We show that the EITI-Indonesia has not (yet) generated deep social-ecological reflexivity. First, there is limited recognition and rethinking of extractive industry governance and no real response in the form of governance reforms. Second, there are even signs of what we call ‘anti-reflexivity’, whereby members of the multi-stakeholder group ignore and resist public debates around the negative impacts from extractive industries. In analysing the different components and degrees of reflexivity around the EITI-Indonesia, the article provides vital insights into the (study of) conditions under which global norms such as the EITI find meaning in and affect specific contexts

Transforming institutional quality in resource curse contexts: The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative in Myanmar

Many resource-rich countries face the paradoxical situation that their wealth in natural resources coincides with low economic and human development rates. To address this so-called resource curse, academics and practitioners turn their hopes to institutional quality. Yet whether, how and with what consequences institutional quality is transformed in resource curse contexts remains poorly understood, especially so at subnational levels. The most widely implemented initiative that seeks to address the resource curse through enhanced institutional quality is the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). This article analyses to what extent and how the EITI transforms institutional quality at national and subnational levels in Myanmar, focusing on transparency, civil society participation and accountability. We show that many transformations go beyond the official EITI process and report. While the EITI report itself is not heavily used by civil society organisations (CSOs), the EITI process motivated CSOs to gather data and organise themselves both around and beyond EITI-related issues at subnational levels. Such participatory processes of constituting transparency improved relations between the (regional) government, CSOs and private companies, but also created new forms of in- and exclusion among civil society. While avenues opened up for CSOs to demand accountability regarding the impacts of resource extraction, the extent to which they are able to trigger action of extractive industry actors in their region remains limited. In conclusion, we argue that transformations in institutional quality are not characterised by a linear trajectory from transparency in the form of the EITI report to accountability, facilitated by civil society participation in EITI multi-stakeholder groups, as the EITI standard posits. Rather, transformations in institutional quality are characterised by spin-offs, dynamic interlinkages, trade-offs, limitations and a reinforcing cycle between participation and transparency within and beyond the EITI

Will REDD+ work? The need for interdisciplinary research to address key challenges

In this article, we draw on the contributions to this issue to address the question ‘Will REDD+ work?’. We do so by differentiating between how, where and when REDD+ might work. The article shows how issues of scope, scale and pace of REDD+ are related, and how interdisciplinary research can help to distill the lessons learned from REDD+ efforts currently underway. Important research areas include the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, monitoring, reporting and verification, co-benefits, governance capacity, linkages with related policies, and the environmental and social impacts of REDD+. In concluding, we highlight the role of interdisciplinary research in supporting the different actors involved in REDD+ to cope with the inherent heterogeneity and complexity of REDD+

Balancing or prioritising for sustainable development? Perceptions of sustainability integration among professionals

The effective integration of the environmental with the economic and social dimensions of sustainability will only succeed when the core problem perceptions of professionals in these fields adjust as well. Yet, while sustainability integration in general has been thoroughly researched, few studies have analysed the specific role of subjective understandings among professionals. This article bridges this gap by asking how professionals understand and operationalise sustainability integration. Which factors shape their perceptions and practices? We present the results of an online survey that was circulated to a diverse sample of professionals and then analysed using statistical methods. Responses from 508 participants show that sustainability integration is mostly perceived as a balance across all three sustainability dimensions rather than a hierarchy with the environment at its basis. However, perceptions also vary significantly across professional and geographical contexts. This signifies the need to better account for how individual circumstances affect processes of integration

International organisations as ‘custodians’ of the sustainable development goals?: Fragmentation and coordination in sustainability governance

It is widely assumed that the fragmentation of global governance can affect coordination efforts among international institutions and organisations. Yet, the precise relationship between the fragmentation of global governance and the extent to which international organisations coordinate their activities remains underexplored. In this article, we offer new empirical evidence derived from the so-called custodianship arrangements in which numerous international organisations have been mandated to coordinate data collection and reporting for 231 indicators of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These complex custodianship arrangements provide a fertile testing ground for theories on the relationship between fragmentation and coordination because the institutional arrangements for each of the 17 SDGs have emerged bottom–up with varying degrees of fragmentation. Through a comparative approach covering 44 custodian agencies and focusing on the most and least fragmented custodianship arrangements, we make three key contributions. First, we offer a novel operationalisation of institutional fragmentation and coordination. Second, we present empirical evidence in support of the claim that fragmentation negatively affects coordination. Third, we provide nuances to this claim by identifying factors that affect the strength of this relationship. Based on our analysis, we suggest further steps that might facilitate coordination in global sustainability governance

Migration Transforms the Conditions for the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals

Migration is transformative both for those who move and for the places and economies of source and destination. The global stock of migrants, depending on definition, is approximately 750 million people: to assume that the world is static and that migration is a problem to be managed is inaccurate. Since migration is a major driving force of planetary and population health, we argue that it must be more directly incorporated into planning for sustainable development, with a focus on the extent and way in which the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) incorporate the transformative reality of migration

Enabling transformative biodiversity governance in the Post-2020 era

While there are increasing calls for transformative change and transformative governance, what this means in the context of addressing biodiversity loss remains debated. The aim of this edited volume Transforming Biodiversity Governance is to open up this debate and identify ways forward in the context of the implementation of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). To become transformative, biodiversity governance needs to be transformed: yet how and by whom? These questions are urgent, given the fact that around one million species are threatened with extinction (Díaz et al., 2019), despite over half a century of global efforts to avoid this tragedy. By bringing together insights from previous chapters, we here reflect on these questions

Framing national REDD+ benefits, monitoring, governance and finance: A comparative analysis of seven countries

This article analyzes how and with what possible consequences REDD+ is framed in the national policy arena in Cameroon, Indonesia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Tanzania, and Vietnam. It analyzes the most prominent views and storylines around key REDD+ design features among policy actors and in policy documents. We focus on storylines related to four questions, namely: (1) What should REDD+ achieve: carbon or also non-carbon objectives? (2) Who should monitor REDD+ outcomes: only technical experts or also local communities? (3) At what level should REDD+ be governed: at national or sub-national level? and (4) How should REDD+ be financed: through market- or fund-based sources? The vast majority of policy actors and policy documents frame REDD+ as a mechanism that should also realize non-carbon benefits, yet non-carbon monitoring receives very little attention. In all but one country, policy documents contain plans to involve local communities in the design and/or execution of measuring, reporting and verifying REDD+ outcomes. With regard to the level at which REDD+ should be governed, while most policy documents contain elements of a nested approach to accounting, almost all countries envision a long-term transition to national accounting and benefit distribution. We found strikingly little discussion among policy actors and in policy documents of how to finance REDD+ and acquire results-based payments. In the conclusion we reflect on possible consequences of the prominence of REDD+ storylines in the seven countries, and argue that carbonization and centralization of forest governance are possible outcomes given the limited attention to non-carbon monitoring and the envisioned centralized approaches to REDD+

Enabling Transformative Biodiversity Governance in the post-2020 Era

While there are increasing calls for transformative change and transformative governance, what this means in the context of addressing biodiversity loss remains debated. The aim of this edited volume Transforming Biodiversity Governance is to open up this debate and identify ways forward in the context of the implementation of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). To become transformative, biodiversity governance needs to be transformed: yet how and by whom? These questions are urgent, given the fact that around one million species are threatened with extinction (Díaz et al., 2019), despite over half a century of global efforts to avoid this tragedy

Author Correction: Scientific evidence on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals

Correction to: Nature Sustainability https://doi-org.proxy.library.uu.nl/10.1038/s41893-022-00909-5, published online 20 June 2022