Polycentric Environmental Governance to Achieving SDG 16: Evidence from Southeast Asia and Eastern Africa

Effective environmental governance is deemed essential in advancing the Sustainable Development Goals. However, environmental dimensions have no specific reference across the SDG 16 targets and indicators. In achieving SDG 16—the realization of peace, justice, and strong institution, polycentric environmental governance involving multiple actors across scales deserves thoughtful consideration. This study illustrates the potential of a polycentric approach to environmental governance in achieving SDG 16, using case studies of forest, watershed, and transboundary bushland and seascape management in Southeast Asia and Eastern Africa, namely Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Kenya–Somalia cross-border. By highlighting four key elements of polycentric governance namely, political will, legal framework, support from higher-level governance and capacity building, the case studies demonstrate that polycentric governance play a significant role in achieving three environment-relevant SDG 16 targets, yet these targets are silent about environmental governance dimensions. Since many conflicts arise from the environment and natural resources sector, we suggest that (i) polycentric environmental governance be strongly pursued to achieve SDG 16, and (ii) SDG 16 includes indicators specifically directed on polycentric environment and natural resource governance.

Resolving Douglass C. North's ‘puzzle’ concerning China's household responsibility system

This paper considers Douglass C. North's ‘puzzle’ concerning China's household responsibility system (HRS) and offers a possible solution. China's HRS, which has evolved over the past four decades to become its dominant form of rural land ownership, has stimulated spectacular economic growth and poverty reduction; however, it is based on a type of ownership which is far removed from the property rights regime which North regarded as essential. Two features of the HRS merit attention. The first is ‘split ownership’: this refers to the allocation of different aspects of ownership, including rights of access, use, management, exclusion and alienation, to a range of individual and collective actors with interests in the land in question. The second is polycentric governance: rules governing land use are derived in part from community-level action and in part from state intervention. We argue that in explaining the functioning of the HRS we need to move beyond the narrow conception of legally enforced private property rights on which North relied. We should instead embrace understandings of ownership as an emergent, diverse and complex institution, of the kind emphasized by A.M. Honoré's legal theory of ownership and Elinor Ostrom's theories of the common-pool resource and polycentric governance.

Climate Governance and Agriculture in Southeast Asia: Learning From a Polycentric Approach

The global climate governance framework will need to empower a wide range of groups representing different geopolitical and sector-specific interests to engage in climate action. Learning from polycentric governance approaches could provide insight on how to foster more inclusive engagement and more effective outcomes from global efforts to fight climate change. The Paris Agreement has opened up room for this type of bottom-up, polycentric governance and new attention to important issues such as agriculture. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations Climate Resilience Network (ASEAN-CRN) is an example of a polycentric system to enhance resilience and adapt to climate change. The ASEAN Negotiating Group on Agriculture (ANGA) enables the region’s agriculture sector to shape global climate governance frameworks. The case of ANGA highlights that opening up space for polycentric systems can foster climate action in relevant sectors. Supporting regions to navigate UNFCCC processes can further enable polycentric systems, enhancing climate resilience and adaptation.

Polycentric Regional Ocean Governance Opportunity in the Benguela Current Convention

The Benguela Current Convention (BCC) has been operational for a decade and has emerged from the precursor natural and fisheries science large marine ecosystem programs. This regional ocean governance institution emerged indigenously as an intergovernmental working arrangement across the Republics of Angola, Namibia, and South Africa. The Convention has been described as a Centralized Authority mode of regional ocean governance. This paper explores this description with reference to the ecosystem-based approach to marine management. The study is focused on the level of working arrangements within the Convention and its Commission across the national and regional scales. It finds that the BCC does meet the theoretical criteria of a polycentric governance mechanism at the resolution of its operations. Polycentric ocean governance mechanisms are valued in regional ocean governance as they potentially offer greater impact through higher levels of coordination, codesign, and integration. Polycentric governance systems incorporate multiple centers of authority that operate at different scales. Existing instances and further opportunities for polycentric governance mechanisms within the working arrangements of the Convention are identified for the Southeast Atlantic.

Part I Context, Ch.4 Multilevel and Polycentric Governance

This chapter discusses leading conceptual approaches to international environmental governance. These approaches draw on arguments found in diverse literatures, including writings on fiscal federalism, the new institutionalism, international relations, and international law. The chapter first reviews a prominent set of arguments in favour of decentralized environmental governance, and a competing set of claims in favour of greater centralization of governance authority. These approaches, in general, seek to produce the appropriate ‘match’ between the level or scope of governance and the level or scope of the relevant environmental issue. The chapter then considers ‘multilevel governance’ (MLG), an approach that does not view the allocation of authority among levels as mutually exclusive but rather explores how authority can be simultaneously exercised by multiple agents. It also looks at approaches that emphasize the horizontal sharing of governance authority. Finally, the chapter presents strategies for advancing understanding of international environmental governance.