Comparative analysis of the multidimensional structures

Although there is no ideal composition of multidimensional structures (Chaudhury et al., 2016) an analysis of emerging institutionality offers some significant lessons. In the paragraphs that follow, the structures described in this chapter are compared based on the variables previously cited (see Table 5.3): 1) legal status; 2) participants; 3) functions; 4) financing; 5) internal processes and 6) results and challenges.

102 Governance for ecosystem-based adaptation

Legal status

Most of the structures arise from parliamentary legislation. Three are stipulated in framework laws on climate change (Chiapas, Guatemala and Honduras) and one was created through an executive decree (Costa Rica) as the main distinction. Unlike the others, which are upheld in laws passed by the various legislatures, Costa Rica’s 5C could be eliminated by presidential decree.

Participants and responsibilities

Although the structures share general similarities in terms of members, important details differentiate one from another. All four multidimensional structures bring in civil society and private sector actors, but two (Honduras and Guatemala) also include full participation of the public sector. Furthermore, all four vary significantly with respect to representation by sector and how representatives are chosen (see Table 5.7).

To illustrate, members of Mexico’s Consejo Consultivo de Cambio Climático de Chiapas act in personal capacity (autonomously) while in the other structures they represent the formal institutions to which they belong. Chiapas incorporates representatives of the ’academic sector‘ along with civil and private sectors and must ensure a balance among the respective sectors and interests;

in practice, this heightens the participation of academia. Notwithstanding, as indicated previously currently there is no representation of the private sector, contrary to the spirit legislators aspired to inculcate in the structure’s composition.

Functions

The main function common to all four governance structures analysed is that they act as advisory bodies and monitor public policies. Three state that function explicitly, while Guatemala’s structure speaks of regulation, supervision of the implementation of actions, and conflict resolution, as summarised in Table 5.9. However, thus far consultations of these bodies have been of a formal nature to approve policies already established;, for example, adjustments to the Plan Nacional de Cambio Climático were requested of Guatemala’s Consejo Nacional de Cambio Climático, as mentioned earlier.

Financing

None of the instruments giving rise to these structures mention how they are to be funded. This is at once one of the greatest omissions and greatest challenges they share in tackling climate change.

Clearly, not having their own economic resources hampers their actions and must be remedied in the near term if they are to be sustainable.

Internal processes

The multidimensional climate change structures face several hurdles with respect to their internal processes. Main challenges identified by the members who were consulted lie in the multiple interests of the actors involved. In theory these entities were conceived to reach consensus with a common objective but in reality, the representatives’ interests are as dissimilar as those of society itself.

Compounding the matter, representatives bring in multiple work experiences, socio-cultural contexts and academic disciplines. This should not be particularly important since the various actors are aware ahead of time that diversity is a prime characteristic of these structures. The situation is far more complex in actual practice, and the widely varying perspectives converging in these spaces mean basic tasks such as establishing internal regulations have been drawn-out and laborious.

Results

The four structures examined have diverse ends in relation to climate change. They have enough common features to group them together in a category of formal institution with multidimensional characteristics (see Table 5.1), but each country has been making adjustments to align its organisations with existing formal institutionality and its own vision of climate change governance.

Each one consequently has differentiated objectives, depending on the purpose for which it was created. Hence, for example, there are advisory structures with a more general composition such as Costa Rica’s Consejo Consultivo Ciudadano de Cambio Climático, while others have a more technical and specialised orientation, such as that of the Honduran Comité Técnico Interinstitucional.

Whatever their purpose, these governance structures are all recently created so any analysis of their results is still limited. On the other hand, they share a common denominator (and one of the greatest challenges facing this type of organisation), and that is the difficulty of bringing together a diversity of players located in different parts of the country or state, and who have other responsibilities stemming from their work agendas in different fields of action.

Table 5.7 Summarized characterization of multidimensional structures

Organization/

Variables CCCH CN CTICC 5C

a. Legal status Ley Marco de CC

de Chiapas Ley Marco de CC

de Guatemala Ley Marco de CC

de Honduras Executive decree

(4) and civil (4) Public (4), private

(1) and civil (1 +) Private (9 and civil (12)

c. Functions “Órgano perma- nente de

104 f. Results Reactivation of

the platform after

Challenges in the functioning of multidimensional structures

One of the primary challenges lies in the very nature of multidimensional structures, which are comprised of autonomous organisations. This means that representatives have their own work agendas with often disparate visions. While such plurality of actions is one of the main reasons for creating these structures, as mentioned, in practice this diversity of voices makes internal processes complex due to the variety of outlooks converging within them.

The need to consolidate accountability mechanisms concerning public climate change policy indubitably poses another major challenge. Since these are advisory or oversight structures and governance is non-binding, the maturation of these processes will be crucial. As reiterated, what makes these advisory mechanisms innovative is their composition and oversight of public sector policies by non-State actors. This involves a transformation in the way accountability is exercised, given that representatives have more direct access to government decision makers.

At the same time, these structures do not have their own funding and other resources needed to operate. Given the diverse players representing different social arenas and geographical areas, economic, human, physical and technological resources are vital if these governance bodies are to be sustainable. Ironically, none of the public policies supporting the creation of these structures cover basic functioning. In practice, they look to specific budget lines in international cooperation, and as has been emphasised, the region is increasingly dependent on external resources to further its climate agenda.

Dialogue and negotiation capacity is yet another challenge. To illustrate, all the multidimensional platforms analysed have struggled to reach agreement about their internal functioning. Participants would appear to have difficulties achieving consensus so they can advance multisector development agendas to tackle climate change.

Notwithstanding, one of the main benefits of these structures is that they have conveyed items on the adaptation agenda (and climate action, in general) to actors not traditionally forming part of these decisions. This makes it possible to raise awareness in diverse actors about the challenges and opportunities posed by climate change, on one hand, and on the other, to gain numerous perspectives about possible solutions. As has been indicated, this is crucial, since the challenges of adapting to climate change impacts call for joint work by different social sectors and actors at multiple levels (Fröhlich & Knieling, 2012; Girard et. al., 2015).

Finally, the formalisation of these structures is quite recent. This should not be overlooked, given that the adaptation process to which each institution is exposed is only just beginning. It should

be emphasised that analysis of these multidimensional structures is preliminary. They need time to mature before more solid conclusions can be reached about their functioning and effectiveness.