Bureaucratic Politics - Climate Change

- Sandhya, Dhanush, Akane

 Bureaucratic Politics
1. It argues that policy outcomes result from an act of bargaining among a small,
highly placed group of actors.[1]
a. These actors come with varying preferences, abilities, and positions of power.
b. They usually have the following features :
i. Risk aversive behaviour
ii. Irresponsibility for results of future actions(adverse).

2. The policies thus made :

a. Use standardized procedures in spite of availability of abundant and cutting edge solutions.
b. No Metis
c. Example : Implementation of routine decision making systems for places with structural and
cultural differences when it comes to climate change related issues.

[1] : https://www.britannica.com/topic/bureaucratic-politics-approach

2
 Red Tapism - A close ally of bureaucracy
1. Objective : To gain Bureaucratic approval
2. Excessive regulation or rigid conformity to formal rules that is considered
redundant or bureaucratic and hinders or prevents action or decision-making.
3. It involves :
a. huge amounts of paperwork
b. lots of procedures
c. having multiple people or committees approve a decision
4. It is usually applied to governments, corporations, and other large
organizations.

5. Red tapism hinders the promotion of climate change mitigation and

adaptation measures.
3
Climate Change - Few Causes and Few Results

4
Red Tapism - Bureaucratic Politics - Climate Change

● Bureaucratic Politics in real world : Policy outcomes made by a bargaining

amongst a group of bureaucracies/ministries within a government.
● Climate change Adaptation and Mitigation -
○ On Priority List in recent times.
○ addressed with Climate Finance.
● Climate Finance / Climate Fund - allocated to recipient countries by the donor
countries.
○ Released by donor countries in the same channel as the Development Fund.
○ Development Fund: For eradicating Poverty
○ Climate Fund : For measure to mitigate/adapt to climate change.

5
Contd..
Bureaucratic politics(BP) involved in climate change is of two fold.

1. Donor Country Level

2. Recipient Country Level

Donor Country Level Bureaucratic Policies involved decides the following:

1. Which are the recipient countries to be selected ?

2. How much allocation will each country get ?

Recipient Country Level Bureaucratic Policies involved decides the following:

1. Will it be able to apply for a climate fund ? - Availability

2. Will it be able to get the climate fund ? - Accessibility
6
 Bureaucratic Politics - Donor Countries
Ministries/Bureaucracies involved in any donor country for allocating climate fund :

1. Ministry of Development - Regular member

2. Ministry of Environment - New Entrant
3. Ministry of Finance - Cross cutting entrant
4. Ministry of Foreign Affairs - optional - in case of absence of Ministry of
Development

Usual Norm

1. Ministry of Development - biased towards countries with poor income and

GDP per capita
2. Ministry of Environment - biased towards the allies of UNFCCC.
7
Method of study - Bureaucratic Politics - Donor Countries
Involved - 11
Donor Countries Norway
1. Data Sets - 2007 to 2015 data [1] Sweden
a. OECD DAC
i. Only data pertaining to Climate funds -“Principal” objective. Denmark
ii. No coal related financing data
Germany
b. Open Data
i. World Bank USA
ii. UN
iii. OECD Australia

c. Sovereign Recipients Finland

Iceland

Luxembourg
[1] : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X18304455
Switzerland

UK 8
Contd ..
2. Regression Analysis
a. Dependent Variables
i. Country a recipient (1), not a recipient(0)
ii. Country allocation - natural log of dollars in 2014
b. Independent Variables
i. Ministry involved and taking the lead - (2)
ii. Ministry involved - (1)
iii. Ministry not involved - (0)
c. Control Variables :
i. ministry of finance,
ii. Alliances
iii. donor interest
iv. recipient need
v. Recipient performance
vi. path dependence
vii. population size
9
Results of Bureaucratic Policies - Donor Countries
1. Ministry of Development taking the lead results in low GDP per capita
recipients to be selected for climate funds.
2. Mere involvement of Ministry of Development doesn’t guarantee that justice
be done for low GDP or poorer income recipients
3. Involvement of Ministry of Environment surely supports the allies of UNFCCC.
4. Ministry of Environment in leading role penalises the non allied members of
UNFCCC.
5. Ministry of Environment selects recipients who have more CO2 emissions and
those that are more vulnerable to climate change.
6. Ministry of Finance involvement has a positive effect of selecting countries
with lower GDP per capita.
10
 Bureaucratic Politics - Recipient Countries
1. Accessibility issues
2. Red tapism
3. Low institutional Capacity
4. Convoluted Forms
5. Complex and slow approval processes
6. Masking of correct information
7. Intentional improper guidance

“Nations to be trained to access the money. Availability vs Accessibility.”[1]

[1] : https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/sep/20/red-tape-locking-small-island-states-out-of-billions-in-climate-funds-commonwealth

11
 Few Examples - Around the world

Bureaucratic Politics - Red Tape - Climate Change

12
India - Red Tape - Climate Change Adaptation/Mitigation
1. State Draft Water Policy stuck in red tape in Gujarat - since 2014[1]
a. Draft Policy has been awaiting cabinet’s approval.
b. Key Features of addressed by Water Policy:
i. Skewed water availability due to climate change.
ii. Need for Water Pricing
iii. Recycling and Reuse of water
iv. Water treatment for effluents
2. Smart City Mission - Ahmedabad - choked by Red Tape - Building
Improvements-since 2015[2]
a. Curbing the nation’s movement towards Smart development to combat climate change.
b. Road Block for Energy Efficient buildings for Sustainable development
3. Andaman and Nicobar Islands facing a crisis in accessing the Climate Funds
for switching to natural gas for generating power.[3]
[1] : https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/gujarat-govt-yet-to-uncork-water-policy/articleshow/69298897.cms

[2] : https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/tdr-red-tape-choking-hopes-of-heritage-city/articleshow/69451897.cms

[3] : https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/environment/pollution/plan-to-green-andaman-stuck-in-red-tape-for-over-2-years/articleshow/65221198.cms?from=mdr
13
 Small Islands - Red Tape - Climate Change
Adaptation
1. Green climate Fund - no funds to SIDS - technology & climate change[3]
a. “ We are facing the situation where we need the funds more than
anybody else, yet we’re not getting them ” - By President, Kiribati Islands.
b. Middlemen(agencies) - holding people ransom to their desires and
conveniences.
2. Small Islands caught between development and disaster - red tape [4]
a. Inland Infrastructure - Vulnerable - Storms and Waves
b. Struggle to improve Livelihood

[3] : https://www.scidev.net/global/funding/news/pacific-island-states-climate-fund-red-tape.html

[4] : https://www.scidev.net/global/climate-change/multimedia/small-islands-development-disaster-image-gallery.html 14
 Philippines - Red Tape - Climate Change Adaptation
1. Eliminate red tape[1] in the Philippine energy sector - stalling construction of
new power plants which will increase competition among players.
2. People at Philippines had to complete 11 individual procedures and wait for at
least 48 days for any governmental approval - heavy red tape [2]
a. High corruption
b. Welfare of society not given high priority
c. Even more higher risks of climate change.

[1] : http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=Eliminate-red-tape-in-the-Philippine-energy-sector&id=133467

[2] : https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/anti-red-tape-act-philippines/ 15
 Impact of Bureaucratic Politics - Climate Change
● Bureaucracies - unwanted red tape - behavioral routines.[1]
● Adaptation policies are perceived as lacking a certain willingness to
experiment and innovate.
● A political system must have the capacity to act, and that ability is not evenly
distributed across governments.

● The economic structure of a country may also influence the creation and
implementation of climate change adaptation policy.

[1] : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ropr.12316

16
Overcoming Bureaucratic Politics
1. Mushrooming of interdepartmental working groups and committees -
comprehensive national adaptation plans and coordinations.

1. New policy tools - National Task Force on Climate Change Adaptation in

Denmark - a mobile expert team supporting municipalities with low policy
capacity to implement national policy and guide local adaptation action.

1. Incremental steps and small wins.

17
Contd..
4. Efficient use of technology to monitor.

4. Government and administrative systems in question must have the political

will to implement these interventions and to make them work.

18
 Conclusion
● More nuanced understandings of the links between bureaucracy and climate
change adaptation allows for more evidence‐based guidance on how to
improve public governance to accommodate the challenges posed by climate
change.

● The emergence of a more polycentric climate governance system offers the

possibility of designing and implementing policies that are aligned to existing
administrative traditions so as to prevent policy misfits.

19
THANK YOU!

20