Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evolution of the Mexico’s REDD+ Readiness Process Through the Lens of Legitimacy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Global Forest Governance and Climate Change

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Natural Resource Management ((PSNRM))

Abstract

Špirić explores the procedural legitimacy of the governance for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) in Mexico. This chapter identifies two groups of actors with contrasting perceptions of the Mexico’s REDD+ governance legitimacy and explains the reasons behind such opinions. Špirić further describes the emergence of the new multi-stakeholder forums as a result of the critique of the process legitimacy: the lack of transparency, representativeness, and direct participation of local people. ‘Evolution of the Mexico’s REDD+ readiness process through the lens of legitimacy’ concludes with introducing the government plans to directly consult local people on the national REDD+ design and stresses the importance of investigating such process using representation as the main analytical lens.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The scholarly literature distinguishes between three analytical domains to understand fairness in REDD+: procedural, contextual, and distributional equity. Procedural equity includes equal participation of all relevant stakeholders in REDD+ readiness and implementation. Contextual equity includes issues of recognition of tenure and other rights, as well as the recognition of knowledge and institutions of indigenous and local communities, and equal rights regardless of social conditions to participate and benefit from REDD+. Distributive equity includes issues of fairness of benefit-sharing mechanism across REDD+ stakeholders (Di Gregorio et al., 2013). It is referred here only to distributive equity, because other two domains are contained in definition of legitimacy that is in focus in this chapter.

  2. 2.

    Similar naming/referencing conventions will appear throughout this document for the names of other forums and organisations that were originally in Spanish.

  3. 3.

    Landscape approach promotes an idea of integrated management of the individual and interconnected land-use and land-use change activities by a group of local communities in a particular territorial unit, such as biological corridors or watersheds (McCall, 2016; Pacheco et al., 2010).

  4. 4.

    Jurisdictional or sub-national approaches to REDD+ have been officially accepted as interim measures towards a full national approach (UNFCCC, 2009, 2013).

  5. 5.

    http://ddd.uab.cat/pub/butcoodesfas/butcoodesfas_a2011m9/index.html

  6. 6.

    The Commission for State Development Planning—Quintana Roo, 17 and 28 June 2011; U’yool’che’s REDD+ workshop with local communities, 9 and 10 July 2011; The Nature Conservancy’s deforestation workshop, 10 and 11 July 2011; U’yool’che’s workshop on the community’s protected area, 12 July 2011; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México’s roundtable on the Law on Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection, 20 July 2011; Consejo Mexicano de Silvicultura Sostenible’s REDD+ workshop, 9 August 2011; Aliance Sian Ka’an-Calakmul’s REDD+ workshop, 16 August 2011; El Consejo Regional Indígena y Popular de Xpujil’s meeting, 29 November 2013; and the state of Campeche environmental agency’s working meeting on REDD+ with CONAFOR, 14 February 2014.

  7. 7.

    CSOs include peasant, indigenous peoples, and forest producers’ groups and organisations.

  8. 8.

    To become or continue to be CONAF members, representatives should demonstrate their credibility and experience in national forestry issues in a public call organised every two years (CONAF, 2010).

  9. 9.

    The states of Jalisco, Oaxaca, Chiapas, Yucatán, Campeche, and Quintana Roo.

References

  • Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Fairbrass, J., Jordan, A., Paavola, J., Rosendo, S., & Seyfang, G. (2003). Governance for Sustainability: Towards a ‘Thick’ Analysis of Environmental Decisionmaking. Environment and Planning A, 35(6), 1095–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelsen, A. (2008). Moving Ahead with REDD: Issues, Options and Implications. Bogor: CIFOR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Kanninen, M., Sills, E., Sunderlin, W., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., ... Johnson, E. A. (Eds.). (2009). Realising REDD: National Strategy and Policy Options. Bogor: Centre for International Forestry Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arriagada, E. (2014). In Campeche, Mexico: Overcoming Major Governance Challenges for REDD+. Forest Climate Change. Bogor: CIFOR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Rethinking Legitimacy, Accountability and Effectiveness. Environmental Policy and Governance, 16(5), 290–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beisheim, M., & Dingwerth, K. (2008). Procedural Legitimacy and Private Transnational Governance. Are the Good Ones Doing Better? (SFB-Governance Working Paper No. 14). Berlin: Research Center (SFB) 700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, S. (2004). Legitimacy in Global Environmental Governance. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 1(1/2), 139–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J., Kanie, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., … Siebenhüner, B. (2009). Earth System Governance: People, Places and the Planet. Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Project (Earth System Governance Report 1, IHDP Report 20). Bonn: The Earth System Governance Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J., Kanie, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., … Zondervan, R. (2010). Earth System Governance: A Research Framework. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4), 277–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boedeltje, M., & Cornips, J. (2004, November 12–13). Input and Output Legitimacy in Interactive Governance. Presented at the NIG Annual Work Conference (No. NIG2-01), Rotterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K., Adger, W. N., Boyd, E., Corbera, E., & Shackley, S. (2004). How Do CDM Projects Contribute to Sustainable Development? (Tyndall Centre Technical Report No. 16). Norwich, UK: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R. O. (2006). The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(4), 405–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bushley, B. R., & Khatri, D. (2011). REDD+: Reversing, Reinforcing or Reconfiguring Decentralized Forest Governance in Nepal (Discussion Paper 11:3). Kathmandu: Forest Action.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cashore, B. (2002). Legitimacy and the Privatization of Environmental Governance: How Non-State Market-Driven (NSMD) Governance Systems Gain Rule-Making Authority. Governance, 15(4), 503–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CCMSS. (2011). Nota De Idea Del Proyecto REDD+ Comunitario En La Zona Maya De José María Morelos, Quintana Roo. Mexico City: Consejo Civil Mexicano para la Silvicultura Sostenible.

    Google Scholar 

  • Che Piu, H., & García, T. (2011). Estudio REDD+ Perú: La Situación De REDD+ En El Perú. Lima: Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DAR).

    Google Scholar 

  • CONAF. (2010). Reglamento Interno Consejo Nacional Forestal. Santiago: CONAF.

    Google Scholar 

  • CONAF. (2013). Consejo Nacional Forestal Grupo De Trabajo Ena-REDD+. Meeting Minutes from 30 July 2013. Santiago: CONAF.

    Google Scholar 

  • CONAF. (2014). Memoria De Gestión De La Renovación Del Consejo Nacional Forestal Para El Periodo 2013-2014. Santiago: CONAF.

    Google Scholar 

  • CONAFOR. (2010). Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF). Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-Pp) Mexico. Zapopan: CONAFOR.

    Google Scholar 

  • CONAFOR. (2011). Estrategia Nacional Para REDD+ (ENAREDD+). Primer Borrador. Zapopan: CONAFOR.

    Google Scholar 

  • CONAFOR. (2013). Emission Reductions Program Idea Note (Er-Pin) Mexico. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Carbon Fund. Zapopan: CONAFOR.

    Google Scholar 

  • CONAFOR. (2014). Estrategia Nacional Para REDD+ (ENAREDD+) (Para Consulta Pública). Zapopan: CONAFOR.

    Google Scholar 

  • CONAFOR. (2015). Plan De Consulta De La Estratega Nacional De Reducción De Emisiones Por Deforestación Y Degradación Forestal (ENAREDD+). Zapopan: CONAFOR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbera, E., Estrada, M., May, P., Navarro, G., & Pacheco, P. (2011). Rights to Land, Forests and Carbon in REDD+: Insights from Mexico, Brazil and Costa Rica. Forests, 2(1), 301–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbera, E., & Schroeder, H. (2011). Governing and Implementing REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costenbader, J. (2011). REDD+ Benefit Sharing: A Comparative Assessment of Three National Policy Approaches. Washington, DC: FCPF; UN-REDD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronkleton, P., Bray, D. B., & Medina, G. (2011). Community Forest Management and the Emergence of Multi-Scale Governance Institutions: Lessons for REDD+ Development from Mexico, Brazil and Bolivia. Forests, 2(2), 451–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CTC. (2010). Reglamento Para El Funcionamiento Del Comité Técnico Consultivo Para La Reducción De Emisiones Por Deforestación Y Degradación Y Su Función En La Conservación, El Manejo Sustentable De Los Bosques E Incremento De Las Reservas Forestales De Carbono (CTC-REDD+). Campeche: CTC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuppen, E. (2012). Diversity and Constructive Conflict in Stakeholder Dialogue: Considerations for Design and Methods. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 23–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Ita, A. (2008). Land Concentration in Mexico after PROCEDE. In P. Rosset, R. Patel, & M. Courville (Eds.), Promised Land: Competing Visions of Agrarian Reform (pp. 148–164). Oakland: Institute for Food and Development Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Plaza Esteban, C., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., & Jong, W. (2014). The Legitimacy of Certification Standards in Climate Change Governance. Sustainable Development, 22(6), 420–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Gregorio, M., Brockhaus, M., Cronin, T., Muharrom, E., Santoso, L., Mardiah, S., & Büdenbender, M. (2013). Equity and REDD+ in the Media: A Comparative Analysis of Policy Discourses. Ecology and Society, 18(2), 39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, E., & Schroeder, H. (2011). Forest Tenure and Multi-Level Governance in Avoiding Deforestation under REDD+. Global Environmental Politics, 11(4), 66–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. (2008). Discursive Representation. American Political Science Review, 102(4), 481–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmunds, D., & Wollenberg, E. (2001). A Strategic Approach to Multistakeholder Negotiations. Development and Change, 32(2), 231–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO. (2010). Evaluación De Los Recursos Forestales Mundales, Informe Nacional, México. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forest Peoples Programme. (2012). Civil Society Groups in DRC Suspend Engagement with National REDD Coordination Process. Retrieved September 24, 2017, from http://www.forestpeoples.org/en/topics/redd-and-related-initiatives/news/2012/07/civil-society-groups-drc-suspend-engagement-nationa

  • Fraser, N. (1997). Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the Postsocialist Condition. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl. 1), 286–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghai, D., & Vivian, J. (1992). Grassroots Environmental Action People’s Participation in Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatanaka, M., & Konefal, J. (2013). Legitimacy and Standard Development in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: A Case Study of the Leonardo Academy’s Sustainable Agriculture Standard Initiative. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture & Food, 20(2), 155–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemmati, M. (2002). Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and Conflict. Sterling: EarthScan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiraldo, R., & Tanner, T. (2011). Forest Voices: Competing Narratives over REDD+. IDS Bulletin, 42(3), 42–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, T., & Scoones, I. (2000). Participatory Environmental Policy Processes: Experiences from North and South (IDS Working Paper Series, No 113. IDS). London: IDS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huckel, C. (2005, October 13–15). Legitimacy and Global Governance in Managing Global Public Health. Presented at the Organizing the World. Rules and Rule-Making among Organizations: Procedural Legitimacy and Private Transnational Governance, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, D. S., & Sovacool, B. K. (2011). Conceptualizing and Evaluating Best Practices in Electricity and Water Regulatory Governance. Energy, 36(7), 4340–4352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, C. (2013). COONAPIP, Panama’s Indigenous Peoples Coordinating Body, Withdraws from UN-REDD. Retrieved September 24, 2017, from http://www.redd-monitor.org/2013/03/06/coonapip-panamas-indigenous-peoples-coordinating-body-withdraws-from-un-redd/

  • Lederer, M. (2012). REDD+ Governance. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(1), 107–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • LFFAROSC. (2012). Ley Federal De Fomento a Las Actividades Realizadas Por Organizaciones De La Sociedad Civil. El Diario Oficial De La Federación El 9 De Febrero De 2004 (Última Reforma Dof 25-04-2012). Mexico City: Secretaría General, Secretaría de Servicios Parlamentarios.

    Google Scholar 

  • LGDFS. (2012). Ley General De Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable. El Diario Oficial De La Federación El 25 De Febrero De 2003 (Última Reforma Dof 04-06-2012). Mexico City: Secretaría General, Secretaría de Servicios Parlamentarios.

    Google Scholar 

  • LGEEPA. (2012). Ley General Del Equilibrio Ecológico Y La Protección Al Ambiente. El Diario Oficial De La Federación El 28 De Enero De 1988 (Últimas Reformas Dof 05-11-2013). Mexico City: Secretaría General, Secretaría de Servicios Parlamentarios.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, A. (2013). REDD+, Adaptation, and Sustainable Forest Management: Toward Effective Polycentric Global Forest Governance. Tropical Conservation Science, 6(3), 384–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lövbrand, E., Rindefjäll, T., & Nordqvist, J. (2009). Closing the Legitimacy Gap in Global Environmental Governance? Lessons from the Emerging CDM Market. Global Environmental Politics, 9(2), 74–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyster, R. (2011). REDD+, Transparency, Participation and Resource Rights: The Role of Law. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 118–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathbor, G. M. (2008). Effective Community Participation in Coastal Development. Chicago: Lyceum books.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCall, M. K. (2016). Beyond “Landscape” in REDD+: The Imperative for “Territory”. World Development, 85, 58–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, C. L., Coad, L., Helfgott, A., & Schroeder, H. (2012). Operationalizing Social Safeguards in REDD+: Actors, Interests and Ideas. Environmental Science & Policy, 21, 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noor, M., Douma, N., van der Haar, G., Hilhorst, D., van der Molen, I., & Stel, N. (2010). Multi-Stakeholder Processes, Service Delivery and State Institutions: Theoretical Framework and Methodologies. Wageningen: The Peace, Security and Development Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, T., Bellante, L., & vonHedemann, N. (2014). Indigenous Peoples and REDD+: A Critical Perspective. Cusco: Indigenous Peoples’ Biocultural Climate Change Assessment Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens, S., & Driffill, L. (2008). How to Change Attitudes and Behaviours in the Context of Energy. Energy Policy, 36(12), 4412–4418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, J. (2003). Environmental Decisions and Theories of Justice: Implications for Economic Analysis and Policy Practice. Forum for Social Economics, 33(1), 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco, P., Aguilar-Støen, M., Börner, J., Etter, A., Putzel, L., & Diaz, M. d. C. V. (2010). Landscape Transformation in Tropical Latin America: Assessing Trends and Policy Implications for REDD+. Forests, 2(1), 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the Real World: Problems of Legitimacy in Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • PRONATURA. (2015). El Zapotal. Retrieved September 24, 2017, from http://www.pronatura-ppy.org.mx/seccion.php?id=5

  • Ribot, J., & Larson, A. (2012). Reducing REDD Risks: Affirmative Policy on an Uneven Playing Field. International Journal of the Commons, 6(2), 233–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saward, M. (2003). Enacting Democracy. Political Studies, 51(1), 161–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, H. (2010). Agency in International Climate Negotiations: The Case of Indigenous Peoples and Avoided Deforestation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4), 317–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Špirić, J., Corbera, E., Reyes-García, V., & Porter-Bolland, L. (2016). A Dominant Voice Amidst Not Enough People: Analysing the Legitimacy of Mexico’s REDD+ Readiness Process. Forests, 7(12), 313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffek, J. (2003). The Legitimation of International Governance: A Discourse Approach. European Journal of International Relations, 9(2), 249–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffek, J., & Hahn, K. (2010). Evaluating Transnational NGOs: Legitimacy, Accountability, Representation. Houndsmill: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tamm Hallström, K., & Boström, M. (2010). Transnational Multi-Stakeholder Standardization: Organizing Fragile Non-State Authority. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M. C., Baruah, M., & Carr, E. R. (2011). Seeing REDD+ as a Project of Environmental Governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 100–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U’yool’che. (2011). Plan Vivo Project Design Document (PDD), Name of the Project: Much Kanan K’aax. Felipe Carrillo Puerto: U’yool’che and Servicios Ecosistémicos de la Selva Maya S.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC. (2009). Document FCCC/CP/2010/7/ADD.1, Report of the Conference of the Parties Fifteenth Session, Held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC. (2010). The Cancun Agreements (Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Sixteenth Session, Held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010). New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC. (2013). Document FCCC/CP/2013/10/ADD.1, Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Nineteenth Session, Held in Warsaw from 11 to 23 November 2013. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN-REDD. (2011). UN-REDD Project Activity Monitoring Report in Central Sulawesi, the Central Sulawesi REDD+ Monitoring Working Group. Geneva: UN-REDD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vatn, A., & Angelsen, A. (2009). Options for a National REDD+ Architecture. In A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, M. Kanninen, E. Sills, W. Sunderlin, S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff, T. Dokken, & E. Johnson (Eds.), Realising REDD: National Strategy and Policy Options (pp. 57–74). Bogor: Centre for International Forestry Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vatn, A., & Vedeld, P. (2011). Getting Ready! A Study of National Governance Structures for REDD+ (Noragric Report No. 59). Ås, Norway: Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, UMB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, J. F. (2006). More Sustainable Participation? Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for Integrated Catchment Management. Water Resources Development, 22(1), 15–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, J. F. (2007). The Beauty of the Beast: Multi-Stakeholder Participation for Integrated Catchment Management. In J. Warner (Ed.), The Beauty of the Beast: Multi-Stakeholder Participation for Integrated Catchment Management (pp. 1–20). Hampstead: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yosie, T. F., & Herbst, T. D. (1998). Using Stakeholder Processes in Environmental Decision Making: An Evaluation of Lessons Learned, Key Issues, and Future Challenges. Washington, DC: Ruder Finn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy Oxford University Press. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental (CIGA), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Morelia, Mexico

    Jovanka Špirić

Authors
  1. Jovanka Špirić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

    Emmanuel O. Nuesiri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Špirić, J. (2018). Evolution of the Mexico’s REDD+ Readiness Process Through the Lens of Legitimacy. In: Nuesiri, E. (eds) Global Forest Governance and Climate Change. Palgrave Studies in Natural Resource Management . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71946-7_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71946-7_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71945-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71946-7

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation