Advertisement

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

  • Jovanka Špirić
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Natural Resource Management book series (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.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelsen, A. (2008). Moving Ahead with REDD: Issues, Options and Implications. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Arriagada, E. (2014). In Campeche, Mexico: Overcoming Major Governance Challenges for REDD+. Forest Climate Change. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
  5. Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Rethinking Legitimacy, Accountability and Effectiveness. Environmental Policy and Governance, 16(5), 290–306.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Bernstein, S. (2004). Legitimacy in Global Environmental Governance. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 1(1/2), 139–166.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R. O. (2006). The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(4), 405–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. CONAF. (2010). Reglamento Interno Consejo Nacional Forestal. Santiago: CONAF.Google Scholar
  18. CONAF. (2013). Consejo Nacional Forestal Grupo De Trabajo Ena-REDD+. Meeting Minutes from 30 July 2013. Santiago: CONAF.Google Scholar
  19. CONAF. (2014). Memoria De Gestión De La Renovación Del Consejo Nacional Forestal Para El Periodo 2013-2014. Santiago: CONAF.Google Scholar
  20. CONAFOR. (2010). Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF). Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-Pp) Mexico. Zapopan: CONAFOR.Google Scholar
  21. CONAFOR. (2011). Estrategia Nacional Para REDD+ (ENAREDD+). Primer Borrador. Zapopan: CONAFOR.Google Scholar
  22. CONAFOR. (2013). Emission Reductions Program Idea Note (Er-Pin) Mexico. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Carbon Fund. Zapopan: CONAFOR.Google Scholar
  23. CONAFOR. (2014). Estrategia Nacional Para REDD+ (ENAREDD+) (Para Consulta Pública). Zapopan: CONAFOR.Google Scholar
  24. CONAFOR. (2015). Plan De Consulta De La Estratega Nacional De Reducción De Emisiones Por Deforestación Y Degradación Forestal (ENAREDD+). Zapopan: CONAFOR.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Corbera, E., & Schroeder, H. (2011). Governing and Implementing REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Costenbader, J. (2011). REDD+ Benefit Sharing: A Comparative Assessment of Three National Policy Approaches. Washington, DC: FCPF; UN-REDD.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Cuppen, E. (2012). Diversity and Constructive Conflict in Stakeholder Dialogue: Considerations for Design and Methods. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Doherty, E., & Schroeder, H. (2011). Forest Tenure and Multi-Level Governance in Avoiding Deforestation under REDD+. Global Environmental Politics, 11(4), 66–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. (2008). Discursive Representation. American Political Science Review, 102(4), 481–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Edmunds, D., & Wollenberg, E. (2001). A Strategic Approach to Multistakeholder Negotiations. Development and Change, 32(2), 231–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. FAO. (2010). Evaluación De Los Recursos Forestales Mundales, Informe Nacional, México. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Fraser, N. (1997). Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the Postsocialist Condition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl. 1), 286–289.Google Scholar
  41. Ghai, D., & Vivian, J. (1992). Grassroots Environmental Action People’s Participation in Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Hemmati, M. (2002). Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and Conflict. Sterling: EarthScan.Google Scholar
  44. Hiraldo, R., & Tanner, T. (2011). Forest Voices: Competing Narratives over REDD+. IDS Bulletin, 42(3), 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. Jarvis, D. S., & Sovacool, B. K. (2011). Conceptualizing and Evaluating Best Practices in Electricity and Water Regulatory Governance. Energy, 36(7), 4340–4352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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/
  49. Lederer, M. (2012). REDD+ Governance. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(1), 107–113.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. Long, A. (2013). REDD+, Adaptation, and Sustainable Forest Management: Toward Effective Polycentric Global Forest Governance. Tropical Conservation Science, 6(3), 384–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lyster, R. (2011). REDD+, Transparency, Participation and Resource Rights: The Role of Law. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mathbor, G. M. (2008). Effective Community Participation in Coastal Development. Chicago: Lyceum books.Google Scholar
  57. McCall, M. K. (2016). Beyond “Landscape” in REDD+: The Imperative for “Territory”. World Development, 85, 58–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Osborne, T., Bellante, L., & vonHedemann, N. (2014). Indigenous Peoples and REDD+: A Critical Perspective. Cusco: Indigenous Peoples’ Biocultural Climate Change Assessment Initiative.Google Scholar
  61. Owens, S., & Driffill, L. (2008). How to Change Attitudes and Behaviours in the Context of Energy. Energy Policy, 36(12), 4412–4418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Paavola, J. (2003). Environmental Decisions and Theories of Justice: Implications for Economic Analysis and Policy Practice. Forum for Social Economics, 33(1), 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the Real World: Problems of Legitimacy in Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. PRONATURA. (2015). El Zapotal. Retrieved September 24, 2017, from http://www.pronatura-ppy.org.mx/seccion.php?id=5
  66. 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
  67. Saward, M. (2003). Enacting Democracy. Political Studies, 51(1), 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Steffek, J. (2003). The Legitimation of International Governance: A Discourse Approach. European Journal of International Relations, 9(2), 249–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Steffek, J., & Hahn, K. (2010). Evaluating Transnational NGOs: Legitimacy, Accountability, Representation. Houndsmill: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tamm Hallström, K., & Boström, M. (2010). Transnational Multi-Stakeholder Standardization: Organizing Fragile Non-State Authority. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Thompson, M. C., Baruah, M., & Carr, E. R. (2011). Seeing REDD+ as a Project of Environmental Governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. 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
  77. 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
  78. UN-REDD. (2011). UN-REDD Project Activity Monitoring Report in Central Sulawesi, the Central Sulawesi REDD+ Monitoring Working Group. Geneva: UN-REDD.Google Scholar
  79. 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
  80. 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
  81. Warner, J. F. (2006). More Sustainable Participation? Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for Integrated Catchment Management. Water Resources Development, 22(1), 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 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
  83. 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
  84. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy Oxford University Press. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jovanka Špirić
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental (CIGA)Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)MoreliaMexico

Personalised recommendations