Abstract
This chapter begins with a background to the various carbon offset mechanisms, public and private, within the climate change regime complex. It continues with a quantitative and qualitative analysis of stakeholder perceptions regarding the governance of the UN climate change negotiations on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD+). Governance was evaluated by means of a series of online surveys conducted during the period 2009-2011, using the framework of principles, criteria and indicators developed by Cadman (2011) and presented in the Introduction to this volume. Respondents were selected from state (that is, governmental) and non-state (that is, non-governmental) interests and further separated by their geo-political location in either the ‘global North’ or ‘global South’. The results show that survey respondents generally found REDD+ to be inclusive but did not consider that there was the necessary capacity or resources for meaningful participation. A concluding section reviews the framework applied and comments on the nature of multistakeholder relations in contemporary global governance and REDD+ specifically.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Angelsen, A., Brown, S., Loisel, C., Peskett, L., Streck, C., and Zarin, D. 2009. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD): an options assessment report. Washington, DC: Meridian Institute.
Bäckstrand, K. and Lövbrand, E. 2006. Planting trees to mitigate climate change: contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global environmental politics, 6 (1), 50–75.
Barbier, E. B. and Tesfaw, A. T. 2012. Can REDD+ save the forest? The role of payments and tenure. Forests, 3 (4), 881–895.
Bumpus, A. and Cole, J. 2010. How can the current CDM deliver sustainable development? Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: climate change, 1 (4), 541–517.
Burns, A. and Burns, R. 2008. Basic marketing research. Second edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Cadman, T. 2011. Quality and legitimacy of global governance: case lessons from forestry. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cerbu, G., Swallow, B. and Thompson, D. 2011. Locating REDD: a global survey and analysis of REDD readiness and demonstration activities. Environmental science and policy, 14 (2), 168–180.
Centre for International Tropical Forestry (CIFOR). nd. Simply REDD: CIFOR’s guide to forests, climate change and REDD. Bogor: CIFOR. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/…/MediaGuide_REDD.pdf, accessed 1 October 2010.
Dawes, J. 2008. Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International journal of market research, 50 (1), 61–77.
Forest Carbon Portal. 2010. Multilateral interim REDD+ partnership established in Oslo, http://www.forestcarbonportal.com/resource/interim-redd-partnershipestablished-oslo, accessed 2 October 2010.
Forsyth, T. 2009. Multilevel, multiactor governance in REDD+: participation, integration and coordination. In: A. Angelsen, ed. Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy options. Bogor: CIFOR, 113–122.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2010. REDD+: scope and options for the role of forests in climate change mitigation strategies. http://crosdata.iucn.org/downloads/redd_scope_english.pdf, accessed 21 May 2010.
Lovell, H. 2010. Climate policy and action ‘underneath’ Kyoto and Copenhagen: China and the United States. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: climate change, 1 (3), 353–362.
Lammerts van Bueren, E. and Blom, E. 1997. Hierarchical framework for the formulation of sustainable forest management standards. Leiden: The Tropenbos Foundation.
Lang, C. 2010. Norway-Indonesia forest deal: US$1 billion dollars worth of continued deforestation? REDD Monitor, 28 May 2010, http://www.redd-monitor.org/2010/05/28/norway-indonesia-forest-deal-us 1-billiondollars-worth-of-continued-deforestation/, accessed 7 October 2010.
Macey, A. 2009. Climate change: governance challenges for Copenhagen. Global Governance, 15, 443–449.
Nanz, P. and Steffek, J. 2005. Assessing the democratic quality of deliberation in international governance: criteria and research strategies. Acta politica, 40 (3), 368–383.
Parker, C., Mitchell, A., Trivedi, M. and Mardas, N. 2009. The little REDD+ book. Oxford: Global Canopy Programme.
Royal Norwegian Embassy in Jakarta. 2010. Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership — frequently asked questions, http://www.norway.or.id/Norway_in_Indonesia/Environment/-FAQ-Norway-Indonesia-REDD-Partnership-/, accessed 7 October 2010.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2008. Report of the conference of the parties on its thirteenth session, held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007, unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf, accessed 6 April 2012.
Van Selm, M. and Jankowski, W. 2006. Conducting online surveys. Quality & quantity, 40 (3), 435–456.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Timothy Cadman
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cadman, T. (2013). Applying an Empirical Evaluation to the Governance Legitimacy of Carbon Offset Mechanisms on the Basis of Stakeholder Perceptions. In: Cadman, T. (eds) Climate Change and Global Policy Regimes. International Political Economy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137006127_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137006127_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-43493-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-00612-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)