Applying an Empirical Evaluation to the Governance Legitimacy of Carbon Offset Mechanisms on the Basis of Stakeholder Perceptions

  • Timothy Cadman
Part of the International Political Economy book series (IPES)


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.


Clean Development Mechanism Global Governance Clean Development Mechanism Project Stakeholder Perception Climate Change Negotiation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbier, E. B. and Tesfaw, A. T. 2012. Can REDD+ save the forest? The role of payments and tenure. Forests, 3 (4), 881–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bumpus, A. and Cole, J. 2010. How can the current CDM deliver sustainable development? Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: climate change, 1 (4), 541–517.Google Scholar
  5. Burns, A. and Burns, R. 2008. Basic marketing research. Second edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  6. Cadman, T. 2011. Quality and legitimacy of global governance: case lessons from forestry. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Centre for International Tropical Forestry (CIFOR). nd. Simply REDD: CIFOR’s guide to forests, climate change and REDD. Bogor: CIFOR.…/MediaGuide_REDD.pdf, accessed 1 October 2010.
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Forest Carbon Portal. 2010. Multilateral interim REDD+ partnership established in Oslo,, accessed 2 October 2010.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2010. REDD+: scope and options for the role of forests in climate change mitigation strategies., accessed 21 May 2010.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Lammerts van Bueren, E. and Blom, E. 1997. Hierarchical framework for the formulation of sustainable forest management standards. Leiden: The Tropenbos Foundation.Google Scholar
  15. Lang, C. 2010. Norway-Indonesia forest deal: US$1 billion dollars worth of continued deforestation? REDD Monitor, 28 May 2010, 1-billiondollars-worth-of-continued-deforestation/, accessed 7 October 2010.Google Scholar
  16. Macey, A. 2009. Climate change: governance challenges for Copenhagen. Global Governance, 15, 443–449.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Parker, C., Mitchell, A., Trivedi, M. and Mardas, N. 2009. The little REDD+ book. Oxford: Global Canopy Programme.Google Scholar
  19. Royal Norwegian Embassy in Jakarta. 2010. Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership — frequently asked questions,, accessed 7 October 2010.Google Scholar
  20. 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,, accessed 6 April 2012.Google Scholar
  21. Van Selm, M. and Jankowski, W. 2006. Conducting online surveys. Quality & quantity, 40 (3), 435–456.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Timothy Cadman 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy Cadman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations