Applying an Empirical Evaluation to the Governance Legitimacy of Carbon Offset Mechanisms on the Basis of Stakeholder Perceptions
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.
KeywordsClean Development Mechanism Global Governance Clean Development Mechanism Project Stakeholder Perception Climate Change Negotiation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 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
- Burns, A. and Burns, R. 2008. Basic marketing research. Second edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Lammerts van Bueren, E. and Blom, E. 1997. Hierarchical framework for the formulation of sustainable forest management standards. Leiden: The Tropenbos Foundation.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Macey, A. 2009. Climate change: governance challenges for Copenhagen. Global Governance, 15, 443–449.Google Scholar
- Parker, C., Mitchell, A., Trivedi, M. and Mardas, N. 2009. The little REDD+ book. Oxford: Global Canopy Programme.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Van Selm, M. and Jankowski, W. 2006. Conducting online surveys. Quality & quantity, 40 (3), 435–456.Google Scholar