IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v70y2011i11p1900-1907.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From CDM to REDD+ -- What do we know for setting up effective and legitimate carbon governance?

Author

Listed:
  • Lederer, Markus

Abstract

This article compares two carbon governance instruments - the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) - to assess lessons from the former for the latter regarding effectiveness and legitimacy of such instruments. The article argues that the CDM has a relatively high degree of output-oriented legitimacy resulting in effectiveness and some input-oriented legitimacy, with few discernible tradeoffs between them. In contrasting this to REDD+, the hypotheses are advanced that (i) output-oriented legitimacy/effectiveness can again be achieved but that (ii) a higher degree of input-oriented legitimacy is necessary for REDD+ and thus also a certain trade-off between the two forms of legitimacy can be expected. This is shown through comparing the technologies and methodologies, economic rationales, political support, regulatory structures, and environmental impacts of both instruments.

Suggested Citation

  • Lederer, Markus, 2011. "From CDM to REDD+ -- What do we know for setting up effective and legitimate carbon governance?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1900-1907, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:11:p:1900-1907
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800911000577
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    2. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    3. Alexandre Kossoy & Philippe Ambrosi, "undated". "State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2010," World Bank Publications - Reports 13401, The World Bank Group.
    4. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801, October.
    5. Hurd, Ian, 1999. "Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 379-408, April.
    6. Dryzek, John S. & Stevenson, Hayley, 2011. "Global democracy and earth system governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1865-1874, September.
    7. Schouten, Greetje & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2011. "Creating legitimacy in global private governance: The case of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1891-1899, September.
    8. Frank Biermann & Michele Betsill & Joyeeta Gupta & Norichika Kanie & Louis Lebel & Diana Liverman & Heike Schroeder & Bernd Siebenhüner & Ruben Zondervan, 2010. "Earth system governance: a research framework," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 277-298, December.
    9. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    10. Rosendal, G. Kristin & Andresen, Steinar, 2011. "Institutional design for improved forest governance through REDD: Lessons from the global environment facility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1908-1915, September.
    11. Eva Lövbrand & Teresia Rindefjäll & Joakim Nordqvist, 2009. "Closing the Legitimacy Gap in Global Environmental Governance? Lessons from the Emerging CDM Market," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 9(2), pages 74-100, May.
    12. Katia Karousakis, 2007. "Incentives to Reduce GHG Emissions from Deforestation: Lessons Learned from Costa Rica and Mexico," OECD Papers, OECD Publishing, vol. 7(1), pages 1-50.
    13. Emma Lund, 2010. "Dysfunctional delegation: why the design of the CDM's supervisory system is fundamentally flawed," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 277-288, May.
    14. Peter M. Haas, 2004. "Addressing the Global Governance Deficit," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 4(4), pages 1-15, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anderson, Blake & M'Gonigle, Michael, 2012. "Does ecological economics have a future?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 37-48.
    2. Adam Bumpus & Thu-Ba Huynh & Sophie Pascoe, 2019. "Making REDD+ Transparent: Opportunities for MobileTechnology," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 19(4), pages 85-117, November.
    3. Peter Heindl & Sebastian Voigt, 2012. "Supply and demand structure for international offset permits under the Copenhagen Pledges," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 343-360, November.
    4. Vijge, Marjanneke J., 2015. "Competing discourses on REDD+: Global debates versus the first Indian REDD+ project," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 38-47.
    5. Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline & Jean-Christophe Poudou & Sébastien Roussel, 2012. "North / South Contractual Design through the REDD+ Scheme," Post-Print halshs-00747405, HAL.
    6. Adelaide Glover & Heike Schroeder, 2017. "Legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 695-708, October.
    7. Kim, Yeon-Su & Bae, Jae Soo & Fisher, Larry A. & Latifah, Sitti & Afifi, Mansur & Lee, Soo Min & Kim, In-Ae, 2016. "Indonesia's Forest Management Units: Effective intermediaries in REDD+ implementation?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 69-77.
    8. Chiroleu-Assouline, Mireille & Poudou, Jean-Christophe & Roussel, Sébastien, 2018. "Designing REDD+ contracts to resolve additionality issues," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-17.
    9. Dellas, Eleni, 2011. "CSD water partnerships: Privatization, participation and legitimacy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1916-1923, September.
    10. Biermann, Frank & Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1856-1864, September.
    11. Piffer Salles, Guilherme & Paiva Salinas, Delhi Teresa & Paulino, Sônia Regina, 2017. "How Funding Source Influences the Form of REDD+ Initiatives: The Case of Market Versus Public Funds in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 91-101.
    12. Thorstensen Erik & Forsberg Ellen-Marie & Underthun Anders & Danihelka Pavel & Řeháček Jakub, 2016. "Regional Development and Climate Change Adaptation: A Study of the Role of Legitimacy," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 8(3), pages 207-226, September.
    13. Rosendal, G. Kristin & Andresen, Steinar, 2011. "Institutional design for improved forest governance through REDD: Lessons from the global environment facility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1908-1915, September.
    14. Phan, Thu-Ha Dang & Brouwer, Roy & Davidson, Marc David, 2017. "A Global Survey and Review of the Determinants of Transaction Costs of Forestry Carbon Projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 1-10.
    15. Cadman, Timothy & Maraseni, Tek & Ma, Hwan Ok & Lopez-Casero, Federico, 2017. "Five years of REDD+ governance: The use of market mechanisms as a response to anthropogenic climate change," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 8-16.
    16. Mbatu, Richard S, 2016. "REDD+ research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 140-152.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anderson, Blake & M'Gonigle, Michael, 2012. "Does ecological economics have a future?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 37-48.
    2. Biermann, Frank & Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1856-1864, September.
    3. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    4. Sheng, Jichuan & Qiu, Hong, 2018. "Governmentality within REDD+: Optimizing incentives and efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 611-622.
    5. Farrell, Katharine N., 2014. "Intellectual mercantilism and franchise equity: A critical study of the ecological political economy of international payments for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 137-146.
    6. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    7. Kristin Nicolaus & Jens Jetzkowitz, 2014. "How Does Paying for Ecosystem Services Contribute to Sustainable Development? Evidence from Case Study Research in Germany and the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(5), pages 1-24, May.
    8. Colman, David & Pascual, Unai & Hodge, Ian, 2010. "Evolution of Land Conservation Policy," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188082, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    9. Ian A. MacKenzie & Markus Ohndorf & Charles Palmer, 2012. "Enforcement-proof contracts with moral hazard in precaution: ensuring 'permanence' in carbon sequestration," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 64(2), pages 350-374, April.
    10. Spagnuolo, Francesca, 2011. "Diversity and pluralism in earth system governance: Contemplating the role for global administrative law," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1875-1881, September.
    11. A. Marx & E. Bécault & J. Wouters, 2012. "Private Standards in Forestry. Assessing the Legitimacy and Effectiveness of the Forest Stewardship Council," Chapters, in: Axel Marx & Miet Maertens & Johan Swinnen & Jan Wouters (ed.), Private Standards and Global Governance, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    13. Jean-Michel Salles, 2011. "Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: why linking economic values with Nature?," Working Papers 11-24, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Dec 2011.
    14. Ian A. MacKenzie & Markus Ohndorf & Charles Palmer, 2010. "Enforcement-proof contracts with moral hazard in precaution: ensuring �permanence� in carbon sequestration," GRI Working Papers 27, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    15. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    16. Pistorius, Till & Schaich, Harald & Winkel, Georg & Plieninger, Tobias & Bieling, Claudia & Konold, Werner & Volz, Karl-Reinhard, 2012. "Lessons for REDDplus: A comparative analysis of the German discourse on forest functions and the global ecosystem services debate," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 4-12.
    17. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    18. Nasiritousi, Naghmeh & Hjerpe, Mattias & Buhr, Katarina, 2014. "Pluralising climate change solutions? Views held and voiced by participants at the international climate change negotiations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 177-184.
    19. Rosendal, G. Kristin & Andresen, Steinar, 2011. "Institutional design for improved forest governance through REDD: Lessons from the global environment facility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1908-1915, September.
    20. Schouten, Greetje & Leroy, Pieter & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2012. "On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 42-50.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:11:p:1900-1907. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.