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 Other Operational Studies 13401, The World Bank.
    4. Hurd, Ian, 1999. "Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(02), pages 379-408, March.
    5. Dryzek, John S. & Stevenson, Hayley, 2011. "Global democracy and earth system governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1865-1874, September.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. repec:spr:ieaple:v:17:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1007_s10784-016-9341-x is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline & Jean-Christophe Poudou & Sébastien Roussel, 2012. "North / South Contractual Design through the REDD+ Scheme," Working Papers 12-31, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Oct 2012.
    6. repec:hal:journl:halshs-00747405 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. repec:eee:resene:v:51:y:2018:i:c:p:1-17 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. repec:eee:ecolec:v:139:y:2017:i:c:p:91-101 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. 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.
    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.

    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.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.