From CDM to REDD+ -- What do we know for setting up effective and legitimate carbon governance?
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.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Dryzek, John S. & Stevenson, Hayley, 2011. "Global democracy and earth system governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1865-1874, September.
- 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.
- Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
- Hurd, Ian, 1999. "Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(02), pages 379-408, March.
- 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.
- Alexandre Kossoy & Philippe Ambrosi, . "State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2010," World Bank Other Operational Studies 13401, The World Bank.
- 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.
- 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.
- Peter M. Haas, 2004. "Addressing the Global Governance Deficit," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 4(4), pages 1-15, November.
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: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.