IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v70y2011i11p1908-1915.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Institutional design for improved forest governance through REDD: Lessons from the global environment facility

Author

Listed:
  • Rosendal, G. Kristin
  • Andresen, Steinar

Abstract

This contribution focuses on carbon mitigation and biodiversity conservation in the context of the UN initiative for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation in Developing countries (REDD). The design of REDD is important as it may channel much of the international funding that will potentially be made available for future environmental problem-solving in developing countries. The most important multilateral environmental funding mechanism is the Global Environment Facility (GEF). With its basic structural similarity to the emerging REDD, it provides a good starting point for drawing lessons relevant to the design of REDD. In explaining GEF priorities and performance we discuss the role of key actors as well as the organizational and institutional structure of GEF. These factors do not encourage coalitions for addressing environmental problems in the poorest countries. The institutional setting of REDD in the Convention on Climate Change may further exacerbate this trend, as neither conservation nor socioeconomic concerns like the rights and well-being of indigenous peoples and local communities are addressed. Factors that favour utilizing a similar organization structure include scope for donor trust, for bringing in established competence and a comprehensive approach. REDD must be wary of catering solely to a Northern environmental agenda.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:11:p:1908-1915
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800911001327
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Gørild Heggelund & Steinar Andresen & Sun Ying, 2005. "Performance of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) in China: Achievements and Challenges as Seen by the Chinese," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 323-348, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Wunder, Sven & Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 834-852, May.
    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. Andersson, Krister, 2013. "Local Governance of Forests and the Role of External Organizations: Some Ties Matter More Than Others," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 226-237.
    3. Garmendia, Eneko & Ojea, Elena & Pascual, Unai & Phelps, Jacob, 2013. "Leveraging Global Climate Finance for Sustainable Forests : Opportunities and Conditions for Successful Foreign Aid to the Forestry Sector," WIDER Working Paper Series 054, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    4. repec:spr:ieaple:v:17:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1007_s10784-016-9341-x is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Atela, Joanes O. & Quinn, Claire H. & Minang, Peter A. & Duguma, Lalisa A. & Houdet, Joël A., 2016. "Implementing REDD+ at the national level: Stakeholder engagement and policy coherences between REDD+ rules and Kenya's sectoral policies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 37-46.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Bayer, Patrick & Marcoux, Christopher & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2013. "Leveraging private capital for climate mitigation: Evidence from the Clean Development Mechanism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 14-24.
    9. Winands, Sarah & Holm-Müller, Karin & Weikard, Hans-Peter, 2013. "The biodiversity conservation game with heterogeneous countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 14-23.
    10. Steinar Andresen & Kristin Rosendal & Jon Skjærseth, 2013. "Why negotiate a legally binding mercury convention?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 425-440, November.
    11. 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.

    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:1908-1915. 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.