Institutional design for improved forest governance through REDD: Lessons from the global environment facility
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.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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, 09.
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: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.