IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ieaple/v17y2017i5d10.1007_s10784-016-9341-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Adelaide Glover

    (University of East Anglia)

  • Heike Schroeder

    (University of East Anglia)

Abstract

This paper addresses the question of legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia. It develops a legitimacy framework that builds on elements of Scharpf (J Eur Pub Policy 4(1):18–36, 1997) input and output legitimacy concept and the political economy lens described by Brockhaus and Angelsen (Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices, CIFOR, Bogor, 2012). Using data collected through key informant interviews and focus groups, we identify and explore stakeholder perceptions of legitimacy. The analysis reveals a complex interplay between input and output legitimacy, finding that state, non-state and hybrid actors perceive output legitimacy (i.e. project outcomes) as highly dependent on the level of input legitimacy achieved during the governance process. Non-state actors perceive proxies for input legitimacy, such as participation and inclusion of local people, as goals in themselves. In the main, they perceive inclusion to be integral to the empowerment of local people. They perceive output legitimacy as less important because of the intangibility of REDD+ outcomes at this stage in the process. The findings also highlight the challenges associated with measuring the legitimacy of REDD+ governance in Indonesia.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:17:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1007_s10784-016-9341-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10784-016-9341-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10784-016-9341-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10784-016-9341-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Biermann, Frank & Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "Accountability and legitimacy: An analytical challenge for earth system governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1854-1855, September.
    5. Zelli, Fariborz & Hein, Jonas-Ibrahim & Erler, Daniela & Santa Cruz Melgarejo, Anna-Maria, 2014. "Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in Peru: a challenge to social inclusion and multi-level governance," IDOS Studies, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), volume 85, number 85, March.
    6. Brockhaus, Maria & Obidzinski, Krystof & Dermawan, Ahmad & Laumonier, Yves & Luttrell, Cecilia, 2012. "An overview of forest and land allocation policies in Indonesia: Is the current framework sufficient to meet the needs of REDD+?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 30-37.
    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. Moeliono, Moira & Brockhaus, Maria & Gallemore, Caleb & Dwisatrio, Bimo & Maharani, Cynthia D. & Muharrom, Efrian & Pham, Thuy Thu, 2020. "REDD+ in Indonesia: A new mode of governance or just another project?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    2. Michelle Scobie, 0. "International aid, trade and investment and access and allocation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-16.
    3. Schroeder, Heike & González P., Nidia C., 2019. "Bridging knowledge divides: The case of indigenous ontologies of territoriality and REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 198-206.
    4. Michelle Scobie, 2020. "International aid, trade and investment and access and allocation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 239-254, June.

    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. Rosendal, G. Kristin & Schei, Peter Johan, 2014. "How may REDD+ affect the practical, legal and institutional framework for ‘Payment for ecosystem services’ in Costa Rica?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 75-82.
    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. Duncan Weaver, 2018. "The Aarhus convention and process cosmopolitanism," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 199-213, April.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Teresa Kramarz & Susan Park, 2016. "Accountability in Global Environmental Governance: A Meaningful Tool for Action?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(2), pages 1-21, May.
    8. Cathrin Zengerling, 2019. "Governing the City of Flows: How Urban Metabolism Approaches May Strengthen Accountability in Strategic Planning," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 187-199.
    9. Anderson, Blake & M'Gonigle, Michael, 2012. "Does ecological economics have a future?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 37-48.
    10. Joseph Earsom, 2024. "Fit for purpose? Just Energy Transition Partnerships and accountability in international climate governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(1), pages 135-141, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Klusáček, Petr & Alexandrescu, Filip & Osman, Robert & Malý, Jiří & Kunc, Josef & Dvořák, Petr & Frantál, Bohumil & Havlíček, Marek & Krejčí, Tomáš & Martinát, Stanislav & Skokanová, Hana & Trojan, Ja, 2018. "Good governance as a strategic choice in brownfield regeneration: Regional dynamics from the Czech Republic," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-39.
    13. Karlijn Muiderman & Aarti Gupta & Joost Vervoort & Frank Biermann, 2020. "Four approaches to anticipatory climate governance: Different conceptions of the future and implications for the present," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(6), November.
    14. Jan Fagerberg & Staffan Laestadius & Ben R. Martin, 2016. "The Triple Challenge for Europe: The Economy, Climate Change, and Governance," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(3), pages 178-204, May.
    15. Philipp Pattberg & Cille Kaiser & Oscar Widerberg & Johannes Stripple, 2022. "20 Years of global climate change governance research: taking stock and moving forward," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 295-315, June.
    16. Neli Aparecida de Mello-Théry & Eduardo de Lima Caldas & Beatriz M. Funatsu & Damien Arvor & Vincent Dubreuil, 2020. "Climate Change and Public Policies in the Brazilian Amazon State of Mato Grosso: Perceptions and Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-20, June.
    17. Manjana Milkoreit & Kate Haapala, 2019. "The global stocktake: design lessons for a new review and ambition mechanism in the international climate regime," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 89-106, February.
    18. Carole-Anne Sénit & Frank Biermann & Agni Kalfagianni, 2017. "The Representativeness of Global Deliberation: A Critical Assessment of Civil Society Consultations for Sustainable Development," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(1), pages 62-72, February.
    19. 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.
    20. de Boon, Auvikki & Sandström, Camilla & Rose, David Christian, 2022. "Perceived legitimacy of agricultural transitions and implications for governance. Lessons learned from England’s post-Brexit agricultural transition," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).

    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:spr:ieaple:v:17:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1007_s10784-016-9341-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.