Managing fragmentation in global environmental governance: the REDD+ Partnership as bridge organization

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 355-374

  Gupta, Aarti ^a   Pistorius, Till ^b   Vijge, Marjanneke J ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIQUE forestry and land use   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bridge organization; Climate governance; Forests; Fragmentation; Global environmental governance; Institutional interplay; Interaction management; REDD+ Partnership; Regime complexes

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; DEVELOPING WORLD; EMISSION CONTROL; FRAGMENTATION; GEOPOLITICS; GLOBAL CHANGE; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK; PARTNERSHIP APPROACH; STAKEHOLDER; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE;

EID: 84961288761     PISSN: 15679764     EISSN: 15731553     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10784-015-9274-9     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Abbott, K. (2012). The transnational regime complex for climate change. Environmental Policy and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(4), 571–590.
2. Abbott, K., & Snidal, D. (2006). Nesting, overlap and parallelism: Governance schemes for international production standards. Memo for Alter-Meunier, Princeton Nesting Conference, February 2006. http://www.princeton.edu/~smeunier/Abbott%20Snidal%20memo.pdf. Accessed October 24, 2013.
3. Aggarwal, V. K. (2005). Reconciling institutions: Nested, horizontal, overlapping, and independent institutions. http://www.princeton.edu/~smeunier/Aggarwal%20memo.pdf. Accessed October 24, 2013.
4. Alter, K. J., & Meunier, S. (2006). Nested and overlapping regimes in the transatlantic banana trade dispute. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(3), 362–382.
5. Alter, K. J., & Meunier, S. (2009). The politics of international regime complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 13–24.
6. Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1692–1702.
7. Betts, A. (2013). Regime complexity and international organizations: UNHCR as a challenged institution. Global Governance, 19, 69–81.
8. Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., Van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9(4), 14–40.
9. Cash, D., Adger, N. W., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., et al. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel World. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 8–18.
10. Cerbu, G. A., Swallow, B. M., & Thomson, D. Y. (2011). Locating REDD: A global survey and analysis of REDD readiness and demonstration activities. Environmental Science & Policy, 4(2), 168–180.
11. Convention on Biological Diversity, (CBD). (2015). http://www.cbd.int/. Accessed March 9, 2015.
12. Crona, B. I., & Parker, J. N. (2012). Learning in support of governance: Theories, methods and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 32.
13. Davis, C., & Daviet, F. (2010). Investing in results: enhancing coordination for more effective interim REDD+ financing. WRI Working Paper. World Resource Institute, Washington DC. http://www.wri.org/publication/investing-in-results. Accessed May 12, 2013.
14. Drezner, D. W. (2009). The power and peril of international regime complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 65–70.
15. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473.
16. Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2004). Exploring regime interaction: A framework of analysis. In A. Underdal & O. R. Young (Eds.), Regime consequences: Methodological challenges and research strategies. The Netherlands: Springer.
17. Gupta, A. (2008). Transparency under scrutiny: Information disclosure in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8(2), 1–7.
18. Gupta, A. (2010a). Transparency to what end? Governing by disclosure through the biosafety clearing house. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(1), 128–144.
19. Gupta, A. (2010b). Transparency in global environmental governance: A coming of age? Global Environmental Politics, 10(3), 1–9.
20. Gupta, A., Lövbrand, E., Turnhout, E., & Vijge, M. J. (2012). In pursuit of carbon accountability: The politics of REDD+ measuring, reporting and verification systems. Current Opinion on Environmental Sustainability, 4(6), 726–731.
21. Gupta, A., Vijge, M. J., Turnhout, E., & Pistorius, T. (2014). Making REDD+ transparent: The politics of measuring, reporting and verification systems. In A. Gupta & M. Mason (Eds.), Transparency in global environmental governance. Cambridge: MIT press.
22. Herold, M., & Skutsch, M. (2011). Monitoring, reporting and verification for national REDD+ programmes: Two proposals. Environmental Research Letters, 6, 1–10.
23. IPCC. (2003). Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf.htm. Accessed 3 July 2013.
24. Keohane, R., & Victor, D. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9(1), 7–23.
25. La Viña, T., & Lee, D. (2014). Assessment of the results of the REDD+ Partnership. http://www.fao.org/partnerships/redd-plus-partnership/en/. Accessed March 9, 2015.
26. Lang, C. (2010a). How the REDD+ Partnership unraveled in Tianjin. http://www.redd-monitor.org/2010/10/12/how-the-redd-partnership-unravelled-in-tianjin/. Accessed November 24, 2014.
27. Lang, C. (2010b). NGO letter to the Interim REDD+ Partnership raises fundamental questions. http://www.redd-monitor.org/2010/09/10/ngo-letter-to-the-interim-redd-partnership-raises-fundamental-questions/. Accessed December 8, 2010.
28. Lang, C. (2014). The dismal failure of the REDD+ Partnership. http://www.redd-monitor.org/2014/11/20/the-dismal-failure-of-the-redd-partnership/. Accessed November 24, 2014.
29. McDermott, C. L., Coad, L., Helfgott, A., & Schroeder, H. (2012). Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: Actors, interests and ideas. Environmental Science & Policy, 21, 63–72.
30. McMullen, R. S., & Adobor, H. (2011). Bridge leadership: A case study of leadership in a bridging organization. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(7), 715–735.
31. Moss, N., Nussbaum, R., Muchemi, J., & Halverson, E. (2011). A review of three REDD+ safeguard initiatives. UN-REDD Programme & Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. http://www.un-redd.org/PublicationsResources/tabid/587/Default.aspx#joint_publications
32. Oberthür, S. (2009). Interplay management: Enhancing environmental policy integration among international institutions. International Environmental Agreements, 9, 371–391.
33. Orsini, A., Morin, J.-F., & Young, O. (2013). Regime complexes: A buzz, a boom or a boost for global governance? Global Governance, 19, 27–39.
34. Pistorius, T. (2012). From RED to REDD+: The evolution of a forest-based mitigation approach for developing countries. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(6), 638–645.
35. Pistorius, T., & Reinecke, S. (2013). The interim REDD+ Partnership: Boost for biodiversity safeguards? Forest Policy and Economics, 36, 80–86.
36. Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 58(2), 277–309.
37. REDD+ Partnership (2010a). Founding document. http://www.oslocfc2010.no/pop.cfm?FuseAction=Doc&pAction=View&pDocumentId=25019. Accessed October 22, 2013.
38. REDD+ Partnership (2010b). Interim REDD+ Partnership. Modalities of Stakeholder Participation. Tianjin, October. http://reddpluspartnership.org/23477-072817a5ccf72c2071aa1da88ca5a294e.pdf. Accessed October 24, 2013.
39. REDD+ Partnership (2014). Meeting and workshop, 27–28 November, 2014, Peru, Lima. http://reddpluspartnership.org/73943/en/. Accessed December 11, 2014.
40. Reinecke, S., Pistorius, T., & Pregernig, M. (2012). UNFCCC and the REDD+ Partnership from a networked governance perspective. Environmental Science & Policy,. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.09.015.
41. Ritter, D. (2012). Whatever happened to the REDD+ Partnership? Global Policy blog. http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/01/03/2012/whatever-happened-redd-partnership. Accessed December 3, 2014.
42. Streck, C. (2012). Financing REDD+: Matching needs and ends. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(6), 628–637.
43. UNFCCC (2013). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its nineteenth session, held in Warsaw from 11 to 23 November 2013. Addendum. Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its nineteenth session. Contents. Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties. FCCC/CP/2013/10/Add.1.
44. Van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2012). Connect the dots: Managing the fragmentation of global climate governance. Earth System Governance Working Paper no. 25. Lund and Amsterdam: Earth System Governance Project.
45. Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Arts, B., & Glasbergen, P. (2011). Interaction management by partnerships: The case of biodiversity and climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 11(4), 89–107.
46. Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Gupta, A., Herold, M., Peña-Claros, M., & Vijge, M. J. (2012a). Will REDD+ work? The need for interdisciplinary science to address key challenges. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(6), 646–653.
47. Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., McDermott, C., Vijge, M. J., & Cashore, B. (2012b). Trade-offs, co-benefits and safeguards: Current debates on the breadth of REDD+. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(6), 590–596.
48. Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., & Verkooijen, P. (2013). The practice of interaction management: Enhancing synergies among multilateral REDD+ institutions. Forest and Nature Governance World Forests, 14, 133–149.
49. Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., & Kongphan-Apirak, M. (2009). Emerging REDD+: A preliminary survey of demonstration and readiness activities. Working Paper 46. Bogor: CIFOR.
50. Young, O. R. (1996). Institutional linkages in international society: Polar perspectives. Global Governance, 2(1), 1–24.
51. Zelli, F., Gupta, A., & Van Asselt, H. (2013). Institutional interactions at the crossroads of trade and environment: The dominance of liberal environmentalism? Global Governance, 19, 105–118.
52. Zelli, F., & Van Asselt, H. (2013). Introduction: The institutional fragmentation of global environmental governance: Causes, consequences, and responses. Global Environmental Politics, 13(3), 1–13.