Legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 695-708

  Glover, Adelaide ^a   Schroeder, Heike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Governance; Indonesia; Legitimacy; Non state actors; Political economy; REDD+

Indexed keywords

EMISSION INVENTORY; EMPOWERMENT; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; POLITICAL ECONOMY; POLITICAL SYSTEM; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; STAKEHOLDER; UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE;

INDONESIA;

EID: 85008441694     PISSN: 15679764     EISSN: 15731553     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10784-016-9341-x     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Angelsen, A., Streck, C., Peskett, L., Brown, J., & Luttrell, C. (2008). What is the right scale for REDD. In A. Angelsen (Ed.), Moving ahead with REDD: issues, options and implications (pp. 31–40). CIFOR: Bogor.
2. Atmadja, S., Indriatmoko, Y., Utomo, N. A., Komalasari, M., & Ekaputri, A. D. (2014). Kalimantan forests and climate partnership, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. In E. O. Sills, S. Atmadja, C. Sassi, A. E. de Duchelle, D. Kweka, I. A. P. Resosudarmo, & W. D. Sunderlin (Eds.), REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe (pp. 290–308). Bogor: CIFOR.
3. Atmadja, S., & Wollenberg, E. (2010). Indonesia. In O. Springate-Baginski & E. Wollenberg (Eds.), REDD, forest governance and rural livelihoods: The emerging agenda (pp. 73–94). Bogor: CIFOR.
4. Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment, 16(5), 290–306.
5. Bäckstrand, K. (2013). The democratic legitimacy and legitimation of global climate governance. Paper presented at the Earth System Governance Conference, Tokyo, 28–31 January 2013.
6. Bappenas. (2010). Indonesia climate change sectoral roadmap: Forestry. http://www.bappenas.go.id/get-file-server/node/10612/. Accessed July 12, 2013.
7. Biermann, F., & Gupta, A. (2011). Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1856–1864.
8. Brockhaus, M., & Angelsen, A. (2012). Seeing REDD+ through 4Is: A political economy framework. In A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, W. D. Sunderlin, & L. V. Verchot (Eds.), Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices (pp. 15–30). Bogor: CIFOR.
9. Brockhaus, M., Obidzinski, K., Dermawan, A., Laumonier, Y., & Luttrell, C. (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, 18, 30–37.
10. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R. O. (2006). The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(4), 405–437.
12. Cadman, T., & Maraseni, T. (2013). More equal than others? A comparative analysis of state and non-state perceptions of interest representation and decision-making in REDD+ negotiations. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 26(3), 214–230.
13. Corbera, E., & Schroeder, H. (2011). Governing and implementing REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 89–99.
14. Corbetta, P. (2003). Social research: Theory, methods and techniques. London: Sage.
15. Di Gregorio, M., Brockhaus, M., Cronin, T., & Muharrom, E. (2012). Politics and power in national REDD+ policy processes. In A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, W. D. Sunderlin, & L. V. Verchot (Eds.), Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices (pp. 69–90). Bogor: CIFOR.
16. Edwards, D. P., Koh, L. P., & Laurance, W. F. (2012). Indonesia’s REDD+ pact: Saving imperilled forests or business as usual? Biological Conservation, 151(1), 41–44.
17. FAO. (2010). National net emissions removals from net forest conversion. http://faostat3.fao.org/home/index.html#DOWNLOAD. Accessed August 5, 2013.
18. Forest Peoples Programme. (2012). Unfulfilled promises: A note on the KFCP’s recent attempts to respect the rights of affected communities on the Kapuas River, Central Kalimantan. http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2012/09/kfcp-commitments-after-year-promises-final.pdf. Accessed August 3, 2013.
19. Galudra, G., van Noordwijk, M., Sunyato, I. S., & Pradhan, U. (2010). Hot spot of emission and confusion: Land tenure insecurity, contested policies and competing claims in the Central Kalimantan ex-mega rice project area. Working paper 98. Bogor: World Agroforestry Centre.
20. Government of Indonesia. (2011). Article 5: The REDD+ agency task force membership structure. http://sipuu.setkab.go.id/PUUdoc/17271/Keppres0252011.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2013.
21. Government of Indonesia and Government of Norway. (2010). Letter of intent between the Government of the Kingdom of Norway and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on ‘Cooperation on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation’. http://www.norway.or.id/PageFiles/404362/Letter_of_Intent_Norway_Indonesia_26_May_2010.pdf. Accessed July 31, 2013.
22. Howson, P. (2013). Over the REDD rainbow. The Jakarta Post. 15 August. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/08/15/over-redd-rainbow.html. Accessed August 17, 2013.
23. Indrarto, G. B., Murharjanti, P., Khatarina, J., Pulungan, I., Ivalerina & F., Rahman, J. (2012). The context of REDD+ in Indonesia: Drivers, agents and institutions. Working paper 92. Bogor: CIFOR.
24. Lederer, M. (2011). From CDM to REDD+—What do we know for setting up effective and legitimate carbon governance? Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1900–1907.
25. Luttrell, C., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Muharrom, E., Brockhaus, M., & Seymour, F. (2014). The political context of REDD+ in Indonesia: Constituencies for change. Environmental Science & Policy, 35, 67–75.
26. McDermott, C. L., Coad, L., Ariella Helfgott, A., & Schroeder, H. (2012). Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: Actors, interests and ideas. Environmental Science & Policy, 21, 63–72.
27. Mulyani, M., & Jepson, P. (2013). REDD+ and forest governance in Indonesia: A multi-stakeholder study of perceived challenges and opportunities. The Journal of Environment Development, 22(2), 1–23.
28. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
29. Peterson, N. D. (2011). Excluding to include: (Non) Participation in Mexican natural resource management. Agriculture and Human Values, 28(1), 99–107.
30. Risse, T. (2006). Transnational governance and legitimacy. In A. Benz & I. Papadopoulos (Eds.), Governance and democracy: Comparing national, European and international experiences (pp. 179–199). New York: Routledge.
31. Rosendal, G. K., & Andresen, S. (2011). Institutional design for improved forest governance through REDD: Lessons from the global environment facility. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1908–1915.
32. SATGAS. (2012). REDD+ national strategy. Jakarta: Indonesian National REDD+ Task Force.
33. Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Economic integration, democracy and the welfare state. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(1), 18–36.
34. Scholte, J. A. (2011). Towards greater legitimacy in global governance. Review of International Political Economy, 18(1), 110–120.
35. Steffek, J. (2003). The legitimation of international governance: A discourse approach. European Journal of International Relations, 9(2), 249–275.
36. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
37. Thompson, M. C., Baruah, M., & Carr, E. R. (2011). Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 100–110.
38. UKP4. (2013). Partnering the new paradigm: Sustainable development. http://www.ukp.go.id/siaran-pers/121-bermitra-dalam-paradigma-baru-pembangunan-berkelanjutan. Accessed July 11, 2013.
39. UNFCCC. (2007). Decision 2/CP.13 Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: Approaches to stimulate action. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its thirteenth session, held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2013.
40. UNFCCC. (2011). Decision 1/CP.16. The Cancun agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2013.
41. Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Gupta, A., Herold, M., Peña-Claros, M., & Vijge, M. J. (2012a). Will REDD+ work? The need for interdisciplinary research to address key challenges. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(6), 590–596.
42. 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), 646–653.
43. Wadley, R. L., & Colfer, C. J. P. (2004). Sacred forest, hunting, and conservation in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Human Ecology, 32(3), 313–338.
44. Wong, G., Brockhaus, M., Moeliono, M., Padoch, C., & Pham, T. T. (2016). Equity, REDD+ and benefit sharing in social forestry (No. CIFOR Infobrief No. 142). Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
45. Zelli, F., Erler, D., Frank, S., Hein, J. I., Hotz, H., & Santa Cruz Melgarejo, A. M. (2014). Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in Peru: A challenge to social inclusion and multi-level governance. Bonn: German Development Institute.