Representing Whose Access and Allocation Interests? Stakeholder Perceptions and Interests Representation in Climate Governance

  • Timothy Cadman
  • Tek Maraseni
  • Hugh BreakeyEmail author
  • Hwan-ok Ma
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability book series (PSETTA)


This chapter presents findings from quantitative and qualitative investigations of the perspectives of participants involved in international climate governance over the period 2010–2015. An established framework of principles, criteria and indicators for institutional governance was applied to two mechanisms under the UNFCCC: the initiative referred to as ‘Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest stocks in developing countries’ (REDD+) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. Assessment focuses on the governance value of interest representation in terms of inclusiveness (access) and resources (allocation).


  1. Abreu Mejía, D. (2010). The evolution of the climate change regime: Beyond a north-south divide?Google Scholar
  2. Allan, J. I., & Dauvergne, P. (2013). The global south in environmental negotiations: The politics of coalitions in REDD+. Third World Quarterly, 34(8), 1307–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bäckstrand, K., & Lövbrand, E. (2007). Climate governance beyond 2012: Competing discourses of green governmentality, ecological modernization and civic environmentalism. In The social construction of climate change: Power, knowledge, norms, discourses (pp. 123–147). Hampshire: Ashgate. Google Scholar
  4. Boran, I. (2016). Principles of public reason in the UNFCCC: Rethinking the Equity Framework. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(5), 1253–1271. Scholar
  5. Boran, I., & Katz, C. (2017). Climate change justice. In Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy: Taylor and Francis. Retrieved from
  6. Breakey, H. (2015). COP20’s ethical fallout: The perils of principles without dialogue. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 18(2), 156–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breakey, H., Cadman, T., & Sampford, C. (2015). Conceptualizing personal and institutional integrity: The comprehensive integrity framework. Research in Ethical Issues in Organizations, 14, 1–40. Scholar
  8. Breakey, H., Cadman, T., & Sampford, C. (2017). Governance values and institutional integrity. In T. Cadman, R. Maguire, & C. Sampford (Eds.), Governing the climate change regime: Institutional integrity and integrity systems (pp. 16–44). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Cadman, T. (2009). Quality, legitimacy and global governance: A comparative analysis of four forest institutions. Doctoral thesis, University of Tasmania, Launceston.Google Scholar
  10. Cadman, T. (2011). Quality and legitimacy of global governance: Case lessons from forestry. New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cadman, T. (2013). Introduction: Global governance and climate change. In T. Cadman (Ed.), Climate change and global policy regimes (pp. 1–16). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. Scholar
  13. Cadman, T., Eastwood, L., Michaelis, F. L.-C., Maraseni, T. N., Pittock, J., & Sarker, T. (2015). The political economy of sustainable development: Policy instruments and market mechanisms. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
  14. Cadman, T., Maraseni, T., Breakey, H., López-Casero, F., & Ma, H. O. (2016). Governance values in the climate change regime: Stakeholder perceptions of redd+ legitimacy at the national level. Forests, 7(10), 212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cadman, T., Maraseni, T., Ma, H. O., & Lopez-Casero, F. (2017). Five years of REDD+ governance: The use of market mechanisms as a response to anthropogenic climate change. Forest Policy and Economics, 79, 8–16. Scholar
  16. CDM-Policy-Dialogue. (2012a). Climate change, carbon markets and the CDM: A call to action. Retrieved from Luxembourg
  17. CDM-Policy-Dialogue. (2012b). High-level panel on the CDM Policy Dialogue. Retrieved from
  18. Chapman, S., Maguire, R., Doshi, M., Kago, C. W., Aquino, N. K., Kiguatha, L., …, Engbring, G. (2015). The elements of benefit-sharing for REDD+ in Kenya: A legal perspective. Carbon & Climate Law Review: CCLR, 9(4), 283.Google Scholar
  19. Chapman, S., Wilder, M., & Millar, I. (2014). Defining the legal elements of benefit sharing in the context of REDD. Carbon & Climate Law Review: CCLR, 8(4), 270–281.Google Scholar
  20. Chapman, S., Wilder, M., Millar, I., Dibley, A., Yeang, D., Heffernan, J., …, Dooley, E. (2015). A legal perspective of carbon rights and benefit sharing under REDD+ : A conceptual framework and examples from Cambodia and Kenya. Carbon & Climate Law Review : CCLR, 9(2), 143.Google Scholar
  21. Chokkalingam, U., & Vanniarachchy, A. (2011). Sri Lanka’s REDD+ potential, myth or reality? Forest Carbon Asia Colombo.Google Scholar
  22. CIFOR. (2017). Analysis: Getting down to business in Bonn. Retrieved from
  23. de Oliveira, J. P., Cadman, T., Ma, H. O., Maraseni, T., Koli, A., Jadhav, Y. D., et al. (2013). Governing the forests: An institutional analysis of REDD+ and community forest management in Asia. Yokohama: International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO)/United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS).Google Scholar
  24. Dooley, K., & Gupta, A. (2017). Governing by expertise: The contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17(4), 483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. FCPF. (2011). Forest carbon partnership facility common approach to environmental and social safeguards for multiple delivery partners.Google Scholar
  26. FCPF. (2017). About FCPF. Retrieved from
  27. Forsyth, T. (2009). Multilevel, multiactor governance in REDD+: Participation, integration and coordination. In A. Angelsen (Ed.), Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options (pp. 113–122). Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).Google Scholar
  28. Fujisaki, T., Hyakumura, K., Scheyvens, H., & Cadman, T. (2016). Does REDD+ ensure sectoral coordination and stakeholder participation? A comparative analysis of REDD+ national governance structures in countries of Asia-Pacific region. Forests, 7(9), 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Glynn, P. J., Cadman, T., & Maraseni, T. N. (2017). Business, organized labour and climate policy: Forging a role at the negotiating table. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. GRET. (2016). What role do carbon markets play in the Paris Agreement? Retrieved from
  31. Harada, K., Prabowo, D., Aliadi, A., Ichihara, J., & Ma, H.-O. (2015). How can social safeguards of REDD+ function effectively conserve forests and improve local livelihoods? A case from Meru Betiri National Park, East Java. Indonesia. Land, 4(1), 119–139. Scholar
  32. Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate governance at the crossroads: Experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jänicke, M. (1992). Conditions for environmental policy success: An international comparison. The Environmentalist, 12, 47–58. Scholar
  34. Jänicke, M. (Ed.). (1996). Democracy as a condition for environmental policy success: The importance of non-institutional factors. Cheltenham and Lyme: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  35. Knieling, J., & Leal Filho, W. (2012). Climate change governance. Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  36. Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2006). Introduction: Institutional diversity in global governance. In M. Koenig-Archibugi & M. Zurn (Eds.), New modes of governance in the global system: Exploring publicness, delegation and inclusiveness (pp. 1–30). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lammerts van Beuren, E. M., & Blom, E. M. (1997). Hierarchical framework for the formulation of sustainable forest management standards. Leiden: The Tropenbos Foundation.Google Scholar
  38. 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. Scholar
  39. Lyster, R. (2011). REDD+ , transparency, participation and resource rights: The role of law. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maguire, R. (2015). Mapping the integrity of differential obligations within the United Nations framework convention on climate change. In V. Popovski, R. Maguire, & H. Breakey (Eds.), Ethical values and the integrity of the climate change regime (pp. 31–42). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  41. Maraseni, T. N., & Cadman, T. (2015). A comparative analysis of global stakeholders’ perceptions of the governance quality of the clean development mechanism (CDM) and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). International Journal of Environmental Studies, 72(2), 288–304. Scholar
  42. Mason, M. (1999). Environmental democracy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  43. McAfee, K. (2016). Green economy and carbon markets for conservation and development: A critical view. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(3), 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McGregor, A., Weaver, S., Challies, E., Howson, P., Astuti, R., & Haalboom, B. (2014). Practical critique: Bridging the gap between critical and practice-oriented REDD+ research communities. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 55(3), 277–291. Scholar
  45. Newell, P. (2009). Varieties of CDM governance: Some reflections. The Journal of Environment & Development, 18(4), 425–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Radunsky, K., Cadman, T. (2017). Afterword: The long road to Paris: Insider and outsider perspectives. In R. Maguire, C. Sampford, T. Cadman (Eds.), Governing the climate change regime: Instituional integrity and integrity systems (pp. 250–265). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Roberts, J. T., & Parks, B. (2006). A climate of injustice: Global inequality, north-south politics, and climate policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Schmidt, V. A. (2013). Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output and ‘throughput’. Political Studies, 61, 2–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scholte, J. A. (2004). Civil society and democratically accountable global governance. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 211–233. Scholar
  51. Smismans, S. (2004). Law, legitimacy, and European governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Stiglitz, J. E. (2003). Globalization and development. In D. Held & M. Koenig-Archibugi (Eds.), Taming globalisation: Frontiers of governance (pp. 47–67). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  53. Thompson, M. C., Baruah, M., & Carr, E. R. (2011). Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. UNFCCC. (2011). Outcome of the work of the ad hoc working group on long-term cooperative action under the convention (Cancun Agreements). Retrieved from
  55. UNFCCC. (2014). Warsaw framework for REDD-plus. Retrieved from
  56. UNFCCC. (2015). Paris Agreement as contained in the report of the conference of the parties on its twenty-first session. Retrieved from
  57. UN-REDD. (2012). UN-REDD programme social and environmental principles and criteria.Google Scholar
  58. Van Selm, M., & Jankowski, N. W. (2006). Conducting online surveys. Quality & Quantity, 40(3), 435–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy Cadman
    • 1
  • Tek Maraseni
    • 2
  • Hugh Breakey
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hwan-ok Ma
    • 3
  1. 1.Griffith UniversityNathanAustralia
  2. 2.University of Southern QueenslandToowoombaAustralia
  3. 3.International Tropical Timber OrganizationYokohamaJapan

Personalised recommendations