The interim REDD+ Partnership: Boost for biodiversity safeguards?

Pistorius, Till; Reinecke, Sabine

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2012.10.007

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This paper also contributes to the literature on the democratization of environmental governance, which seems to be increasingly based on multi-stakeholder processes (Reed et al 2009;Brechin et al 2002;Pistorius and Reinecke 2013). More specifically, this paper sheds new light on the way certain stakeholders, notably international NGOs, are involved in the legitimation of organizational practices for biodiversity through auditing practices and others measures.…”

Section: Contributions and Managerial Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…The protection of ecosystems clearly raises ethical concerns for various stakeholders (e.g., the local population, environmental associations, and fisher and hunter organizations) whose interests should be taken into account as far as possible (Kapoor 2001;Brechin et al 2002;Orts and Stredler 2002). Collaborating with these stakeholders can improve the social legitimacy of biodiversity management, facilitate knowledge-sharing, and avoid conflicts with local populations (Pistorius and Reinecke 2013;Young et al 2007). Such collaboration also tends to be part of a larger movement in which biodiversity issues are not only the responsibility of governments or specialized organizations, but rather are managed through a multi-stakeholder process (Reed et al 2009;Brechin et al 2002;Pistorius and Reinecke 2013).…”

Section: Stakeholder Involvement and Environmental Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Collaborating with these stakeholders can improve the social legitimacy of biodiversity management, facilitate knowledge-sharing, and avoid conflicts with local populations (Pistorius and Reinecke 2013;Young et al 2007). Such collaboration also tends to be part of a larger movement in which biodiversity issues are not only the responsibility of governments or specialized organizations, but rather are managed through a multi-stakeholder process (Reed et al 2009;Brechin et al 2002;Pistorius and Reinecke 2013). Although the general factors explaining the development of a multi-stakeholder and transdisciplinary approach in the conservation of biodiversity have been explored in a few studies (Reed et al 2009;Brechin et al 2002;Winn and Pogutz 2013), the specific reasons why companies should engage in this process remain underexplored, especially in the case of forestry and mining organizations.…”

Section: Stakeholder Involvement and Environmental Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Managing Biodiversity Through Stakeholder Involvement: Why, Who, and for What Initiatives?

Boiral¹,

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing pressures to conserve biodiversity-particularly for industries based on the exploitation of natural resources-have reinforced the need to implement specific measures in this area. Corporate commitment to preserving biodiversity is increasingly scrutinized by stakeholders and now represents an important aspect of business ethics. Although stakeholder involvement is often essential to the management of biodiversity, very few studies in the literature have focused on the details of this involvement. The objective of this paper is to analyze how mining and forestry companies can manage biodiversity issues through stakeholder involvement based on a content analysis of 430 sustainability reports using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework. The paper elucidates the reasons for such involvement, the nature of stakeholders involved, and the types of measures employed to manage biodiversity. Stakeholders' motives for becoming involved revolve around four main issues: complexity and knowledge management; self-regulation and relationships with public authorities; legitimacy and social responsiveness; and commercial and strategic objectives. The stakeholders involved in biodiversity initiatives are essentially non-governmental organizations, experts and universities, public authorities, and coalitions of companies. In the end, the initiatives identified can be grouped into three categories: management practices, socio-political actions, and research and conservation measures. The paper provides various examples of these initiatives and shows how they can be implemented in collaboration with different stakeholders depending on the company's objectives. The contributions the study makes to the literature on biodiversity management and the managerial implications of the study are analyzed in the discussion section.

show abstract

Section: Contributions and Managerial Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Stakeholder Involvement and Environmental Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Stakeholder Involvement and Environmental Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Managing Biodiversity Through Stakeholder Involvement: Why, Who, and for What Initiatives?

Boiral¹,

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although decisions were of a rather information-based nature in the exchange platform REDD+ Partnership, meaningful stakeholder inclusion in meetings was a rule rather than the exception in various events and meetings. This was especially true in the last years of its existence and after the role of stakeholders has been formally accepted by all partners (own observations 2010-2014 [11,71]). …”

Section: Expert Roles In Forest Climate Governancementioning

confidence: 98%

Towards a Role-Oriented Governance Approach: Insights from Eight Forest Climate Initiatives

Blum

Reinecke

2017

Forests

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In forest climate governance processes such as REDD+, non-state actors take on various, more or less formal, but in fact potentially authoritative governance tasks when informing, financing, (co)deciding or implementing forest climate action. Drawing on the concept of social roles, we investigate eight different REDD+ governance processes and how a variety of practical authoritative roles are enacted in administration, finance, decision-making and knowledge production. By systematically revealing the distinct ways of how different roles were filled, we developed a first (potentially still incomplete) typology of role practices and underlying rationales within different governance settings. In this endeavor, the role concept offered a valuable and handy analytical tool for empirically operationalizing governance performance, which is principally compatible with both institutional and social constructivist approaches to legitimacy.

show abstract

“…The REDD? Partnership has been little analyzed in scholarly literature to date (for a few exceptions, see Reinecke et al 2012;Pistorius and Reinecke 2013). In conceptualizing the Partnership as a bridge organization in a fragmented REDD?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Gupta

Pistorius²,

Vijge

2015

Int Environ Agreements

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyzes the increasing institutional and organizational complexity and fragmentation surrounding the international financing mechanism REDD? (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries and related forest activities), now being negotiated within the UNFCCC. We focus, in particular, on critically assessing the prospects of managing such fragmentation. We do so by analyzing whether and how (what we conceptualize here as) a ''bridge organization''-the voluntary, multi-stakeholder REDD? Partnership bringing together state and non-state actors from global to local scales-has aided in managing fragmentation in this realm, through exercising four enabling functions (enhancing transparency, participation, knowledge sharing, and coordination). Our analysis shows that the REDD? Partnership has partially succeeded in furthering such procedural aims, but that this has not resulted in a ''scaling up of REDD? action and finance,'' its overarching substantive aim. In contrast to dominant views of a bridge organization's modus operandi, we conclude, based on our analysis, that its value lies not in overcoming persisting geopolitical conflicts around climate mitigation and providing a ''depoliticized'' context within which to manage fragmentation. Instead, its success lies in permitting dialogue and exchange even in the face of persisting political conflicts over its raison d'être and functions. In making these arguments, the article extends recent debates on the prospects to manage fragmentation in global environmental governance and provides a critical assessment of the role therein for bridge organizations.

show abstract

The interim REDD+ Partnership: Boost for biodiversity safeguards?

Cited by 11 publications

References 28 publications

Managing Biodiversity Through Stakeholder Involvement: Why, Who, and for What Initiatives?

Managing Biodiversity Through Stakeholder Involvement: Why, Who, and for What Initiatives?

Towards a Role-Oriented Governance Approach: Insights from Eight Forest Climate Initiatives

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About