Timothy Cadman

Dr. Timothy Cadman

Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law, Law Futures Centre, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

17Years (2010-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 April 2014 in Journal of Environmental Management
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Tek MaraseniTek Maraseni
Tek Maraseni
PNP.R. Neupane
P.R. Neupane
FLF. Lopez-Casero
F. Lopez-Casero
Timothy CadmanTimothy Cadman
Timothy Cadman

1 June 2017 in Forest Policy and Economics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Timothy CadmanTimothy Cadman
Timothy Cadman
Tek MaraseniTek Maraseni
Tek Maraseni
HMHwan Ok Ma
Hwan Ok Ma
FLFederico Lopez-Casero
Federico Lopez-Casero


1 February 2019 in Land Use Policy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
TMTek Narayan Maraseni
Tek Narayan Maraseni
NBNabin Bhattarai
Nabin Bhattarai
BKBhaskar Singh Karky
Bhaskar Singh Karky
Timothy CadmanTimothy Cadman
Timothy Cadman
NTNiroj Timalsina
Niroj Timalsina
MPMohan Poudel
Mohan Poudel

31 August 2016 in Forests
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TFTaiji Fujisaki
Taiji Fujisaki
Kimihiko HyakumuraKimihiko Hyakumura
Kimihiko Hyakumura
HSHenry Scheyvens
Henry Scheyvens
Timothy CadmanTimothy Cadman
Timothy Cadman
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD+) requires harmonizing different policy sectors and interests that have impacts on forests. However, these elements have not been well-operationalized in environmental policy-making processes of most developing countries. Drawing on five cases—Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Papua New Guinea, and Vietnam, this article aims to determine whether emerging governance arrangements help REDD+ development by delivering participatory mechanisms for policy coordination. Building upon literature on environmental governance and stakeholder participation, the article examines national governance structures for REDD+ and identifies who participates where, and what decision-making powers they have. Despite structural differences between the countries, our analysis illustrates that REDD+ potentially encourages a new form of environmental governance promoting a cross-sectoral approach and stakeholder participation. Cohesiveness of the structures within a broader governance system is key to defining the capacity of REDD+ governance. The result also poses a question as to the inclusiveness of the state actors involved in order to tackle the different pressure on forests. Considering structural inequalities, the analysis further suggests a need of policy support for those who are affected by REDD+ to ensure that their voices could be heard in decision-making processes.

1 January 2020 in Ecosystems and People
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
CKCornelia Krug
Cornelia Krug
ESEleanor Sterling
Eleanor Sterling
Timothy CadmanTimothy Cadman
Timothy Cadman
JGJonas Geschke
Jonas Geschke
PCPaula F. Drummond de Castro
Paula F. Drummond de Castro
Tek MaraseniTek Maraseni
Tek Maraseni
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services(IPBES) strengthens the science-policy interface by producing scientific assessments on biodiversity and ecosystem services to inform policy. IPBES fosters knowledge exchange across disciplines, between researchers and other knowledge holders, practitioners, societal actors and decision makers working at different geographic scales. A number of avenues for participation of stakeholders across the four functions if IPBES exist. Stakeholders come from diverse backgrounds, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities, businesses, and non-governmental organization. They represent multiple sources of information, data, knowledge, and perspectives on biodiversity. Stakeholder engagement in IPBES seeks to 1. communicate, disseminate, and implement the findings of IPBES products; 2. Develop guidelines for biodiversity conservation within member countries; and 3. create linkages between global policy and local actors – all key to the implementation of global agreements on biodiversity. This paper reflects on the role of stakeholders in the first work programme of IPBES (2014–2018). It provides an overview of IPBES processes and products relevant to stakeholders, examines the motivation of stakeholders to engage with IPBES, and explores reflections by the authors (all active participants on the platform) for improved stakeholder engagement and contributions to future work of the platform.