Analyzing the administration of REDD, FSC, PEFC in terms of efficiency, equity, and transparency

This research analyzes and compares three market schemes for achieving sustainable forestry in terms of their consideration of costs, benefits, and transparency. The first is Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), from both the United Nations and World Bank. The other two schemes are for sustainable forest certification: Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). There are two research propositions. The first research proposition is that private systems are more likely to pay attention to costs and benefits. PEFC, being the most private scheme, is more likely to pay attention to costs and benefits. The second research proposition is that private systems are more likely to be transparent because of the importance of information in market transactions. PEFC, as the most private scheme, is more likely to pay attention to transparency.;After the documents were analyzed, only one part of a research proposition can be supported, which is PEFC pays the most attention to benefits in its documents. Part of this research proposition can be supported because PEFC ranks the highest for benefits. For the second part of this proposition, the part about costs, UN REDD ranks the highest. UN REDD also ranks the highest in terms of transparency, so the first proposition is rejected. Ultimately, the public would be better off choosing UN REDD to achieve sustainable forestry and thus mitigate climate change.