Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Governance Concepts and their Application in Forest Policy Initiatives from Global to Local Levels

Abstract

In recent decades the concept of ‘governance’ as interdependent coordination of actors as well as the normative concept of ‘good governance’ have increasingly influenced international forest policy, to varying degrees. Using the three dimensions of multi-actor, multi-sector and multi-level governance to analyse key aspects of governance in the follow-up of global policy after the UNCED conference in 1992, this paper shows that ‘multi-actor governance’ has received considerable attention in international forest policy, mainly through promoting national forest programs. Global forest policy initiatives were less able to develop concepts to address and improve ‘multi-sector governance’ and ‘multi-level governance’, although these two dimensions of governance are particularly relevant for local levels. A number of major international forest policy initiatives, both public and private, have also focused on improving various dimensions of ‘good governance’. A review of the degree to which these international governmental initiatives have been transposed and applied at the local or regional level reveals a major gap between concepts and forest policy initiatives developed and promoted at international and national levels and their application at the regional and local levels. This calls for better concepts addressing in particular the ‘multi-level’ dimension of governance in order to improve connectivity between these levels. A range of governance change approaches can be applied, including adjusting modes of interaction, instruments and institutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The ‘local’ level is understood here to refer to the smallest administrative unit in a country. This usually is a village or municipality. The term ‘regional’ is used to denote sub-national regions.

  2. 2.

    Institutions are defined by North (1990) as consist[ing] of formal rules, informal constraints—norms of behaviour, conventions, and self-imposed codes of conduct—and their enforcement characteristics. Institutions are often defined as the ‘rules of the game’.

  3. 3.

    The focus of the article with regard to “international forest policy” is on global forest policy as well as on European forest policy.

References

  1. Benz A (2004) Governance – Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, Germany

  2. Colfer CJP, Capistrano D (2005) The politics of decentralization; forests, power and people. Earthscan Publications, London

  3. Dubé YC, Schmithüsen F (2007) Cross-sectoral policy developments in forestry. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome

  4. Enters T, Durst PB, Victor M (eds) (2000) Decentralization and devolution of forest management in Asia and the Pacific. RECOFTC Report No.18 and RAP Publication 2000/1. Bangkok

  5. Fisher RJ, Durst P, Enters T, Victor M (2000) Overview of themes and issues in devolution and decentralization of forest management in Asia and the Pacific. In Enters T, Durst PB, Victor M (eds). Decentralization and devolution of forest management in Asia and the Pacific. RECOFTC Report No. 18 and RAP Publication 2000/1. Bangkok; pp vi–xi

  6. Glück P, Rayner J, Cashore B (2005) Change in the governance of forest resources. In: Mery G, Alfaro R, Kanninen M, Lobovikov M (eds) Forests in the global balance: changing paradigms. IUFRO World Series, Helsinki, pp 51–74

  7. Hajer MA, Wagenaar H (eds) (2003) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  8. Hall JE, Bonnell B (2004) Social and collaborative forestry: Canadian model forest experience. Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa

  9. Heritier A (2002) New modes of governance in Europe: policy-making without legislating? In: Heritier A (ed) Common goods: reinventing European and international governance. Rowman and Littlefield, Oxford, pp 185–205

  10. Hogl K, Nordbeck R, Kvarda E, Pregernig M (2008) New modes of governance for sustainable forestry in Europe; Synthesis report of the EU FP6 GOFOR project. University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna

  11. Jänicke M, Joergensen H (2006) New approaches to environmental governance. In: Jänicke M, Jakob K (eds) Environmental governance in global perspective. New approaches to ecological and political modernisation. Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, pp 176–177

  12. Kouplevatskaya-Yunusova I, Buttoud G (2006) Assessment of an iterative process: the double spiral of re-designing participation. For Policy Econ 8(5):529–541. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2005.07.010

  13. LaPierre L (2002) Canada’s model forest program. For Chron 78(5):613–617

  14. Larson A (2004) Democratic decentralisation in the forestry sector: lessons learned from Africa, Asia and Latin America, paper presented at the Interlaken Workshop, Switzerland, April

  15. Mayntz R (2004) Governance Theory als fortentwickelte Steuerungstheorie?, MPIfG Working Paper 04/1, Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, Köln

  16. Mayntz R, Scharpf F (eds) (1995) Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

  17. MCPFE (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe) (2007) Implementation of MCPFE commitments. National and Pan-European activities 2003–2007. Liaison Unit, Warsaw

  18. North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  19. Pierre J (2000) Introduction: understanding governance. In: Pierre J (ed) Debating governance: authority, steering, and democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  20. Rametsteiner E, Schmithüsen F, Tikkanen I (2007) Report on the MCPFE qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management: policies, institutions and instruments. In Köhl M, Rametsteiner E (eds) The State of Europe’s Forests 2007. The MCPFE report on sustainable forest management in Europe. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Liaison Unit, Warsaw, pp 105–139

  21. Ribot J (2004) Waiting for democracy: the politics of choice in natural resource decentralization. World Resources Institute, Washington DC

  22. Rosenau JN, Czempiel EO (eds) (1992) Governance without government: order and change in world politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  23. Salamon L (ed) (2002) The tools of government. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  24. Shackleton S, Campbell B, Wollenberg E, Edmunds D (2002) Devolution and community-based natural resource management: creating space for local people to participate and benefit? ODI natural resource perspectives 76. Overseas Development Institute, UK

  25. UN (1993) Agenda 21: earth summit: the United Nations programme of action from Rio. United Nations Publications, United Nations, New York

  26. UN (2004) Decentralization, federal systems in forestry and national forest programs: Report of a workshop co-organized by the Governments of Indonesia and Switzerland. Final report of the Interlaken workshop 27–30 April 2004, Interlaken

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Ewald Rametsteiner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rametsteiner, E. Governance Concepts and their Application in Forest Policy Initiatives from Global to Local Levels. Small-scale Forestry 8, 143–158 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-009-9078-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • International forest policy
  • Local forest governance
  • Multi-level governance
  • Good governance
  • Policy evaluation