Mapping the fragmentation of the international forest regime complex: institutional elements, conflicts and synergies

Abstract

In the field of global environmental governance, a plethora of international regimes have emerged over the past decades. In some issue areas, multiple regimes aim to govern the issue, sometimes reinforcing, oftentimes conflicting with each other. Consequently, international regime complexes are an empirical phenomenon, which are inherently characterized by specific degrees of fragmentation. For any given issue area, one of the key questions is whether the institutional fragmentation encountered in such regime complexes is synergistic or conflictive in nature. Scrutinizing this question poses methodological challenges of how to delineate a regime complex and how to assess its fragmentation. Drawing on the highly fragmented case of the international forest regime complex, this paper aims to map its institutional fragmentation and to analyse the degrees to which it is conflictive or synergistic. For this we conceptualize the notion of institutional elements and develop a novel method for mapping regime complexes based on their core institutional elements. We then employ tools from the sub-discipline of policy analysis on the complex’s institutional elements for analysing in detail, which of the elements are mutually synergistic and conflictive with other elements of the regime complex. Our results indicate that synergistic relations mostly exist among rather vague elements, often built around sustainability as a core principle. On the contrary, conflictive relations prevail as soon as the elements are designed in more concrete and substantial ways. We conclude that the forest regime complex displays only degree of seemingly synergistic fragmentation through a number of non-decisions and the use of “sustainability” as an empty formula. De facto, conflictive fragmentation prevails among elements of concrete subject matter. This raises questions on whether vast parts of regime complexes merely serve symbolic functions, while conflicts on substance are being camouflaged.

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

Fig. 1

Abbreviations

CBD:

Convention on Biological Diversity

CEDAW:

Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women

CITES:

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

CMS:

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals

ECOSOC:

Economic and Social Council of the United Nations

FCPF:

Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

FIP:

Forest Investment Program

FSC:

Forest Stewardship Council

GATT:

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

IAF:

International Agreement on Forests

IE:

Institutional Element

IFF:

Intergovernmental Panel on Forests

IR:

International Regime

IFRC:

International Forest Regime Complex

ILO:

International Labour Organization

IPF:

Intergovernmental Panel on Forests

IR:

International Regime

ITTA:

International Tropical Timber Agreement

ITTO:

International Tropical Timber Organization

NLBI:

Non-legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests

PEFC:

Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification

REDD+:

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries

SFM:

Sustainable Forest Management

TBT:

Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade

TRIPS:

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

References

  1. Arts, B., & Babili, I. (2012). Global forest governance: Multiple practices of policy performance. In B. Arts, J. Behagel, S. van Bommel, J. Koning, & E. Turnhout (Eds.), Forest and nature governance (pp. 111–132). Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. (2012). Complex global governance and domestic policies: Four pathways of influence. International Affairs, 88, 585–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bezerra, J., Sindt, J., & Giessen, L. (2018). The rational design of regional forest regimes: Comparing Amazonian, Central African and Pan-European Forest Cooperation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18, 635–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Biermann, F., & Pattberg, P. (2012). Global environmental governance reconsidered (p. 320). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., Van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9, 14–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Burns, S., & Giessen, L. (2016). Dismantling comprehensive forest bureaucracies: direct access, the World Bank, agricultural interests, and neoliberal administrative reform of forest policy in Argentina. Society & Natural Resources, 29(4), 493–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Burns, S. L., Yapura, P. F., & Giessen, L. (2016). State actors and international forest certification policy: Coalitions behind FSC and PEFC in federal Argentina. Land Use Policy, 52, 23–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cadman, T. 2009. Quality, legitimacy and global governance: A comparative analysis of four forest institutions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania.

  9. Cadman, T. (2011). Quality and legitimacy of global governance: Case lessons from forestry. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cashore, B., & Stone, M. W. (2012). Can legality verification rescue global forest governance? Analyzing the potential of public and private policy intersection to ameliorate forest challenges in Southeast Asia. Forest policy and economics, 18, 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chan, S., & Pattberg, P. (2008). Private rule-making and the politics of accountability: analyzing global forest governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8, 103–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Colfer, C. J. P., & Minarchek, R. D. (2013). Introducing “the gender box”: A framework for analysing gender roles in forest management. International Forestry Review, 15, 411–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dimitrov, R. S. (2005). Hostage to norms: States, institutions and global forest politics. Global Environmental Politics, 5, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dimitrov, R. S., Sprinz, D. F., DiGiusto, G. M., & Kelle, A. (2007). International Nonregimes: A Research Agenda. International Studies Review, 9, 230–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Downes, D.R. (1999). Global forest policy and selected international instruments: A preliminary review. In R.G. Tarasofsky (Ed.), Assessing the International Forest Regime. Switzerland: IUCN.

  16. Eikermann, A. (2015). Forests in International Law. Is There Really a Need for an International Forest Convention? Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-36813-9.

  17. Falkner, R. (2016). The Paris agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. International Affairs, 92, 1107–1125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gale, F., & Cadman, T. (2014). Whose norms prevail? Policy networks, international organizations and “sustainable forest management”. Society and Natural Resources, 27(2), 170–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Giessen, L. (2013). Reviewing the main characteristics of the international forest regime complex and partial explanations for its fragmentation. International Forestry Review, 15(1), 60–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Giessen, L. (forthcoming): Forests and the two faces of international governance: Customizing international regimes through domestic politics. Edward Elgar, Series on New Horizons in Environmental Politics.

  21. Giessen, L., Sarker, P. K., & Rahman, Md S. (2016). International and domestic sustainable forest management policies: Distributive effects on power among state agencies in Bangladesh. Sustainability, 8, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Glück, P., Angelsen, A., Appelstrand, M., Assembe-Mvondo, S., Auld, G., & Hogl, K. (2010). Core components of the international forest regime complex. IUFRO, 28, 37–55.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Holmgren, L. (2010). International forest policy: An overview. Report from the Secretariat for International Forestry Issues, SIFI. Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry.

  24. Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Howlett, M., Rayner, J. (2010). Overcoming the challenges to integration: embracing complexityin forest policy design through multi-level governance. In: Rayner, J., Buck, A. & Katila, P., Embracing complexity: Meeting the challenges of international forest governance. A global assessment report. Global Forest Panel on the International Forest Regime, IUFRO World Series Vol. 28. Vienna, 172 pp.

  26. Humphreys, D. (1996). Forest politics—The evolution of international cooperation. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Humphreys, D. (1999). The evolving forests regime. Global Environmental Change, 9, 251–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Humphreys, D. (2006). Logjam: Deforestation and the crisis of global governance (p. 302). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kastner, T., Erb, K. H., & Nonhebel, S. (2011). International wood trade and forest change: A global analysis. Global Environmental Change, 21, 947–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on politics, 9, 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Krasner, S. D. (1982). Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables. International Organization, 36, 185–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Krott, M. (2005). Forest policy analysis. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Law, G., & Kriwoken, L. (2017). The World Heritage Convention and Tasmania’s tall-eucalypt forests: can an international treaty on environmental protection transcend the vicissitudes of domestic politics? International environmental agreements: Politics, law and economics, 17, 839–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Maryudi, A., Nurrochmat, D. R., & Giessen, L. (2018). Research trend: Forest policy and governance–future analyses in multiple social science disciplines. Forest Policy and Economics, 91, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. McDermott, C. L. (2014). REDDuced: From sustainability to legality to units of carbon—The search for common interests in international forest governance. Environmental Science and Policy, 35, 12–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. McDermott, C. L., Humphreys, D., Wildburger, C., & Wood, P. (2010). Mapping the core actors and issues defining international forest governance. IUFRO, 28, 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Negi, S., & Giessen, L. (2018). India in international climate governance: Through soft power from REDD to REDD + policy in favor of relative gains. Forest and Society, 2(1), 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Oberthür, S., & Stokke, O. S. (Eds.). (2011). Managing institutional complexity: regime interplay and global environmental change. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Paoloni, L., & Onorati, A. (2014). Regulations of large-scale acquisitions of land: The case of the voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of land, fisheries and forests. Law and Development Review, 7, 369–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Pattberg, P. (2012). Transnational environmental regimes. In F. Biermann & P. Pattberg (Eds.), Global environmental governance reconsidered. Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262017664.

  41. Rayner, J., Humphreys, D., Welch, F.P., Prabhu, R., Verkooijen, P. (2010). Introduction. In: Rayner, J., Buck, A. & Katila, P. (Eds.). Embracing Complexity: Meeting the challenges of international forest governance. IUFRO World Series, Vol. 28, Vienna, 9–18.

  42. Robinson, G. M., & Carson, D. A. (2015). Handbook on the globalisation of agriculture. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Rosendal, G. K. (2001). Overlapping international regimes: the case of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) between climate change and biodiversity. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 1, 447–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sikor, T., Auld, G., Bebbington, A. J., Benjaminsen, T. A., Gentry, B. S., Hunsberger, C., et al. (2013). Global land governance: from territory to flow? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5, 522–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Singer, B., & Giessen, L. (2017). Towards a donut regime? Domestic actors, climatization, and the hollowing-out of the international forests regime in the Anthropocene. Forest Policy and Economics, 79, 69–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Stokke, O. S. (2013). Regime interplay in Arctic shipping governance: Explaining regional niche selection. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 13, 65–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Thomann, E. (2015). Customizing Europe: Transposition as bottom-up implementation. Journal of European public policy, 22, 1368–1387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zelli, F., & Van Asselt, H. (2013). The institutional fragmentation of Global Environmental Governance: Causes, consequences, and responses. Global Environmental Politics, 13, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank EFI colleagues Albert Garduño and Alba Pueyo for their help with the graphics, Yitagesu Tekle for his support as well as Adeline Dontenville for her comments. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments. We further acknowledge financial support provided by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lukas Giessen.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rodríguez Fernández-Blanco, C., Burns, S.L. & Giessen, L. Mapping the fragmentation of the international forest regime complex: institutional elements, conflicts and synergies. Int Environ Agreements 19, 187–205 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-019-09434-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Global forest governance
  • International forest policy
  • Forest policy analysis
  • Conflictive/synergistic fragmentation
  • Goals
  • Core institution method (UNFF)