In 2015 the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, building on the Millennium Development Goals, was adopted by the UN member states. The SDGs, and in particular SDG 17 (Partnerships for the goals), have emphasized global partnerships as a means of overcoming the shortcomings of the MDGs in relation to Goal 8 (To develop a global partnership for development) (UN System Task Team, 2012: 5). In these regards, partnerships at the global level between governments, as well with other stakeholders such as the private sector, are described as being essential (Lomazzi et al, 2014). This was in response to known power asymmetries in international arrangements, namely, a Northern-driven agenda and a bias in governance forms that favour international organizations, governmental actors and a strong private sector, while dismissing Southern and local participation as well as non-state actors and authorities (Menashy, 2019). SDG 17 is essential for, and thus should be integrated by, all other SDGs, including SDG 15 (Life on land).
While the other SDGs focus on economic development, social rights or cooperation, SDG 15 flags terrestrial ecosystems, and correspondingly forests, as being essential for sustainable development. Forest ecosystems are assigned a particular role not only in SDG 15 but also in other SDGs, building a ‘complex relationship’ between them (Baumgartner, 2019: 1). This is in part due to their geographic scope (with forest covering about one third of the world’s land area) but also because of the goods and services they provide: timber and non-timber forest products; a fundamental basis for ecological processes (CO2 mitigation, water supply and quality); habitat for plants and animals; basis for livelihood and human well-being; and a
Many of the targets and objectives of SDG 15, such as protection, restoration and sustainable use of ecosystems, have already been tackled in earlier international frameworks. These include the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), as well other international governance initiatives – particularly those concentrating on forest (and) landscape restoration (FLR), such as the Bonn Challenge or the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF). These examples indicate the complexity in international forest governance, in which international governance is understood to be ‘the formal and informal bundles of rules, roles, rights and relationships that define and regulate the social practices of state and nonstate actors in international affairs’ (Slaughter et al, 1998: 371). These types of governance include UN-driven governmental processes such as the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF); private sector governance; market-oriented governance like Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification; and hybrid settings involving both state and non-state actors, such as the Bonn Challenge (Sotirov et al, 2020).
SDG 15 builds on this legacy of international forest governance with its diverse objectives, targets and forms of governance. Yet history has demonstrated its limited effectiveness. Trade-offs between different objectives, as well as power asymmetries, are often named as key obstacles for efficient and just international forest governance (Fleischman et al, 2021). Acknowledging the complexity of, as well as the power asymmetries in, international forest governance, this chapter has a twofold aim: first, to structure the complexity by identifying key logics that characterize international forest governance according to the issues, problems and proposed solutions (Kleinschmit et al, 2023); and, second, to better understand whether SDG 15 supports the overarching aim of the SDGs to overcome power asymmetries or whether the legacy of power asymmetries in international forest governance pertains in SDG 15.
To achieve these aims, this chapter maps key institutions and interests, considering inherent trade-offs and power asymmetries. It is assumed that institutions and the interests involved are central to international forest-related governance over the past three decades and thus might be (still) embedded in SDG 15. Institutional rules are understood not as neutral but
For decades, studies have uncovered power asymmetries in international environmental and forest governance. These reveal, on the one hand, a Northern-driven agenda that diminishes the needs and priorities of Southern countries (eg Karlsson, 2002). On the other hand, they understand the diversity of types of governance not only as an expression but also as a source of conflict about responsibilities, which in turn results in or furthers existing global power asymmetries (McDermott et al, 2019). While elite capture and power struggles are taking place in societies in North and South alike, the main interest in this chapter is the specific targets and objectives related to forests in the SDG 15, and the different (historic) roles and responsibilities of the Global North and South in the governance of forest and forest lands.
The substantive scope and main data sources of this overview covers multidisciplinary scientific knowledge on past and current developments published up to the end of 2022. In terms of geographical coverage, this chapter focuses on international forest governance. As described earlier, international forest governance is approached from a broader perspective, going beyond forestry-specific concerns and taking into account forest-related and interlinked concepts. But this chapter focuses only on multilateral governance processes. Scholars have identified significant differences in agendas, types of governance and actor constellations in international forest governance before, during and after the Rio Earth Summit in 1992
3.1 International forest governance: a chronological overview
SDG 15 is embedded in a range of different and diversifying approaches to international forest governance and is characterized by powerful institutions and interests. This section provides a chronological overview of those institutions and interests that have been highlighted in the literature as being embedded in international forest governance. Building on a literature review, two interrelated general trends of international forest governance can be observed: (1) the diversification of interests addressing forests, extending beyond classical wood production-oriented forestry; and (2) the diversification of forms of international forest governance beyond classical state actors and international organizations. Though these developments have accelerated since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (referred to in this chapter as the Earth Summit or the Rio Conference), they did not develop at the time in the context of an institutional void but rather built on historical developments in international forest governance. Therefore, the overview starts with the period preceding the Rio conference, before focusing on Rio and its relevance for international forest governance and the SDGs, and finally addressing the developments that followed thereafter until the 2020s. These developments will be discussed in light of the targets and objectives of SDG 15 in section 3.2.
3.1.1 International forest governance before the Earth Summit
In the period before the Rio conference, governments (especially those in high-income countries) saw forests mainly as a site of wood production. This view is informed by centuries of colonial rule, colonial administrations and a network of pro-colonial private companies practising forest exploitation, often combined with expropriation of local populations in the tropics (eg Peluso and Vandergeest, 2001). At the time of independence, power was transferred to new postcolonial states that continued to pursue timber extraction, while public and private companies started to develop commercial forest plantations. These have often used the narrative of reforesting or restoring degraded forest lands (eg Feintrenie, 2014). In the late 1960s, in line with the wood production and global market logic, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) created a Committee on Forest Development in the Tropics, emphasizing the development (meaning exploitation) of forests (Humphreys, 2004). In the late 1970s, negotiations
In the 1980s, the practice of forest exploitation and the establishment of (large-scale tree) plantations, particularly in the tropics, became a prioritized issue of environmental campaigning and a hot topic in international public discourses supported by environmental NGOs (ENGOs) and rural people trying to prevent the clearing of natural forests for tree plantations (Gulbrandsen and Humphreys, 2006). This global attention was curbed by the emergence of global environmental issues such as ozone destruction and desertification (Humphreys, 1996a). Responding to this global attention, the United States, Canada and some European countries made several initiatives to negotiate a legally binding international forest instrument in the mid-1980s. Their main interest was to halt and reverse deforestation in the tropical regions and protect old-growth forests. This resulted in diverse attempts to propose the establishment of a global forest instrument in the shape of a global forest convention or a forest protocol for a climate change or biodiversity convention (Humphreys, 1996b). The global attention on and debate around tropical deforestation also affected the preparatory meetings of the UNCED conference starting in August 1990 in Nairobi, which focused on forests but also other areas such as trade, climate change and agriculture (Schally, 1994). While some countries were in favour of a global forest convention, others raised general concerns. From a powerful position in the international forest governance arena based on their forest resources, Malaysia, Brazil and other countries, in particular, criticized the biased focus on tropical forests (Pülzl, 2005).
International forest governance concentrated on wood and international markets in the period before the Earth Summit, and was spurred mainly by large and arguably powerful international state-driven institutions such as the ITTO, the UN and its affiliated agencies. The private sector pushing the international wood market, and also supported by the World Bank, has been a key player in international forest governance. In the 1980s, however, the attention of ENGOs at the global level was also directed towards forest
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted in 1976, is another trade-oriented international institution. However, CITES does not focus only on wood products but also on endangered species of wild plants (including trees) and animals in general by restricting imports and exports. The three appendices to the Convention offer different levels of protection from prohibited trade. CITES is perceived as an early example of the power struggles in negotiating international rules and regulations, and the related problems of involving or considering (specific) non-state actors (Challender et al, 2015). The CITES regulation actually has implications for rural communities who may be dependent on CITES-listed wildlife for their livelihoods (eg Roe et al, 2002; Velázquez Gomar and Stringer, 2011). Some authors criticize CITES for being characterized by a preservation perspective of powerful Northern industrial states and conservationists in other (non-affected) regions of the world demanding a halt to the utilization of wildlife (Duffy, 2013). The significant attention, supported by media coverage, given to prestigious species (eg rhinos or elephants) is perceived as demonstrating the interests of non-state actors in international governance (Duffy, 2013).
3.1.2 Earth Summit in Rio 1992: non-agreement and broadening the forest perspective
The UNCED conference in Rio 1992 has fundamentally affected international forest governance over a long period, because it failed to agree on a global forest convention and broadened the range of issues to be addressed through forests, incorporating, for example, climate change and biodiversity.
At the Earth Summit, a non-binding statement was agreed upon as called for by the third preparatory committee (Prep Com): the ‘Non-legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation, and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests’ (the Forest Principles) in Agenda 21. The Forest Principles, together with the conventions described later, were endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly at the Rio Conference. The 15 principles deal with subjects as diverse as the sovereign right of states, women’s participation and the need to provide financial resources (Zentilli, 1995). Chapter 11 of Agenda 21 (Combating deforestation), in particular, focuses on forest goals including sustainable management and conservation, as well as on utilization
Experts have identified various reasons for the failure to agree on a legally binding convention on forests, including the role of forests for international commerce (Lipschutz, 2000), strategic moves against increased standards for forest management (Dimitrov, 2003), the worries of tropical countries about sovereignty (Humphreys, 1996a, 1996b) and the mismatch between costs and benefits for countries from the Global North (Davenport, 2005). The output of the Rio Conference likely reflects a combination of all these factors.
Apart from the principles focusing specifically on forests, forests are addressed in the context of three conventions resulting from the Rio Conference: the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). Both were formally negotiated by an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee between 1991 and 1992. They ended up as legally binding framework conventions signed by a large number of states.
The CBD aims to combat the destruction of plant and animal species, and ecosystems at large (CBD, 1992). The CBD specifically addresses biodiversity in developing countries, and also considers the responsibility of contracting parties to recognize the knowledge of Indigenous and local communities; equitable sharing of the resulting benefits; and the sovereign authority to determine access to genetic resources and commercial benefits from biodiversity. Arts (2006: 183) recognizes the CBD as ‘a delicate balance and complex compromise between Northern and Southern preferences, assets and interests’. Many NGOs, like World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace to name just a few, participated in and influenced the intergovernmental process of the CBD (Arts, 1998). Additionally, the principle of free and prior informed consent (FPIC) was upheld by the CBD to facilitate participation, foster transparency of information exchange and support benefit sharing. CBD has particular relevance for forests as it is one of the Convention’s priorities (with its own programme of work) to ensure forests as a space for species protection.
The UNFCCC as a framework convention aims to achieve the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system within a timeframe sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change (UNFCCC, 1992). The treaty established three categories of signatory states with different responsibilities: developed countries (Annex 1 countries), developed countries with special financial responsibilities (covered in Annex 2, ie Annex 1 countries excluding countries in transition) and developing countries. Forests and the forest sector gained high relevance
The goal of the UNCCD is ‘to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought … through effective action at all levels, supported by international cooperation and partnership arrangements’ (UNCCD, 1994). Forests did not feature heavily in the convention but were addressed because signatories committed themselves to include measures to conserve natural resources – for example, through ensuring integrated and sustainable management of forests – in national action programmes.
The limited problem-solving effectiveness of the conventions and principles agreed at Rio has since become evident (Sotirov et al, 2020), specifically concerning forests as deforestation and forest degradation persist at high levels. Thus, the Rio Conference was only the starting point for further initiatives, declarations, protocols, annexes or instruments both within and outside the UN system, with forests continually receiving increased attention.
3.1.3 Beyond the Rio Conference: shift towards ‘new’ types of governance
For those actors that have aimed for a global forest convention, the Rio Conference marked a starting point for continual frustration, because the soft laws delivered in further intergovernmental processes lacked legal bite (Levin et al, 2008). For others, the Rio Conference is seen as having catalysed a series of innovative market-oriented international forest governance approaches (eg Shaffer and Bodansky, 2012). The newer dynamics and trends in forest-related international governance within and beyond the treaties are presented in this section.
Forest under the UN
The UN Commission on Sustainable Development established first the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF), based on the Forest Principles, and after two years the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) as its successor, with the task of analysing priority forest issues, which resulted in over 150 Proposals for Action (PfA). Based on this, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) created the United Nations Forum on Forests in 2000, an intergovernmental body still in existence today, with a focus on sustainable forest management (SFM) and its diverse facets (for an overview from IPF to UNFF, see Humphreys, 2001). The UNFF was also tasked with laying the groundwork for a global forest convention. However, in 2007 this resulted in yet another soft law known as the Non-Legally-Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests (NLBI). Finance was flagged by many developing countries as the most crucial issue while ‘most of the donor countries were not prepared to agree on the establishment of a strong financial
More obviously in the interest of wood production and international markets are the updated ITTAs and other diverse governance processes concentrating on timber markets. ITTO’s mandate was renewed by ITTAs in 1994 and 2006, the latter with the explicit aim to ‘promote the expansion and diversification of international trade in tropical timber from sustainably managed and legally harvested forests’ (International Tropical Timber Agreement, 2006: 3). Some authors understand the ITTO to be strongly supportive of SFM, for example through the Guidelines for the Sustainable Management of Tropical Natural Forests, including corresponding criteria and indicators (Linser et al, 2018), and through its support for SFM initiatives such as the African Timber Organization (Kadam et al, 2021). Others perceive ITTO to be dominated by trade interests emphasizing ‘sustainable timber production’ instead of SFM (Gulbrandsen and Humphreys, 2006).
Certification
Certification, described by Cashore et al (2004) as a prime example of ‘non-state market-driven’ governance, concentrates on timber production and international markets as well as on sustainable forestry. In contrast to state-centred traditional international governance, the authority of certification is diffuse and is located in the marketplace (Bernstein and Cashore, 2004). Early efforts towards forest certification started in the late 1980s, accompanying movements against threats to tropical rainforests (Kadam et al, 2021). Justified and boosted by not agreeing on a legally binding global forest convention in Rio, the FSC was formed in 1993 in Canada, and continues to be led by the WWF. At the centre of the FSC’s approach are voluntary forest management standards, developed through a multistakeholder process at the country level. Researchers have noted the trade-off between interests involved in the certification scheme, notably between trade and conservation issues (eg Fernàndez-Blanco et al, 2019). Hence, it is not surprising that the FSC initially received only limited support from the forest industry (eg Cashore et al, 2004; Gulbrandsen, 2006). While this has changed subsequently, growing industry support has been criticized for lowering the forest management standards (Humphreys, 2012). The
Legality verification
Timber legality trade restrictions and verification have been developed on the legacy of forest certification and in response to continued global concerns regarding forest degradation and deforestation (Acheampong and Maryudi, 2020). The emerging timber legality regime builds on a cooperation between state actors, NGOs and (multinational) corporations. The set of mechanisms developed over time consists of a range of instruments, including mandatory state-based regulations such as bilateral voluntary partnership agreements (VPAs) under the EU’s Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan adopted in 2003. VPAs are legally binding political and trade agreements between the EU as a ‘consumer’ and a partner ‘producer’ country with the aim of granting products a FLEGT licence and setting up an effective timber legality assurance system (Sotirov et al, 2020). Another mechanism developed as part of the FLEGT Action Plan is the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) adopted in 2010. Similar demand-side consumer regulations outside the EU are the US Lacey Act (amended in 2008) and the Australia Illegal Logging Prohibition Act (AILPA) adopted in 2012 (eg Cashore and Stone, 2012). Perceptions of these consumer regulations vary a great deal, with some considering that they support sustainable forest use while others see them as instruments for green protectionism of consumer markets (Winkel et al, 2017).
Forests as climate change governance issue
Since the Rio Conference, forests have gained increasing attention in international climate governance – starting with the Kyoto Protocol, which addressed forests as sinks and reservoirs for GHGs and committed signatories to promoting sustainable forest management practices, afforestation and reforestation. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allowed Annex 1 countries to offset GHG emissions through forestry activities in developing countries, consisting of afforestation and reforestation projects. The importance of standing forests for climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts was
Spurred by the Paris Agreement, international climate governance now corresponds to the notion of a regime complex comprising a network of states, international organization and non-state actors (Kuyper et al, 2018). According to scholars, hierarchical forms of governance have shifted towards a more complex polycentric governance system, with states no longer at the centre and with non-state actors playing an increasingly important role (Kuyper et al, 2018). With all countries having their own NDCs, the Paris Agreement has overcome the previous differentiation between Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries. A more active role is also attributed to non-public actors of all sorts in (country-led) implementation and finance (Articles 6 and 9). However, pertaining power imbalances are well documented. For example, local communities, minorities and women are seen to be rarely involved in designing and implementing REDD+ (eg Bayrak and Marafa, 2016; Schroeder and González, 2019).
Forest biodiversity
Like the UNFCCC, the CBD has further developed protocols and amendments since the Rio Conference. The Nagoya Protocol on Access to
As in international climate governance, scholars have observed a shift from a primarily state-driven approach towards the inclusion of private actors (Pattberg et al, 2017). Aichi Target 4 acknowledges the diverse types of actors included in international biodiversity governance.
Forest landscape restoration
Forest (and) landscape restoration has gained increased international attention in the political sphere. FLR resonates with several SDGs, as restoring land is expected to help tackle climate change and desertification, support biodiversity and ensure human well-being (UNCCD, 2022). Already before the SDGs were agreed upon, numerous initiatives had begun to promote FLR as a solution for diverse environmental challenges including improving the livelihoods of poorer people. These initiatives have emerged at diverse levels from the local to the global, the latter prominently represented by the Bonn Challenge and the New York Declaration on Forests, both of which involve a broad range of actors, including public and private actors and civil society.
Current FLR concepts and initiatives seek to advance century-long experience with site-level forest restoration efforts to larger landscape and even global scales. In July 2000 WWF and the IUCN defined FLR as ‘a planned process that aims to regain ecological integrity and enhance human well-being in deforested or degraded landscapes’ (Mansourian, 2005: 10). Recognizing possible trade-offs, Mansourian concludes that it is ‘possible to enhance the overall benefits to people and biodiversity at that scale’ (Mansourian, 2005: 11). FLR is embedded in and linked to the wider concept of ecosystem restoration pursued by the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) for more than three decades. FLR (re)gained international popularity with the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–30) (UNEP, 2019). The global FLR agenda is mirrored in a global proliferation of restoration investments and interventions nourishing a win–win narrative of FLR, which suggests that planting trees
However, more recently critical voices have questioned the win–win narrative around FLR, pointing to losses and losers, and new conflicts of interest (Kleinschmit et al, 2023). Concerns are now growing over the social and economic implications of large-scale tree-planting schemes, including flaws in the governance of FLR (Brockhaus et al, 2021; Pritchard, 2021). Important concerns include unequal access to and control of land leading to the exclusion of local communities and minorities, specifically women (eg Chazdon et al, 2021).
3.2 Three logics of international forest governance and its relations to SDG 15
Section 3.1, while not fully exhaustive, provided a historical overview of the interests and institutions that shape and are shaped in the international forest governance complex, which have evolved over the years. The main aim of this chapter has been to identify three distinct logics underpinning and partly predominating the institutions and the interests of supportive actors over time. These logics, as with many analytical categorizations, simplify the complexity of international forest governance and thus do not reflect the blurred boundaries between them. In essence, the three key logics identified in international forest governance and encapsulated in SDG 15 may be understood as rationales each of which leans more towards and highlights mainly one of the pillars of sustainability (economic, ecologic, social): (1) production and market logic; (3) the ecological sustainability logic, addressing environmental challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss; and (3) the community and empowerment logic. Their relevance, and predominance in international forest governance, vary over the years and between governance settings. At the same time they may be seen to compete with each other regarding interpretative dominance in international governance.
3.2.1
The period preceding the Rio conference was dominated by interests devoted to production and international markets for tropical timber. This focus followed the historical heritage of colonial exploitation and was supported by powerful private actors, for example the ITTO supporting the commercial interests of private and state actors. The logic of production and in particular marketization is also reaffirmed by CITES. It reinforces the major role of markets despite its focus on the ecological aspects of endangered species and the restrictions imposed on imports and export. In contrast to the ITTO, interests of societal actors have gained some relevance in CITES. However, CITES has been criticized as representing an agenda that aligns mainly with Northern interests.
The powerful interests of private actors shaping the logic of production and markets have continued in the post-Rio development, where hybrid and market-based regimes are interlinked with public policies like FLEGT, private certification schemes and others. Hybrid governance has accelerated, with transnational public–private partnerships joining forces in international FLR governance, supported by dominant international organizations such as ITTO, World Bank and GEF, and diverse NGOs. State and private sector actors are pledging restoration action, thereby ‘greening’ their forest operations. SDG 15, and in particular Target 15.2, with its aim to end deforestation and restore degraded forests, builds directly on and is interlinked with the powerful institution and public and private sector interests pursuing FLR. In this sense, the SDG is also embracing the production and markets logic.
From a critical perspective, FLR movements presenting productive industrial and large-scale plantations as an opportunity for the restoration of multiple landscape functions (Sayer and Elliot, 2005) follow the same exploitative production and market logic as neocolonial trade relationships between world regions. However, creating regional value chains may as well directly benefit local people, and enabling local economies based on renewable materials also supports the logic of communities and empowerment (section 3.2.3).
3.2.2 Logic of ecological sustainability
With the Rio Conference, the logic of ecological sustainability gained increasing relevance in international forest governance, emphasizing environmental concerns and responding to challenges like climate change and the loss of biodiversity. Since then, this logic has been strongly supported by the powerful interests of governments and international and transnational actors, such as UN organizations including the UNFCCC, CBD and
3.2.3 Logic of communities and empowerment
The community and empowerment logic is devoted to local livelihood and empowerment. It originates from interests associated with development cooperation. Likewise, it may be seen as a reactive logic, responding to the trade-offs and conflicts arising from the practices pursued under the two aforementioned logics. This logic is mainly represented by the interests of rather marginalized actor groups, and is far less dominant than the others in international forest governance. Community and empowerment have been issues in UN-driven governmental institutions addressed sometimes more (eg CDB), sometimes less (eg CITES). However, the issues have gained increasing attention, as the tenure rights of marginalized groups, especially Indigenous peoples, youth and women, have been acknowledged in, for example, REDD+ safeguards as well as in the FLR. The need to involve, consider and empower communities has evolved with the evidence that the implementation of policies and programs (eg in climate or biodiversity governance) is weak without the involvement and acceptance of local people (Reinecke and Blum, 2018). The actors behind this logic and its respective stakes include not only local actors, but also international and local social movements, NGOs, development agencies, activists and social scientists, among others. However, local communities, in contrast to other actors (eg state, UN or international organizations, private sector), play a rather peripheral and partly symbolic role in international forest governance practice. This is despite the by now commonly accepted superiority of their techniques to coexist with, manage and protect the integrity of ecosystems and biodiversity, in contrast to western scientific and managerial mechanisms (Dawson et al, 2021). These actors are partly portrayed as ‘losers’ in REDD+ or FLR implementation, spurred by the shift of attention away from their territories and the natural resources they need to support their livelihoods
However, those taking a critical perspective argue that SDG 15 does partly fall back behind former frameworks in promoting these needs. Krauss (2021) criticizes the absence of either an explicit commitment in SDG 15 or an explicit connection to participatory governance. Instead, it is assumed that ecological goals might be prioritized in case of trade-offs with the logic of communities and empowerment (eg Baumgartner, 2019).
3.3 SDG 15 and the legacy of international forest governance
The present analysis shows the dominance of a persisting logic of production and markets combined with a Northern logic of ecological sustainability in international forest governance and in SDG 15. Both dominant logics are strongly supported by governance forms favouring the interest of governmental actors, UN-led initiatives and large-scale private sector interests. The way in which planting trees and FLR is presented as a win–win narrative, including in SDG 15, favours carbon capture and wood production over community and ‘minor ecological’ interests, while underestimating trade-offs between climate goals, local food production, biodiversity conservation and questions about which actors are benefiting in practice from planting trees. In this sense, the potential universality of the SDGs has not been fully tapped.
The interest of local (Southern) actors has gained increasing attention in recent years. The legacy of these logics, and their underlying interests and institutions as also encapsulated in SDG 15, have been a missed opportunity to develop a strong agenda for global development and for overcoming the binary view on and bridging the interests between the Global North and the Global South. The separating binary concept is rooted in international forest governance concepts and terminology. It is to be found in the differentiation of producer and consumer (countries) in ITTO, the legality verification regimes and the negotiations on a global forest convention and the international governance of biodiversity and climate change (Rosendahl, 2001), with annexes differentiating parties along those lines. The Global North-South divide has also been pursued in relation to the FLR concept, where ‘global’ solutions to environmental challenges are addressed with pledges and technical support from Northern to Southern countries like development interventions. These solutions are reaffirming international rather than global development (for a discussion about both concepts, see Horner, 2020). By fostering partnerships between all kinds of countries, multilateral organizations and other stakeholders, SDG 15 may be partly contributing to the overarching
Acknowledgements
We want to thank Symphorien Ongolo, our coauthor of a chapter on forest landscape restoration (Kleinschmit et al, 2023), on which this chapter draws. Sabaheta Ramcilovic-Suominen gratefully acknowledges funding from the Academy of Finland (grant number 332353), which supported her work on this chapter.
References
Acheampong, E. and Maryudi, A. (2020) ‘Avoiding legality: timber producers’ strategies and motivations under FLEGT in Ghana and Indonesia’, Forest Policy and Economics, 111: 102047.
Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Duchelle, A.E., Larson, A.M., Martius, C., Sunderlin, W.D. et al (2017) ‘Learning from REDD+: a response to Fletcher et al.’, Conservation Biology, 31(3): 718–20.
Arts, B. (1998) The Political Influence of Global NGOs: Case Studies on the Climate and Biodiversity Conventions, Utrecht: International Books.
Arts, B. (2006) ‘Non-state actors in global environmental governance: new arrangements beyond the state’, in M. Koenig-Archibugi and M. Zürn (eds) New Modes of Governance in the Global System: Exploring Publicness, Delegation and Inclusiveness, London: Springer, pp 177–200.
Auld, G., Balboa, C., Bernstein, S., Cashore, B., Delmas, M. and Young, O. (2009) ‘The emergence of non-state market-driven (NSDM) global environmental governance’, in M.A. Delmas and O.R. Young (eds) Governance for the Environment: New Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 183–218.
Barnett, M. and Duvall, R. (2005) ‘Power in global governance’, in M. Barnett and R. Duvall (eds) Power in Global Governance, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp 1–32.
Baumgartner, R.J. (2019) ‘Sustainable Development Goals and the forest sector – A complex relationship’, Forests, 10(2): 152.
Bayrak M.M. and Marafa L.M. (2016) ‘Ten years of REDD+: a critical review of the impact of REDD+ on forest-dependent communities’, Sustainability, 8: 1–22.
Bernstein, S. and Cashore, B. (2004) ‘Non-state global governance: is forest certification a legitimate alternative to a global forest convention’, in J.J. Kirton and M.J. Trebilcock (eds) Hard Choices, Soft Law: Voluntary Standards in Global Trade, Environment and Social Governance, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp 33–63.
Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., Djoudi, H., Moeliono, M., Pham, T.T. and Wong, G.Y. (2021) ‘The forest frontier in the Global South: climate change policies and the promise of development and equity’, Ambio, 50(12): 2238–55.
Cashore, B. and 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.
Cashore, B.W., Auld, G. and Newsom, D. (2004) Governing through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-State Authority, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (2010) ‘Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Tenth Meeting. X/2 The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets’, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2, Nagoya: UN/UNEP/CBD, Available from: https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-02-en.pdf [Accessed 31 May 2023].
Challender, D.W., Harrop, S.R. and MacMillan, D.C. (2015) ‘Towards informed and multi-faceted wildlife trade interventions’, Global Ecology and Conservation, 3: 129–48.
Chazdon, R.L., Wilson, S.J., Brondizio, E., Guariguata, M.R. and Herbohn, J. (2021) ‘Key challenges for governing forest and landscape restoration across different contexts’, Land Use Policy 104: 104854.
Davenport, D.S. (2005) ‘An alternative explanation for the failure of the UNCED forest negotiations’, Global Environmental Politics, 5(1): 105–30.
Dawson, N., Coolsaet, B., Sterling, E., Loveridge, R., Gross-Camp, N.D., Wongbusarakum, S. et al (2021) ‘The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation’, Ecology and Society, 26(3): 19.
Di Gregorio, M., Fatorelli, L., Paavola, J., Locatelli, B., Pramova, E., Nurrochmat, D.R. et al (2019) ‘Multi-level governance and power in climate change policy networks’, Global Environmental Change, 54: 64–77.
Dimitrov, R.S. (2003) ‘Knowledge, power, and interests in environmental regime formation’, International Studies Quarterly, 47: 123–50.
Duffy, R. (2013) ‘Global environmental governance and north–south dynamics: the case of the CITES’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(2): 222–39.
Feintrenie, L. (2014) ‘Agro-industrial plantations in Central Africa, risks and opportunties’, Biodiversity and Conservation, 23(6): 1577–89.
Fernàndez-Blanco, C.R., Burns, S.L. and Giessen, L. (2019) ‘Mapping the fragmentation of the international forest regime complex: institutional elements, conflicts and synergies’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 19: 187–205.
Fleischman, F., Basant, S., Fischer, H., Gupta, D., Lopez, G.G., Kashwan, P. et al (2021) ‘How politics shapes the outcomes of forest carbon finance’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 51: 7–14.
GEF (Global Environment Facility) (2021) Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration Impact Program, Available from: https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/documents/2021-11/gef_food_systems_land_use_restoration_folur_impact_program_2021_11.pdf [Accessed 31 May 2023]
Glück, P., Carvalho Mendes, A. and Neven, I. (2003) Making NFPs Work: Supporting Factors and Procedural Aspects. Report on COST Action. National Forest Programmes in a European Context, Vienna: Institute for Forest Sector Policy and Economics, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences.
Gulbrandsen, L.H. (2006) ‘Creating markets for eco-labelling: are consumers insignificant?’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(5): 477–89.
Gulbrandsen, L.H. and Humphreys, D. (2006) International Initiatives to Address Tropical Timber Logging and Trade: A Report for the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, FNI Report 4/2006, Lysaker: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.
Horner, R. (2020) ‘Towards a new paradigm of global development? Beyond the limits of international development’, Progress in Human Geography, 44(3): 415–36.
Humphreys, D. (1996a) Forest Politics: The Evolution of International Cooperation, London: Earthscan.
Humphreys, D. (1996b) ‘The global politics of forest conservation since the UNCED’, Environmental Politics, 5(2): 231–57.
Humphreys, D. (2001) ‘Forest negotiations at the United Nations: explaining cooperation and discord’, Forest Policy and Economics, 3: 125–35.
Humphreys, D. (2004) ‘Redefining the issues: NGO influence on international forest negotiations’, Global Environmental Politics, 4(2): 51–74.
Humphreys, D. (2009) ‘Discourse as ideology: neoliberalism and the limits of international forest policy’, Forest Policy and Economics, 11: 319–25.
Humphreys, D. (2012) Logjam: Deforestation and the Crisis of Global Governance, London: Routledge.
International Tropical Timber Agreement (2006) Geneva, Available from: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2006/02/20060215%2004-26%20PM/Ch_XIX_46p.pdf [Accessed 20 August 2022].
ITTO (International Timber Trade Organization) (2002) ITTO Guidelines for the Restoration, Management and Rehabilitation of Degraded and Secondary Tropical Forests, Yokohama, Available from: www.cbd.int/forest/doc/itto-guidelines-restoration-management-rehabilitation-degraded-forests-2002-en.pdf [Accessed 20 August 2022].
Kadam, P., Dwivedi, P. and Karnatz, C. (2021) ‘Mapping convergence of sustainable forest management systems: comparing three protocols and two certification schemes for ascertaining the trends in global forest governance’, Forest Policy and Economics, 133: 102614.
Katila, P., Colfer, C.J.P., De Jong, W., Galloway, G., Pacheco, P. and Winkel, G. (eds) (2019) Sustainable Development Goals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karlsson, S. (2002) ‘The North–South knowledge divide: consequences for global environmental governance’, in D.C. Esty and M.H. Ivanova (eds) Global Environmental Governance: Options and Opportunities, New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, pp 1–24.
Kleinschmit, D., Blum, M., Brockhaus, M., Karambiri, M., Kröger, M., Ramcilovik-Suominen, S. et al (2023) ‘Forest (landscape) restoration governance: institutions, interests, ideas, and their interlinked logics’, in P. Katila, C.J.P. Colfer, W. de Jong, G. Galloway, P. Pacheco and G. Winkel (eds) Restoring Forests for Sustainable Development: Policies, Practices and Impacts, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krause, T. and Tilker, A. (2022) ‘How the loss of forest fauna undermines the achievement of the SDGs’, Ambio, 51: 103–13.
Krauss, J.E. (2021) ‘Decolonizing, conviviality and convivial conservation: towards a convivial SDG 15, life on land?’ Journal of Political Ecology, 28(1).
Kunzmann, K. (2008) ‘The non-legally binding instrument on sustainable management of all types of forests – Towards a legal regime for sustainable forest management?’, German Law Journal, 9(8): 981–1006.
Kuyper, J.W., Linnér, B.-O. and Schroeder, H. (2018) ‘Non-state actors in hybrid global climate governance: justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness in a post-Paris era’, WIREs Climate Change, 9(1): e497.
Laestadius, L., Buckingham, K., Maginnis, S. and Saint-Laurent, C. (2015) ‘Before Bonn and beyond: the history and future of forest landscape restoration’, Unasylva, 66(245): 11.
Levin, K., McDermott, C. and Cashore, B. (2008) ‘The climate regime as global forest governance: can reduced emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) initiatives pass a dual effectiveness test?’, International Forestry Review, 10(3): 538–49.
Linser, S., Wolfslehner, B., Bridge, S.R., Gritten, D., Johnson, S., Payn, T. et al (2018) ‘25 years of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management: how intergovernmental C&I processes have made a difference’, Forests, 9(9): 578.
Lipschutz, R.D. (2000) ‘Why is there no international forestry law: an examination of international forestry regulation, both public and private’, UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 19(1): 153–79.
Locatelli, B., Kanninen, M., Brockhaus, M., Pierce Colfer, C.J., Murdiyarso, D. and Santoso, H. (2008) Facing an Uncertain Future: How Forests and People Can Adapt to Climate Change, Bogor Barat, Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Lomazzi, M., Borisch, B. and Laaser, U. (2014) ‘The Millennium Development Goals: experiences, achievements and what’s next’, Global Health Action, 7(1): 23695.
Maginnis, S., Jackson, W. and Dudley, N. (2004) ‘14. Conservation landscapes: whose landscapes? whose trade-offs?’, in Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work, New York: Columbia University Press, pp 321–39.
Mansourian, S. (2005) ‘Overview of forest restoration strategies and terms’, in S. Mansourian, D. Vallauri and N. Dudley (eds) Forest Restoration in Landscapes: Beyond Planting Trees, New York: Springer, pp 8–13.
McDermott, C., Acheampong, E. Arora-Jonsson, S. Asare, R., de Jong, W., Hirons, M. (2019) ‘SDG 16: Peace, justice and strong Institutions – A political ecology perspective’, in P. Katila, C.J.P. Colfer, W. De Jong, G. Galloway, P. Pacheco and G. Winkel (eds) Sustainable Development Goals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 510–40.
Meidinger, E.E. (2003) ‘Forest certification as a global civil society regulatory institution’, in E. Meidinger, C. Elliott and G. Oesten (eds) Social and Political Dimensions of Forest Certification, Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo School of Law, pp 265–89.
Mile, A. and Puno, R. (2021) ‘Indigenous peoples, the SDGs, and international environmental law’, in N. Kakar, V. Popovski and N.A. Robinson (eds) Fulfilling the Sustainable Development Goals, London: Routledge, pp 485–500.
Mills-Novoa, M. and Liverman, D.M. (2019) ‘Nationally determined contributions: material climate commitments and discursive positioning in the NDCs’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 10(5): e589.
Menashy, F. (2019) International Aid to Education: Power Dynamics in an Era of Partnership, New York: Teachers College Press.
Oberthür, S. and Pożarowska, J. (2013) ‘Managing institutional complexity and fragmentation: the Nagoya Protocol and the global governance of genetic resources’, Global Environmental Politics, 13(3): 100–118.
Pattberg, P. (2006) ‘Private governance and the South: lessons from global forest politics’, Third World Quarterly, 27(4): 579–93.
Pattberg, P.H., Kristensen, K.E.G. and Widerberg, O.E. (2017) ‘Beyond the CBD: environmental policy analysis, multi-layered governance in Europe and beyond (MLG)’, IVM Report, Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies/IVM.
Peluso, N.L. and Vandergeest, P. (2001) ‘Genealogies of the political forest and customary rights in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand’, Journal of Asian Studies, 60(3): 761–812.
Pritchard, R. (2021) ‘Politics, power and planting trees’, Nature Sustainability, 4(11): 932.
Pülzl, H. (2005) ‘Die Politik des Waldes: Governance natürlicher Ressourcen bei den Vereinten Nationen’, Dissertation, Universität für Bodenkultur.
Ramcilovic-Suominen, S., Carodenuto, S., McDermott, C. and Hiedanpää, J. (2021) ‘Environmental justice and REDD+ safeguards in Laos: lessons from an authoritarian political regime’, Ambio, 50(12): 2256–71.
Reinecke, S. and Blum, M. (2018) ‘Discourses across scales on forest landscape restoration’, Sustainability, 10(3): 613.
Roe, D., Mulliken, T., Milledge, S., Mremi, J., Mosha, S. and Grieg-Gran, M. (2002) ‘Making a killing or making a living: wildlife trade, trade controls, and rural livelihoods’, Biodiversity and Livelihoods Issues No. 6, London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), Available from: https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/9156IIED.pdf [Accessed 31 May 2023].
Rosendal, G.K. (2001) ‘Overlapping international regimes: the case of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) between climate change and biodiversity’, International Environmental Agreements, 1(4): 447–68.
Sayer, J. and Elliot, C. (2005) ‘The role of commercial plantations in forest landscape restoration’, in Forest Restoration in Landscapes, New York: Springer, pp 379–83.
Schally, H.M. (1994) ‘Problems and opportunities in intergovernmental coordination: a Northern perspective’, in B.I. Spector (ed) Negotiating International Regimes: Lessons learned from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, London: Graham &Trotman, pp 123–33.
Schmidt, V. (2008) ‘Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse’, Annual Review of Political Science, 11: 303–26.
Schroeder, H. and González, N.C. (2019) ‘Bridging knowledge divides: the case of Indigenous ontologies of territoriality and REDD+’, Forest Policy and Economics, 100: 198–206.
Shaffer, G. and Bodansky, D. (2012) ‘Transnationalism, unilateralism and international law’, Transnational Environmental Law, 1(1): 31–41.
Slaughter, A-M., Tulumello, A. and Wood, S. (1998) ‘International law and international relations theory: a new generation of interdisciplinary scholarship’, American Journal of International Law, 92: 367–97.
Sotirov, M., Pokorny, B., Kleinschmit, D. and Kanowski, P. (2020) ‘International forest governance and policy: institutional architecture and pathways of influence in global sustainability’, Sustainability, 12(17): 7010.
UN (United Nations) (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity, Available from: www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf [Accessed 20 August 2022].
UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification) (1994) ‘Elaboration of an International Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa’, United Nations A/AC.241/27, Available from: http://www.un-documents.net/a-ac241-27.pdf [Accessed 20 August 2022].
UNCCD (2022) Global Land Outlook 2, Available from: www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/2022-04/UNCCD_GLO2_low-res_2.pdf [Accessed 20 August 2022].
UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) (2019) ‘UN Environment Programme Annual Report 2019’, Available from: www.unep.org/annualreport/2019/index.php [Accessed 20 August 2022].
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (1992) ‘United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’, FCCC/INFORMAL/84 GE.05-62220 (E) 200705, Available from: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf [Accessed 20 August 2022].
UNFF (United Nations Forum on Forests) (2005) ‘Report of the fifth session’, Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 2005, Supplement No. 22, Available from: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/396/66/PDF/N0539666.pdf?OpenElement [Accessed 20 August 2022].
UN System Task Team (2012) ‘Building on the MDGs to bring sustainable development to the post-2015 development agenda’, Thematic Think Piece, Available from: www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/Think%20Pieces/17_sustainable_development.pdf [Accessed 20 August 2022].
van Oosten, C. and Merten, K. (2021) ‘Securing rights in landscapes: Towards a rights based landscape approach’, Report WCDI-21-135, Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen: Wageningen University & Research, Available from: https://www.wwf.nl/globalassets/pdf/securing-rights-in-landscapes.pdf [accessed 31 May 2023].
Velázquez Gomar, J.O. and Stringer, L.C. (2011) ‘Moving towards sustainability? An analysis of CITES’ conservation policies’, Environmental Policy and Governance, 21(4): 240–58.
Winkel, G. Leipold, S., Buhmann, K., Cashore, B., de Jong, W., Nathan, I. et al (2017) ‘Narrating illegal logging across the globe: between green protectionism and sustainable resource use’, International Forestry Review, 19(S1): 81–97.
Zentilli, B. (1995) ‘What progress has been made on Agenda 21, chapter 1? A critical examination of developments since UNCED’, RECIEL 4(3): 222–9.
Zhang, J., Fu, B., Stafford-Smith, M., Wang, S. and Zhao, W. (2021) ‘Improve forest restoration initiatives to meet Sustainable Development Goal 15’, Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(1): 10–13.
