Can market forces rescue global forest governance? Ben Cashore Sustainability Lecture, Sustainability Science Centre University of Copenhagen, 26th of August 2013, 14:00-15:00 Auditorium A3. 24.11Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management Rolighedsvej 2 1958 Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark
Introduction Grateful for this opportunity To Katherine Richardson and Sustainability Science Center Possible owing to visiting professorship Support from SUFANOMA, VELUX fund Collaborations with Iben Nathan, Christian Hansen Support from Niels Elers Koch What you need to know I am not a natural scientist, nor economist Political scientist Devoted last 20 years to understanding public and private policies governing critical global forestry challenges Today want to reflect on the possibility of market forces in helping build better sustainability governance Before begin, what do you think?
My argument Whether market forces can be harnessed to improve global forest governance Is not preordained Depends on strategies taken by Government agencies, the forest sector, and nongovernmental organizations That focuses not only on the objectives we want to achieve But the mechanisms for getting us there.
Today s talk draws on collaborations that include Steven Bernstein and Benjamin Cashore, Can Non-State Global Governance be Legitimate?: A Theoretical Framework, Regulation and Governance 1, pp.1-25 2007 Benjamin Cashore, Graeme Auld, Steven Bernstein and Constance McDermott, Can Non-state Governance Ratchet Up Global Environmental Standards? Lessons from the Forest Sector, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, vol 16, issue 2, pp. 158-172 special edition on private sector implementation of multilateral environmental agreements [reviewed by managing editor]. 2007 Benjamin Cashore and Michael Stone, Can Legality Verification Rescue Global Forest Governance: Assessing the Intersection of Public and Private Authority in Forest Governance in Southeast Asia, journal of Forest Policy and Economics 2012 Constance McDermott, Benjamin Cashore and Peter Kanowski, Global Environmental Forest Policies: An International Comparison Earthscan, UK 2010 Steven Bernstein and Benjamin Cashore, Re-Thinking Environmental Effectiveness : Complex Global Governance and Influence on Domestic Policies International Affairs 2012 Benjamin Cashore, Key Components of Good Forest Governance Part I&II: Overarching Principles and Criteria, Exlibris produced by the ASEAN-German ReFOP project, the analysis and making of regional public policy www.aseanforest-chm.org. Discussion paper No. 6, July 2009 2008 Kelly Levin, Constance McDermott and Benjamin Cashore, The Climate Regime as Global Forest Governance: Can Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) Initiatives Pass a Dual Effectiveness Test?, International Forestry Review Vol.10(3), pp. 538-549.
Approach Elaborate this argument in following steps Review globally important forestry challenges Identify the consensus about what to do Review frustration over previous global efforts Reflect on potential of latest initiative: legality verification Interesting case Seeks to weed out illegal logging by Giving preference to legal timber Reinforce sovereignty by assisting governments in enforcing their own laws Draws on trade legislation in EU and US to create demand Rather than consumer preferences Forbids importing illegal timber
Approach Gaining support from broad coalition Developing countries, environmental groups, forest companies, and international aid agencies Is legality verification it simply the latest example of five year attention span? Or might it help build durable results That might help build a sustainable future? To answer this question let us first turn to key challenges
Key Challenge: Increasing Globalization of Forest Products Sector Russia as increasing source of fibre Powerful growth of China Wood imports from tropical developing countries More than tripled from 1997 to 2007 Same time exports To Europe increased by 800 percent To US by 1000 percent
Dwindling untouched forests
Deforestation Red represents decrease in forest cover (greater than.5% per year) Green represents increases in forest cover (greater than.5% per year)
Climate Change: Affects Forest Operations?
Forest Degradation
Illegal Logging Country Wood harvested illegally (estimates) Bolivia 80% Brazilian Amazon 85% Myanmar 80% Cambodia 90% Cameroon 50% Colombia 42% Ghana 34% Indonesia 51% Russia 20-50% Source: ITTO Tropical Forest Update. 2002. Vol. 12, No.1. The ITTO data is based on a wide range of sources employing different measurement methodologies.
Global Consensus about what to do Great strides among stakeholders As to what constitutes responsible and sustainable forest governance Forest Livelihoods Indigenous rights Community empowerment ( subsidiarity ) Poverty alleviation Forest practices that incorporate environmental and social values Including climate reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+) Yet frustration exists at scale and pace of change
Brief History of Global Forest Policy Efforts Focus on tropical forest destruction in 1980s Boycotts failed Encouraged conversion of forests to other uses Didn t distinguish responsible from irresponsible forestry International Tropical Timber Agreement viewed as weak Efforts turned to 1992 Rio Earth Summit to agree on a Global Forest Convention key issues Sovereignty Lack of resources/capacity building Failed Left with Non-Binding Authoritative Statement of Forest Principles
Emergence of Forest Certification Emerged following 1992 Rio Earth Summit International environmental groups and their allies Bypassed governments Created their own system of rules about what constituted responsible forestry Forest Stewardship Council Multi-stakeholder, three chambers Wide ranging policies FSC competitors Industry and forest owner associations More flexible, greater attention to national sovereignty
What has happened to date After two decades STRONG among industrial forest companies in Europe and North America DEBATE about which program (FSC or PEFC) is most appropriate WEAK in developing countries Higher governance challenges
Support for Forest Certification 250 Forest Certification by Region Area Certified (1,000,000 hectares) 200 150 100 FSC SFI ATFS CSA Other PEFC (non-csa, ATFS or SFI) 50 0 Asia North America Russia Europe (exluding Russia) Africa Central/South America & Caribbean Australia & Oceania Source: Prepared by Devin Judge-Lord, http://ic.fsc.org/facts-figures.19.htm accessed 12/11/2012http://www.pefc.org/images/stories/documents/Global_Stats/2011-08_PEFC_Global_Certificates.pdf, http://www.sfiprogram.org/newsroom/index.php, http://www.certificationcanada.org/english/status_intentions/status.php, accessed 08/17/2011
Brief History of Global Efforts to Promote Sustainable Forestry 1992-2006 Comprehensive Global Forest Convention FAILED Over time some support in North America and Europe Limited support in global South Policy Scope Strong support in North American and Europe Limited support in global South Ben Cashore, Updated May 5, 2006 benjamin.cashore@yale.edu 203 464-3977 Limited 1992 1993 2004 United Nations non-binding agreement on forest practices Time Axis 2006 2020?
The Puzzle A generation ago there were comprehensive efforts to address state of world s forests Global forest convention at Rio failed Global certification systems Today Global efforts to address these now emphasizing: illegal logging Important, but less ambitious than generation ago Reducing C0 emissions Important, but not everything Yet both garnering significant attention Governments, environmental groups, aid agencies, forest industry What do we make of these efforts?
Two doors The pessimistic door Focus on illegal logging/legality verification sign of weakness of global forest governance? Just latest policy ideas That tend to have 5-10 year shelf lives Only to be replaced by something else When on the ground evidence shows ongoing deterioration The optimistic door Represents start of ratcheting up Through intersection of policy initiatives Local, national, international Non-state, market based
My argument Which door we choose not preordained Depends upon Moving from single instrument approaches, five year attention spans to Interaction and evolution Focusing on why support occurs requires paying attention to two different types of motivations for support
Motivation #1: Self Interest self interest of different groups logic of consequences What is in it for me? Or my company? Or my country? Captures Cost/benefit analysis Build institutions to avoid resource depletion -Tragedy of commons (Ostrom, Hardin) Bootleggers and Baptists Coalitions
Motivation #2: Norm generation Motivations of support Owing to norms/culturally engrained practices Take precedence over self interested calculations Slavery, colonialism logic of appropriateness built upon visions of civic identity and ideas about [citizen] obligations
Motivation #2: Norm generation Relevance for forest management No question norms key part of consensus about what to do: Maintaining forest ecosystems Poverty alleviation Land rights and resources Forest Processes Inclusiveness, Transparency, Accountability Subsidiarity Now global norms
Implications for Legality Verifiction A focus on self interest Requires focus on why coalitions are emerging bootleggers and Baptists Environmental groups, forest products industry, developing country governments Lacey Act/VPAs Logic for policy makers and strategists Keep bootleggers and Baptists coalition large Weed out bottom (increases self interest of legal logging) Begin with low standards Do not challenge, but reinforce sovereignty Capacity building, technology, incentives Focus on supply chain tracking
Implications for Legality Verification Once tracking is in place Evolution Standards can be increased (consumers pay, not firms or forest dependent communities Could shift to appropriateness Could trigger global civic identity through markets Interaction could assist certification efforts (unblock supply chain tracking challenges) Could assist good forest governance efforts within domestic country context Greater incentives, capacity buliding tip scales
Implications for Problem Solving Legality verification can address some important problems directly: Illegal logging, baseline forest practices Cannot address all problems Climate, protected areas Could address others through synergies Global forest certification, good forest governance These impacts can only occur If we link strategies to the logics of these pathways If we only apply them to problems they can address Such an approach is not only strategic, it is appropriate
Stop here
Future History of Global Efforts to Promote Sustainable Forestry 2006-2020 Ratcheting Up: California Effect? Comprehensive? Policy Scope The Beginning of Ratcheting Up? Ben Cashore, Updated October 2010 benjamin.cashore@yale.edu Limited Legality verification (e.g. FLEG T, Lacey Act) 1992 1993 2004 Time Axis 2006 2020?