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

Can market forces rescue global forest governance?

Introduction

Grateful for this opportunityTo Katherine Richardson and Sustainability Science Center

Possible owing to visiting professorshipSupport from SUFANOMA, VELUX fund

Collaborations with Iben Nathan, Christian Hansen

Support from Niels Elers Koch

What you need to knowI 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 governanceIs not preordained

Depends on strategies taken by

Government agencies, the forest sector, and non-governmental 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 stepsReview 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 SectorRussia as increasing source of fibre

Powerful growth of ChinaWood 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

Bolivia 80%

Brazilian Amazon 85%

Myanmar 80%

Cambodia 90%

Cameroon 50%

Colombia 42%

Ghana 34%

Indonesia 51%

Russia 20-50%

Illegal LoggingCountry Wood harvested illegally (estimates)

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 failedEncouraged 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

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

Asia NorthAmerica

Russia Europe(exludingRussia)

Africa Central/SouthAmerica &Caribbean

Australia &Oceania

Are

a C

erti

fied

(1,

000,

000

hect

ares

)

Forest Certification by Region

FSC

SFI

ATFS

CSA

Other PEFC (non-CSA,ATFS or SFI)

Brief History of Global Efforts to Promote Sustainable Forestry 1992-2006

Policy Scope

Limited

Time Axis

Global Forest Convention

Comprehensive

1992

1993

2004

2006

2020

?

Ben Cashore,

Updated May 5, 2006 benjamin.cashore@yale.edu203 464-3977

FAILED

Over time some support in North America and Europe

Strong support in North American and Europe

Limited support in global South

Limited support in global South

United Nations “non-binding agreement on

forest practices”

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 preordainedDepends 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 supportOwing 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 interestRequires 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

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

Interactioncould 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 Legality Verification

Legality verification can address some important problems directly:Illegal logging, baseline forest practices

Cannot address all problems

Climate, protected areas

Could address others through synergiesGlobal forest certification, good forest governance

These impacts can only occurIf 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

Implications for Problem Solving

Stop here

Legality verification

(e.g. FLEG T, Lacey Act)

Future History of Global Efforts to Promote Sustainable Forestry 2006-2020

Ratcheting Up: California Effect?

Policy Scope

Limited

Time Axis

Comprehensive

1992

1993

2004

2006

2020

?

Ben Cashore,

Updated October 2010

benjamin.cashore@yale.edu

?

The Beginning of Ratcheting Up?