Ben Cashore Sustainability Lecture, Sustainability Science Centre - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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?

I ntroduction

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 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

• f 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 I nternational 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 &I I : 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: I ncreasing 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

Bolivia

80%

Brazilian Amazon

85%

Myanmar

80%

Cambodia

90%

Cameroon

50%

Colombia

42%

Ghana

34%

I ndonesia

51%

Russia

20-50%

I llegal Logging

Country

Wood harvested illegally (estimates)

Source: I TTO Tropical Forest Update. 2002. Vol. 12, No.1. The I TTO 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

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

50 100 150 200 250 Asia North America Russia Europe (exluding Russia) Africa Central/South America & Caribbean Australia & Oceania

Area Certified (1,000,000 hectares)

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.edu 203 464-3977 FAI LED 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 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 I nterest

“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

• f 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

I mplications 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

Once tracking is in place

 Evolution Standards can be increased (consumers pay, not firms

• r forest dependent communities

Could shift to appropriateness

Could trigger global civic identity through markets

I nteraction

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”

I mplications 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 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

I mplications 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?