The Options for an International Regulation of Forests

The global-local nexus and sustainable forest management: institutional translations in Brazil and Caatinga biome

“…multiple ways in which forests are governed around the world are strongly shaped by recent changes in global forest governance where "countries without large areas of forests want to conserve the world's forests, and countries with large forests want to keep the right to decide how to use their forests" (Visseren-Hamakers and Glasbergen 2007, p.408). In this context, tropical countries emphasise sovereignty rights in governing their forest resources (Eikermann 2015) while being pressured by the international community to adopt effective policy frameworks (Ongolo and Karsenty 2015). Studies are showing that the forest governance in tropical countries is strongly shaped by the interest and actions of networks of different actors, including governments, markets, and civil society, across multiple policy levels (Arts 2014).…”

“…These instruments include legally binding, non-legally binding, trade, and market instruments, such as multiple United Nations (UN) conventions on environmental issues, bilateral and multilateral timber trade agreements, and forest certification schemes (Arts et al 2010;Kleinschmit et al 2016). Second, global forest governance needs to address the multiple roles that forest resources have in different socio-economic and environmental governance domains (Eikermann 2015;Giessen 2013;Haberl et al 2013). Third, because of the multiple non-state actors in forest governance, including environmental NGOs, private industries, and non-state agencies, new forms of interactions on the global level are shaping policy frameworks and forest governance outcomes on the ground (Mwangi and Wardell 2012).…”

“…The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows parties of the Kyoto Protocol to implement afforestation and reforestation activities as part of the commitment to mitigate climate change (Article 12, 3-a and 3-b) (UNFCCC 1998), but CDM does not include SFM in its scope. One of the main reasons for the exclusion of SFM from the CDM is the difficulty to quantify the exact contribution that SFM initiatives could have in reducing greenhouse gases emissions (Eikermann 2015;Thomas et al 2010) and thus in mitigating climate change.…”

“…Global forest governance is concerned with a broad number of goals and environmental domains, including climate, desertification, biodiversity, and poverty reduction (Humphreys 2009). At the same time, there is no unifying legally binding instrument on forests on a global scale (Eikermann 2015). Consequently, forest issues are globally addressed in other environmental conventions (i.e.…”

“…Considering the role of SFM in global forest governance, it is important to explore its ability to overcome the drawbacks of policy fragmentation and lack of a legally binding instrument on forests. The UNFF definition of SFM offers a broad understanding of social, economic and environmental goals (Nasi and Frost 2009;Quine et al 2013), allowing a broad scope of interpretation when applied to domestic policy contexts (Eikermann 2015). How this flexibility translates to national or domestic realities is unclear: does it steer forest policy…”