Lecture 14 11 2005

Slide1: 

Internationalisation 14 November 2005 Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05 FNP 21806 Introduction into forest and nature conservation policy

Today's schedule: 

Today's schedule Last Thursday's governance article on forest certification in Sweden (Boström 2003) Internationalisation: what is it? Development of international policy processes in forest & nature policy Actors Access & decision-making rules Hard law & soft law Implementation and compliance Required reading & presentation Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05

Boström (2003) Problem statement: 

Boström (2003) Problem statement Environmental organisations took initiative They felt that government failed (too slow) (Ad hoc) coalitions with market & social actors Non-state driven rule making Formally independent of state Highly political Sweden: FSC certification scheme succesful Other countries: Less substantial and more procedural certification schemes dominate Why and what is the role of the state? Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 10-11-05

Boström (2003) Theory and literature: 

Boström (2003) Theory and literature New approaches (bottom up, participation, inclusion of different actors etc) have emerged Role of state changed from 'power over' to 'power to' Old approaches (power over) have not dissapeared Old + new approaches form complex mixtures Context dependent (different in different nation states) Countries have different features that may enable or constrain non-state driven rule making: regulatory framework political and administrative culture or policy style state legitimacy Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 10-11-05

Boström (2003) International processes: 

Boström (2003) International processes International processes (Rio) explain why a certification initiative was taken in the first place But not why a substantial certification scheme was chosen and why it was succesful in Sweden Strength of the forest industry does not explain it either (USA did not choose FSC but Sweden did) Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 10-11-05

Boström (2003) Regulatory framework: 

Boström (2003) Regulatory framework Forests economically and politically important Environmental damage criticized Detailed regulation criticized Economy and ecology equal in new forestry act Frame law, soft instruments, voluntary, more freedom Criticized by EOs as wishful thinking Frame law also provides opportunities Lobby for stricter rules would not be effective Other strategy: private initiatives Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 10-11-05

Boström (2003) Culture/policy style: 

Boström (2003) Culture/policy style State is a central actor Swedish model: consensus, compromise, well-organised interest groups, instrument mix of mandatory rules and softer measures Consequences: New law: voluntary initiatives should be supported Good climate for negotiation Management of contoversies Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 10-11-05

Boström (2003) Discourse: 

Boström (2003) Discourse A common discourse exists that includes shared understandings of problems and solutions Characteristics of the discourse: 'Win-win' discourse: assumes the possibility to balance economic and ecological interests Multiple strategies and arrangements Trust in science and technical solutions Consequences: Facilitated communication & reconciliation of differences Opened up possibilities for new strategies and for new divisions of labour and responsibilities Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 10-11-05

Boström (2003) State legitimacy: 

Boström (2003) State legitimacy State welcomed and supported the initiative State influenced the process: was involved in FSC negotiations FSC criteria in agreement with state laws Same language and categories were used FSC received state legitimacy Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 10-11-05

Boström (2003) Conclusions: 

Boström (2003) Conclusions Sweden FSC case shows a complex mixture of autonomous action and state embededness Initiated by EOs through their perception of state regulatory failure Made possible and facilitated by the state Effective non state rule making requires state support and legitimacy and has to be compatible with state culture and policies Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 10-11-05

Internationalisation: 

Internationalisation The emergence of policy processes at the international level Shift of locus of policy process: from national to transnational level The emergence of international organisations, both governmental and non-governmental Transfer of responsibilities to international level of government The emergence of ideas & rules at the international level Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05

The rise of international policy processes: 

The rise of international policy processes Recognition of border-crossing character of environmental problems Emergence of global environmental issues (e.g. climate change) Local problems with global effects Globalised world economy Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05

Development of international policy: 

Development of international policy Agenda setting and acknowledgement of the need for international policy since more than a century However, major progress in policy development and decision making since the 1970s (though several examples of 'early' efforts) Three periods: < 1968 1968-1987 > 1987 Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05

International policy < 1968: 

International policy < 1968 Little awareness and acknowledgement of environmental problems No international organisation which targetted at environmental policy Fragmented attention for environmental issues within existing organisations and programs (e.g. Man and Biosphere Program, UNESCO) Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05

International policy 1968-1987: 

International policy 1968-1987 'Stockholm Era', 1st environmental wave Rise of public environmental awareness and concern Rise of environmental governmental departments and non-governmental environmental organisations Attention for adverse effects of production and strategies (e.g. Silent Spring, Limits to Growth) The role of images: the earth as a fragile planet 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm 1972 UN Environment Programme (Nairobi) Disagreement on content of environmental policy between developing and industrial countries → Brundtland Commission Integration of environmental and economic matters remains difficult Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05

International policy > 1987: 

International policy > 1987 'Rio de Janeiro Era', 2nd environmental wave Brundtland report, Our Common Future: poverty and underdevelopment connected with environmental problems Sustainable development as intertwining of economic development and environmental protection 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit), Rio de Janeiro: Agenda 21, Climate Change & Biological Diversity treaties, Forest Principles 1992 Commission on Sustainable Development (next to UNEP!) Continued disagreement on content of environmental policy between developing and industrial countries → e.g. GEF Increasing criticism on performance of global economic organisations: NGO 'greening' campaign (IMF, WB and GATT/WTO) Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05

Examples of international policy processes: 

Examples of international policy processes Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (1971) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (1973) EU Birds Directive (1979) Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) Forest Principles (1992) EU Habitats Directive (1992) Convention to Combat Desertification (1994) United Nations Forum on Forests (2000) Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05

State actors in international policy: 

State actors in international policy Intergovernmental organisations: United Nations (e.g. UNFF), European Union, … Governmental organisations national governments Ministries regional governments local governments, … Coalitions in UN processes: Group 77 & China: African, Asian, Latin American & Caribbean countries European Union JUSCANZ: Japan, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, … Economies in transition: Central & Eastern European countries Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05

Non State & hybrid actors in international policy: 

Non State & hybrid actors in international policy Market parties: industry, logging companies, agricultural organisations, … Grassroot organisations Environmental NGOs: WWF, Friends of the Earth, Both Ends, Birdlife, … (Scientific) experts Not 100% state, not 100% non state Example: IUCN, partly privatised forest services, ECNC → QUANGOs: Quasi Non Governmental Organisations Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05

Access & decision making rules: 

Access & decision making rules Governmental actors are formal decision-makers & negotiators Non-governmental actors generally influence policy processes in agenda-setting stage and 'in the corridors' during formal negotiations Exceptions: e.g. Corell 1999, inclusion of NGOs in governmental delegation for Wetlands Convention Fierce debates on decision-making rules (e.g. GEF) Wealthy states often determine decision-making rules (e.g. UNEP 1997) Complex layered decision-making procedures in case of simultaneous membership of different IGOs (e.g. the EU as an actor in global policy processes) Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05

The formal arena: 

The formal arena Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05, provided by M. Hofstede

The formal arena: 

The formal arena Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05, provided by M. Hofstede

The informal arena: 

The informal arena Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05, provided by M. Hofstede

International rules: 

International rules “Hard” laws: treaties, directives Binding Impose obligations on states States must implement such laws in national legislation E.g.: Conventions on Climate Change and Biological Diversity “Soft” laws: resolutions, declarations, codes of conduct Binding? No formal obligation States are expected to implement E.g.: Forest Principles Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05

Implementation & compliance: 

Implementation & compliance Autonomy & sovereignity claims Rather open formulations, ambiguous concepts (e.g. sustainable development, wise use) Budget for policy goals and instruments? National willingness and perceived importance of country's image among policy makers is crucial No international governments, laws or courts to enforce binding decisions on sovereign nations (partial exception is EU) Global policy: clear enforcement mechanism is lacking EU: infringement procedures for non-compliance in case of directives, ending in court cases at the European Court of Justice and fines Tension existing national policies vs new international policies Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05

Required reading & presentation: 

Required reading & presentation Soroos 1999: slides as guidance Read the articles of Corell (1999) & Kolk (1998) and analyse them by paying attention to, for example: Which were the important turning points in the policy process? Which (type of) actor(s) is dominant in which stage of the policy process and why? What resources do actors mobilise (formal authority, budget, expertise, personnel, etc.)? Do other actors than governmental ones play an important role, and if so, why could this occur (for instance think of access and decision-making rules)? Comparison of the two policy processes & own critical evaluation Facilitate the plenary discussion Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group FNP 21806, 14-11-05