Political ecology and economy of key trends in international forest governance

Abstract

This chapter identifies key trends in International Forest Governance1 (IFG) over the last decade.The trends are analysed through a combined lens of political ecology and political economy thatconsiders how the shifting coalitions of actors, interests, ideas, and institutions in IFG have intersected with broader political and economic trends across global and regional scales, and howthese international dynamics interact with different national and local contexts.Overall, we find that IFG continues to expand in scope and complexity to address an increasinglywide range of forest-related environmental, social, and economic priorities. At the same time, itfaces ongoing contentions over who writes the rules, for what purpose, and for whose benefit.In general, we see a growing expansion of market-based approaches, in tandem with the adoptionof increasingly ambitious global performance targets and the financialization of forest values.These trends exist in tension with efforts to decentralize and devolve forest and land rights toIndigenous peoples and local communities.One key trend at the global level is the expansion of decision-making on forests within institutions, agreements, and processes outside the forestry sector. This includes a ‘climatization’ of forestpolicy within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), for example through the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism, as well as the growth of public and private markets for forest carbon. Largely in parallel, itincludes rising ambitions under the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)to halt biodiversity loss and expand protected areas while protecting Indigenous rights. At the sametime, other institutions, agreements, and processes have aimed expressly to bridge sectoral divides,such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the promotion of landscape approachesin the public and private sector as a strategy for integrating the governance of forest, agriculture,climate, and other sectors.While these various global initiatives often struggle to reach consensus on binding commitments and finance, an increasing array of actors have turned to regional, bilateral, and unilateralapproaches to pursue their particular interests among smaller ‘coalitions of the willing’. This isobserved within and across the Global North and South. This bypassing of international negotiationhas recently gained momentum with the passage of the European Union’s (EU) Deforestation Regulation 2023/1115 (EUDR). The EUDR bans the import of forest risk commodities such as palm oil andsoy unless due diligence is demonstrated that they are deforestation-free, regardless of whether thedeforestation is legal according to the laws of the producing country. In other words, the EU aims toleverage its large market share to stop deforestation without the need for agreement from non-EUcountries on whether and how this goal should be prioritized and achieved.In terms of outcomes, there is some evidence of decreasing global rates of tropical deforestation,but also a rising sense of crisis over climate change, biodiversity loss and increasing social and economic inequalities (McDermott et al., 2022). IFG has failed to transform the power dynamics drivingthese crises (Brockhaus et al., 2021; Delabre et al., 2020). Yet, as was noted over a decade ago in the2010 “Embracing Complexity” report on IFG (Rayner et al., 2010) may still be the best hope, in thatthe wide diversity of actors, ideas, and institutions expands the possibilities for positive change andtransformation through the co-creation and sharing of power, benefits, and knowledge, both withinand beyond IFG.