IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ieaple/v18y2018i5d10.1007_s10784-018-9395-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The rational design of regional regimes: contrasting Amazonian, Central African and Pan-European Forest Governance

Author

Listed:
  • Joana Carlos Bezerra

    (University of Göttingen
    Rhodes University)

  • Jan Sindt

    (Climate Analytics)

  • Lukas Giessen

    (University of Göttingen
    European Forest Institute (EFI), Bonn Office)

Abstract

Forests have been an important issue in world politics at least since the UNCED conference in Rio in 1992. Since then the focus of academic attention has been on global forest governance by an international forest regime complex consisting of several forest-related regimes. This strong focus leaves a research gap regarding regional regimes addressing forests as an issue area, which recently greatly gained in empirical and academic relevance. It is particularly important to understand the institutional structures on the one hand, and the policies developed within such regimes on the other. In order to obtain a better understanding of this in the forest case, the aim of this article is to analyse the institutional design of three regional forest regimes and to develop fields and hypotheses for future research. We built upon the rational design of international institutions framework developed by Koremenos et al. (Int Organ 55(4):761–799, 2001), and based our findings on content analysis of key documents as well as participant observations and expert interviews in selected occasions. The regional regimes chosen for this study were Amazonian, the Central African and pan-European forest cooperation. The results indicate that the designs of the three regimes greatly differ regarding membership, scope, control, centralisation, and flexibility. This seems to be mainly due to differing degrees of formality of the regimes (from treaty to non-treaty to hybrid regimes) as well as different power structures amongst members and regional hegemons involved. Based on our findings, future research fields for the study of regional forest-related environmental, trade, commodity, and management regime structures as well as regime policies are identified. Such insights advance our understanding of international forest governance not only by global, but by regional forest regimes as well. This is particularly true for our understanding that similar issue-specific problems, such as sustainable forest management, in terms of regime structures and regime policies may be addressed quite differently, largely depending on the preferences of regional powers and hegemons and other potential region-specific factors. We conclude by questioning a hypothesised diffusion of international institutions and propose the more precise concept of institutional osmosis instead.

Suggested Citation

  • Joana Carlos Bezerra & Jan Sindt & Lukas Giessen, 2018. "The rational design of regional regimes: contrasting Amazonian, Central African and Pan-European Forest Governance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 635-656, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:18:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1007_s10784-018-9395-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10784-018-9395-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10784-018-9395-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10784-018-9395-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mitchell, Ronald B. & Keilbach, Patricia M., 2001. "Situation Structure and Institutional Design: Reciprocity, Coercion, and Exchange," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(4), pages 891-917, October.
    2. Krasner, Stephen D., 1982. "Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 185-205, April.
    3. Divino, J.A. & McAleer, M.J., 2008. "Modelling sustainable international tourism demand to the Brazilian Amazon," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2008-22, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    4. Giessen, Lukas & Krott, Max & Möllmann, Torsten, 2014. "Increasing representation of states by utilitarian as compared to environmental bureaucracies in international forest and forest–environmental policy negotiations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 97-104.
    5. Cashore, Benjamin & Stone, Michael W., 2012. "Can legality verification rescue global forest governance?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 13-22.
    6. Pahre, Robert, 2001. "Most-Favored-Nation Clauses and Clustered Negotiations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(4), pages 859-890, October.
    7. Jörg Balsiger & Stacy D. VanDeveer, 2012. "Navigating Regional Environmental Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, August.
    8. Geoffrey M Hodgson, 2012. "On the Limits of Rational Choice Theory," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 1(1), pages 1-5, July.
    9. Ronald B. Mitchell, 2006. "Problem Structure, Institutional Design, and the Relative Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 6(3), pages 72-89, August.
    10. Fariborz Zelli & Harro van Asselt, 2013. "Introduction: The Institutional Fragmentation of Global Environmental Governance: Causes, Consequences, and Responses," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 13(3), pages 1-13, August.
    11. Ochieng, Robert M. & Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J. & Nketiah, Kwabena S., 2013. "Interaction between the FLEGT-VPA and REDD+ in Ghana: Recommendations for interaction management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 32-39.
    12. Rakhyun Kim & Brendan Mackey, 2014. "International environmental law as a complex adaptive system," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 5-24, March.
    13. Ostrom, Elinor, 1991. "Rational Choice Theory and Institutional Analysis: Toward Complementarity," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(1), pages 237-243, March.
    14. Solberg, Birger & Bergseng, Even & Lindstad, Berit H., 2017. "Assessing national impacts of international environmental regimes for biodiversity protection and climate mitigatio in boreal forestry – Experiences from using a quantitative approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 147-160.
    15. Nurrochmat, Dodik Ridho & Dharmawan, Arya Hadi & Obidzinski, Krystof & Dermawan, Ahmad & Erbaugh, James Thomas, 2016. "Contesting national and international forest regimes: Case of timber legality certification for community forests in Central Java, Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 54-64.
    16. Logmani, Jacqueline & Krott, Max & Lecyk, Michal Tymoteusz & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Customizing elements of the International Forest Regime Complex in Poland? Non-implementation of a National Forest Programme and redefined transposition of NATURA 2000 in Bialowieza Forest," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 81-90.
    17. Mbatu, Richard S., 2015. "Domestic and international forest regime nexus in Cameroon: An assessment of the effectiveness of REDD+ policy design strategy in the context of the climate change regime," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 46-56.
    18. Radoslav S. Dimitrov, 2005. "Hostage to Norms: States, Institutions and Global Forest Politics," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 5(4), pages 1-24, November.
    19. Lukas Giessen & Pradip Kumar Sarker & Md Saifur Rahman, 2016. "International and Domestic Sustainable Forest Management Policies: Distributive Effects on Power among State Agencies in Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-28, April.
    20. Fred Gale, 2014. "Four Models of Interest Mediation in Global Environmental Governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 5(1), pages 10-22, February.
    21. Keohane, Robert O, 2002. "Rational Choice Theory and International Law: Insights and Limitations," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 307-319, January.
    22. Koremenos, Barbara & Lipson, Charles & Snidal, Duncan, 2001. "The Rational Design of International Institutions," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(4), pages 761-799, October.
    23. Sahide, Muhammad Alif K. & Maryudi, Ahmad & Supratman, Supratman & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Is Indonesia utilising its international partners? The driving forces behind Forest Management Units," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 11-20.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carmen Rodríguez Fernández-Blanco & Sarah L. Burns & Lukas Giessen, 2019. "Mapping the fragmentation of the international forest regime complex: institutional elements, conflicts and synergies," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 187-205, April.
    2. Matilda Petersson & Peter Stoett, 2022. "Lessons learnt in global biodiversity governance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 333-352, June.
    3. Jonathan Zeitlin & Christine Overdevest, 2021. "Experimentalist interactions: Joining up the transnational timber legality regime," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 686-708, July.
    4. Pradip Kumar Sarker & Md Saifur Rahman & Lukas Giessen, 2019. "Regional economic regimes and the environment: stronger institutional design is weakening environmental policy capacity of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 19-52, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sarker, Pradip Kumar & Rahman, Md Saifur & Giessen, Lukas, 2018. "Regional governance by the South Asia Cooperative Environment Program (SACEP)? Institutional design and customizable regime policy offering flexible political options," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 454-470.
    2. Singer, Benjamin & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Towards a donut regime? Domestic actors, climatization, and the hollowing-out of the international forests regime in the Anthropocene," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 69-79.
    3. Pradip Kumar Sarker & Md Saifur Rahman & Lukas Giessen, 2019. "Regional economic regimes and the environment: stronger institutional design is weakening environmental policy capacity of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 19-52, February.
    4. Carmen Rodríguez Fernández-Blanco & Sarah L. Burns & Lukas Giessen, 2019. "Mapping the fragmentation of the international forest regime complex: institutional elements, conflicts and synergies," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 187-205, April.
    5. Park, Mi Sun & Lee, Hyowon, 2019. "Accountability and reciprocal interests of bilateral forest cooperation under the global forest regime," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 32-44.
    6. Nathan, Iben & Chen, Jie & Hansen, Christian Pilegaard & Xu, Bin & Li, Yan, 2018. "Facing the complexities of the global timber trade regime: How do Chinese wood enterprises respond to international legality verification requirements, and what are the implications for regime effecti," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 169-180.
    7. Rahman, Md Saifur & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Formal and Informal Interests of Donors to Allocate Aid: Spending Patterns of USAID, GIZ, and EU Forest Development Policy in Bangladesh," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 250-267.
    8. Sahide, Muhammad Alif K. & Maryudi, Ahmad & Supratman, Supratman & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Is Indonesia utilising its international partners? The driving forces behind Forest Management Units," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 11-20.
    9. Metodi Sotirov & Benno Pokorny & Daniela Kleinschmit & Peter Kanowski, 2020. "International Forest Governance and Policy: Institutional Architecture and Pathways of Influence in Global Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-25, August.
    10. Thomas Gehring & Benjamin Faude, 2014. "A theory of emerging order within institutional complexes: How competition among regulatory international institutions leads to institutional adaptation and division of labor," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 471-498, December.
    11. RonaldB. Mitchell & LilianaB. Andonova & Mark Axelrod & Jörg Balsiger & Thomas Bernauer & JessicaF. Green & James Hollway & RakhyunE. Kim & Jean-Frédéric Morin, 2020. "What We Know (and Could Know) About International EnvironmentalAgreements," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(1), pages 103-121, February.
    12. Fatem, Sepus M. & Awang, San A. & Pudyatmoko, Satyawan & Sahide, Muhammad A.K. & Pratama, Andita A. & Maryudi, Ahmad, 2018. "Camouflaging economic development agendas with forest conservation narratives: A strategy of lower governments for gaining authority in the re-centralising Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 699-710.
    13. Peter Cihon & Matthijs M. Maas & Luke Kemp, 2020. "Fragmentation and the Future: Investigating Architectures for International AI Governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(5), pages 545-556, November.
    14. Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2022. "Ordering global governance complexes: The evolution of the governance complex for international civil aviation," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 293-322, April.
    15. Liesbet Hooghe & Gary Marks, 2015. "Delegation and pooling in international organizations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 305-328, September.
    16. Andrea Gerlak & Jonathan Lautze & Mark Giordano, 2011. "Water resources data and information exchange in transboundary water treaties," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 179-199, May.
    17. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Böcher, Michael & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Forest Policy Analysis: Advancing the analytical approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-6.
    18. Tegegne, Yitagesu T. & Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & FOBISSIE, KALAME & Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J. & Lindner, Marcus & Kanninen, Markku, 2017. "Synergies among social safeguards in FLEGT and REDD+ in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 1-11.
    19. Yunita, Sekar A.W. & Soraya, Emma & Maryudi, Ahmad, 2018. "“We are just cheerleaders”: Youth's views on their participation in international forest-related decision-making fora," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 52-58.
    20. Tobias Böhmelt & Gabriele Spilker, 2016. "The interaction of international institutions from a social network perspective," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 67-89, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:18:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1007_s10784-018-9395-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.