IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v131y2021ics138993412100174x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

FSC sustainability certification as green-lane for legality verification under the EUTR? Changes and policy learning at the interplay of private governance and public policy

Author

Listed:
  • Dieguez, Laura
  • Sotirov, Metodi

Abstract

How do policy-oriented learning and shifting coalitions among private and public actors affect the evolution of the regulatory governance of legal and sustainable global timber commodity production and trade? To answer this question, we study the interplay between the transnational private regulation of sustainable forestry certification under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme and the public policy requesting due diligence to prove the legality of global timber trade under the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR). We show that strategic policy-oriented learning and shifting coalitions among NGOs, business companies and state regulators were key shapers in the evolution and interplay of private and public regulations in the forest sector. In particular, environmental NGOs (ENGOs) and some forest-based industries first developed the non-state, market-driven FSC forest certification through a strategic alliance triggered by strategic policy learning about the failures and limitations of global state-based regulatory instruments. Following policy controversies about the eroding legitimacy and the ineffectiveness of FSC certification ENGOs, state regulators and other forest industries responded to these concerns and built a new strategic alliance to design and enforce regulatory bans and due diligence rules under the EUTR. Due to these controversies, shifting coalitions and strategic learning, private certification was not recognized as a green-lane to prove legality assurance under the EUTR. Nevertheless, FSC certification has been included, developed and practiced as part of the due diligence systems under the EUTR. In terms of theory development, our results show that strategic policy learning and processes of making and breaking strategic alliances were based on changes in core empirical beliefs based on evidence and information. However, these changes did not involve changes in core normative beliefs, which acted as main cognitive filters for breaking old strategic alliances and making new ones. These essentially cognitive mechanisms explain much of the evolution in regulatory governance interactions in the forest sector, shifting from public to private, then from private to public, and finally ending up in public-private controversies and adaptations.

Suggested Citation

  • Dieguez, Laura & Sotirov, Metodi, 2021. "FSC sustainability certification as green-lane for legality verification under the EUTR? Changes and policy learning at the interplay of private governance and public policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:131:y:2021:i:c:s138993412100174x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102568
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993412100174X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102568?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. MÃ¥ns Nilsson, 2005. "The Role of Assessments and Institutions for Policy Learning: A Study on Swedish Climate and Nuclear Policy Formation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 38(4), pages 225-249, December.
    2. Cashore, Benjamin & Stone, Michael W., 2012. "Can legality verification rescue global forest governance?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 13-22.
    3. Kets, Willemien & Sandroni, Alvaro, 2019. "A belief-based theory of homophily," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 410-435.
    4. Cashore, Benjamin & Auld, Graeme & Newsom, Deanna, 2003. "Forest certification (eco-labeling) programs and their policy-making authority: explaining divergence among North American and European case studies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 225-247, September.
    5. 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.
    6. McDermott, Constance L. & Sotirov, Metodi, 2018. "A political economy of the European Union's timber regulation: Which member states would, should or could support and implement EU rules on the import of illegal wood?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 180-190.
    7. Sotirov, Metodi & Memmler, Michael, 2012. "The Advocacy Coalition Framework in natural resource policy studies — Recent experiences and further prospects," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 51-64.
    8. David Humphreys, 2004. "Redefining the Issues: NGO Influence on International Forest Negotiations," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 4(2), pages 51-74, May.
    9. Cheng, Antony S. & Danks, Cecilia & Allred, Shorna R., 2011. "The role of social and policy learning in changing forest governance: An examination of community-based forestry initiatives in the U.S," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 89-96.
    10. Metodi Sotirov & Georg Winkel, 2016. "Toward a cognitive theory of shifting coalitions and policy change: linking the advocacy coalition framework and cultural theory," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(2), pages 125-154, June.
    11. Overdevest, Christine & Zeitlin, Jonathan, 2014. "Constructing a transnational timber legality assurance regime: Architecture, accomplishments, challenges," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 6-15.
    12. 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.
    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. Zhang, Qian & Cheng, Baodong & Diao, Gang & Tao, Chenlu & Wang, Can, 2023. "Does China's natural forest logging ban affect the stability of the timber import trade network?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).

    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. Berning, Laila & Sotirov, Metodi, 2024. "The coalitional politics of the European Union Regulation on deforestation-free products," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    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. 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.
    4. Sotirov, Metodi & Blum, Mareike & Storch, Sabine & Selter, Andy & Schraml, Ulrich, 2017. "Do forest policy actors learn through forward-thinking? Conflict and cooperation relating to the past, present and futures of sustainable forest management in Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P2), pages 256-268.
    5. 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.
    6. So, Hau Wing & Lafortezza, Raffaele, 2022. "Reviewing the impacts of eco-labelling of forest products on different dimensions of sustainability in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Köthke, Margret, 2020. "Implementation of the European Timber Regulation by German importing operators: An empirical investigation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    9. Baulenas, Eulàlia & Sotirov, Metodi, 2020. "Cross-sectoral policy integration at the forest and water nexus: National level instrument choices and integration drivers in the European Union," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Baulenas, Eulàlia, 2021. "She’s a Rainbow: Forest and water policy and management integration in Germany, Spain and Sweden," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    12. Cashore, Benjamin & Nathan, Iben, 2020. "Can finance and market driven (FMD) interventions make “weak states” stronger? Lessons from the good governance norm complex in Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    13. Yin, Zhonghua & Wang, Fang & Gan, Jianbang, 2020. "Spatial spillover effects of global forest product trade," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    14. Karsenty, Alain, 2019. "Certification of tropical forests: A private instrument of public interest? A focus on the Congo Basin," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Hansen, Christian P. & Rutt, Rebecca & Acheampong, Emmanuel, 2018. "‘Experimental’ or business as usual? Implementing the European Union Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Voluntary Partnership Agreement in Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 75-82.
    16. 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.
    17. Anthony Edo & Nicolas Jacquemet & Constantine Yannelis, 2019. "Language skills and homophilous hiring discrimination: Evidence from gender and racially differentiated applications," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 349-376, March.
    18. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    19. Fatima Khalid & Asma Jamil & Huda Kamal & Tahira Afzal & Tahseenullah Khan & Muhammad Babar Taj & Ahmad Raheel & Syed Ahmad Tirmizi & Muhammad Babar Taj & Muhammad Jamshed Iqbal & Muhammad Ashiq & Muh, 2019. "Multiple Impacts of Illegal Logging- A key to Deforestation Over the Globe," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 20(5), pages 15430-15435, August.
    20. Hasyim, Zainuri & Laraswati, Dwi & Purwanto, Ris H. & Pratama, Andita A. & Maryudi, Ahmad, 2020. "Challenges facing independent monitoring networks in the Indonesian timber legality assurance system," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).

    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:eee:forpol:v:131:y:2021:i:c:s138993412100174x. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.