IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v38y2014icp97-104.html

Increasing representation of states by utilitarian as compared to environmental bureaucracies in international forest and forest–environmental policy negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Giessen, Lukas
  • Krott, Max
  • Möllmann, Torsten

Abstract

This article analyses the representation of selected countries (EU-27 and the five influential “forest states”) to international forest-related negotiations by national utilitarian vis-à-vis conservation-oriented ministerial bureaucracies. It is hypothesised that due to the bureaucracies' informal goal of gaining and maintaining responsibility over political issues, mainly ministries of agriculture including forestry and ministries of environment are competing for the task of representing states in international forest and forest–environmental negotiations. A survey design based on a semi-structured questionnaire was used to study the bureaucratic representation of the selected states to the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) and to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) negotiations between 2000 and 2011. The results show that in the processes under study the representation of states by utilitarian types of bureaucracies is rather increasing, while the role of conservationist bureaucracies is declining. Likewise, the roles of ministries of foreign affairs and economic affairs are declining, while hybrid organisations on agriculture/environment were observed being on a strong increase. Under CBD negotiations the vast majority of responding countries was represented by environmental bureaucracies, while agricultural ones played a marginal role. In contrast, under UNFF negotiations countries were represented by agricultural, economic and hybrid agricultural/environmental bureaucracies in approx. equal shares. Agricultural bureaucracies especially gained influence under UNFF negotiations during the study period. The article concludes on these trends also highlighting options for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:38:y:2014:i:c:p:97-104
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.08.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934113001706
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.08.008?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krott, Max & Hasanagas, Nicolas D., 2006. "Measuring bridges between sectors: Causative evaluation of cross-sectorality," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(5), pages 555-563, July.
    2. Katrina Brown, 2001. "Cut and run? Evolving institutions for global forest governance," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(7), pages 893-905.
    3. Sadath, Nazmus & Kleinschmit, Daniela & Giessen, Lukas, 2013. "Framing the tiger — A biodiversity concern in national and international media reporting," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 37-41.
    4. Arts, Bas, 2012. "Forests policy analysis and theory use: Overview and trends," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 7-13.
    5. Sander Chan & Philipp Pattberg, 2008. "Private Rule-Making and the Politics of Accountability: Analyzing Global Forest Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(3), pages 103-121, August.
    6. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2005. "Bureaucracy and new management paradigms: modeling foresters' perceptions regarding community-based forest management in India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 651-669, May.
    7. Humphreys, David, 2001. "Forest negotiations at the United Nations: explaining cooperation and discord," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3-4), pages 125-135, November.
    8. Hans Hoogeveen & Patrick Verkooijen, 2011. "Transforming Global Forest Governance," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 28(5), pages 501-508, September.
    9. Lindstad, Berit H. & Solberg, Birger, 2010. "Challenges in determining national effects of international policy processes: Forest protection in Norway as a case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(7), pages 489-496, September.
    10. Secco, Laura & Pettenella, Davide & Gatto, Paola, 2011. "Forestry governance and collective learning process in Italy: Likelihood or utopia?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 104-112.
    11. 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.
    12. Fréchette, Alain & Lewis, Nathalie, 2011. "Pushing the boundaries of conventional forest policy research: Analyzing institutional change at multiple levels," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(7), pages 582-589, September.
    13. Philipp Pattberg, 2005. "What Role for Private Rule-Making in Global Environmental Governance? Analysing the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 175-189, June.
    14. Rayner, Jeremy & Howlett, Michael & Wilson, Jeremy & Cashore, Benjamin & Hoberg, George, 2001. "Privileging the sub-sector: critical sub-sectors and sectoral relationships in forest policy-making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3-4), pages 319-332, July.
    15. Hubo, Christiane & Krott, Max, 2013. "Conflict camouflaging in public administration — A case study in nature conservation policy in Lower Saxony," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 63-70.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Rahman, Md Saifur & Sarker, Pradip Kumar & Sadath, Md. Nazmus & Giessen, Lukas, 2018. "Policy changes resulting in power changes? Quantitative evidence from 25 years of forest policy development in Bangladesh," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 419-431.
    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. 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.
    4. Rahman, Md Saifur & Sadath, Md. Nazmus & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Foreign donors driving policy change in recipient countries: Three decades of development aid towards community-based forest policy in Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 39-53.
    5. 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.
    6. Mijailoff, Julián Daniel & Giessen, Lukas & Burns, Sarah Lilian, 2023. "Local to global escalation of land use conflicts: Long-term dynamics on social movements protests against pulp mills and plantation forests in Argentina and Uruguay," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    7. A. Marx & E. Bécault & J. Wouters, 2012. "Private Standards in Forestry. Assessing the Legitimacy and Effectiveness of the Forest Stewardship Council," Chapters, in: Axel Marx & Miet Maertens & Johan Swinnen & Jan Wouters (ed.), Private Standards and Global Governance, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Adam Wellstead, 2017. "Plus ça Change, Plus C’est La Même Chose? A review of Paul Sabatier’s “An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein”," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 549-561, December.
    9. Tikkanen, Jukka, 2018. "Participatory turn - and down-turn - in Finland's regional forest programme process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 87-97.
    10. Maryudi, Ahmad, 2016. "Choosing timber legality verification as a policy instrument to combat illegal logging in Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 99-104.
    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. Muradian, Roldan & May, Peter, 2026. "Innovations and Dilemmas in Global Forest Governance - The Tortuous Pathway toward a Deforestation-free World: Introduction to the Special Issue," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    13. Schaefers, Tabea V. & Krott, Max & Kirchner, Michael, 2025. "The influence of science within forest policy making - the case of payments for forest ecosystem services for climate-adapted forest management in Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    14. Park, Mi Sun & Kleinschmit, Daniela, 2016. "Framing forest conservation in the global media: An interest-based approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 7-15.
    15. Rafael, Gabriel C. & Fonseca, Alberto & Jacovine, Laércio Antônio Gonçalves, 2018. "Non-conformities to the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards: Empirical evidence and implications for policy-making in Brazil," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 59-69.
    16. Fischer, Richard & Tamayo Cordero, Fabian & Ojeda Luna, Tatiana & Ferrer Velasco, Rubén & DeDecker, Maria & Torres, Bolier & Giessen, Lukas & Günter, Sven, 2021. "Interplay of governance elements and their effects on deforestation in tropical landscapes: Quantitative insights from Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Dobšinská, Zuzana & Živojinović, Ivana & Nedeljković, Jelena & Petrović, Nenad & Jarský, Vilém & Oliva, Jiří & Šálka, Jaroslav & Sarvašová, Zuzana & Weiss, Gerhard, 2020. "Actor power in the restitution processes of forests in three European countries in transition," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    19. Arts, Bas, 2014. "Assessing forest governance from a ‘Triple G’ perspective: Government, governance, governmentality⁎⁎This article belongs to the Special Issue: Assessing Forest Governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 17-22.
    20. Olga Malets, 2017. "Recursivity by Organizational Design: The Case of the Forest Stewardship Council," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(3), pages 343-352, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:38:y:2014:i:c:p:97-104. 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.