IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v53y2015icp12-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the banality of forest governance fragmentation: Exploring ‘‘gecko politics’’ as a bureaucratic behaviour in limited statehood

Author

Listed:
  • Ongolo, Symphorien

Abstract

Governance of tropical forests at both the international and the national level is more and more fragmented because of the large constellation of actors, ideas and interests influencing forestland policies for their conservation or change. In public policy area, fragmentation is to some extent the result of competing interests and objectives that lead to a power play in policy-making between actor groups (both public and private), i.e., state bureaucracies, Intergovernmental organisations, nongovernmental organisations and private companies. In this power relationship for the control of tropical forestlands, the hegemony of state bureaucracies in forest governance processes is increasingly contested because of the growing influence of external actor groups in forest governance. Our findings show that the fragmentation of forest governance, which might be considered specific to pluralistic systems, became banal even in tropical countries with a state-centred system like Cameroon where the state claims hegemonic ownership of forestlands. This fragmentation is particularly reinforced in limited statehood where state bureaucracies are attracted to/dependent on external resources for dealing with weak institutional capacity and to face the government's lack of ability to supply public goods and services. But despite the governance fragmentation constraints, this article reveals that some governments and sectoral bureaucracies in limited statehood are capable of using cunning behaviours to secure their own interests in domestic forestland policies and avoid pressure from external actors. In the case of Cameroon for example, the strategy being used relies on a wait-and-see game, uncertainty and recourse to sudden, ambiguous decisions; this is what we call “gecko politics”. Broadly, this article seeks to understand how a government or state bureaucracy in limited statehood with a state-centred system can try to impose its own interests in the context of forest governance fragmentation?

Suggested Citation

  • Ongolo, Symphorien, 2015. "On the banality of forest governance fragmentation: Exploring ‘‘gecko politics’’ as a bureaucratic behaviour in limited statehood," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 12-20.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:53:y:2015:i:c:p:12-20
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.01.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934115000246
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.01.005?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. Karsenty, Alain & Ongolo, Symphorien, 2012. "Can “fragile states” decide to reduce their deforestation? The inappropriate use of the theory of incentives with respect to the REDD mechanism," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 38-45.
    2. 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.
    3. Raustiala, Kal & Victor, David G., 2004. "The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 277-309, April.
    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. David Humphreys, 2004. "Redefining the Issues: NGO Influence on International Forest Negotiations," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 4(2), pages 51-74, May.
    6. Frank Biermann & Philipp Pattberg & Harro van Asselt & Fariborz Zelli, 2009. "The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 9(4), pages 14-40, November.
    7. Amandine Orsini, 2013. "Multi-Forum Non-State Actors: Navigating the Regime Complexes for Forestry and Genetic Resources," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 13(3), pages 34-55, August.
    8. 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.
    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. 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, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(4), pages 1-28, April.
    2. Wehkamp, Johanna & Aquino, André & Fuss, Sabine & Reed, Erik W., 2015. "Analyzing the perception of deforestation drivers by African policy makers in light of possible REDD+ policy responses," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-18.
    3. 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.
    4. Kalaba, Felix Kanungwe, 2016. "Barriers to policy implementation and implications for Zambia's forest ecosystems," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 40-44.
    5. Uwafiokun Idemudia & Cynthia Kwakyewah & Judy Muthuri, 2020. "Mining, the environment, and human rights in Ghana: An area of limited statehood perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(7), pages 2919-2926, November.
    6. Symphorien Ongolo & Sylvestre Kouamé Kouassi & Sadia Chérif & Lukas Giessen, 2018. "The Tragedy of Forestland Sustainability in Postcolonial Africa: Land Development, Cocoa, and Politics in Côte d’Ivoire," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Aarti Gupta & Till Pistorius & Marjanneke J. Vijge, 2016. "Managing fragmentation in global environmental governance: the REDD+ Partnership as bridge organization," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 355-374, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Michelle Betsill & Navroz K. Dubash & Matthew Paterson & Harro van Asselt & Antto Vihma & Harald Winkler, 2015. "Building Productive Links between the UNFCCC and the Broader Global Climate Governance Landscape," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 15(2), pages 1-10, May.
    6. Jonathan Pickering & Carola Betzold & Jakob Skovgaard, 2017. "Special issue: managing fragmentation and complexity in the emerging system of international climate finance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-16, February.
    7. Mairon G. Bastos Lima & Gabrielle Kissinger & Ingrid J. Visseren-Hamakers & Josefina Braña-Varela & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "The Sustainable Development Goals and REDD+: assessing institutional interactions and the pursuit of synergies," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 589-606, August.
    8. Burns, Sarah L. & Krott, Max & Sayadyan, Hovik & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "The World Bank Improving Environmental and Natural Resource Policies: Power, Deregulation, and Privatization in (Post-Soviet) Armenia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 215-224.
    9. Reinsberg,Bernhard Wilfried & Michaelowa,Katharina & Knack,Stephen, 2015. "Which donors, which funds ? the choice of multilateral funds by bilateral donors at the World Bank," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7441, The World Bank.
    10. C. Randall Henning, 2019. "Regime Complexity and the Institutions of Crisis and Development Finance," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 50(1), pages 24-45, January.
    11. Jens Heidingsfelder & Markus Beckmann, 2020. "A governance puzzle to be solved? A systematic literature review of fragmented sustainability governance," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 355-390, August.
    12. Pickering, Jonathan & Jotzo, Frank & Wood, Peter J., 2015. "Splitting the difference: can limited coordination achieve a fair distribution of the global climate financing effort?," Working Papers 249508, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    13. 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.
    14. Bernhard Reinsberg & Oliver Westerwinter, 0. "The global governance of international development: Documenting the rise of multi-stakeholder partnerships and identifying underlying theoretical explanations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-36.
    15. Kreuder-Sonnen, Christian & Zangl, Bernhard, 2015. "Which post-Westphalia? International organizations between constitutionalism and authoritarianism," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 568-594.
    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. 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.
    18. Sheng, Jichuan & Hong, Qiu & Han, Xiao, 2019. "Neoliberal conservation in REDD+: The roles of market power and incentive designs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    19. Robert Shum, 2014. "China, the United States, bargaining, and climate change," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 83-100, March.
    20. Laurence Delina, 2017. "Multilateral development banking in a fragmented climate system: shifting priorities in energy finance at the Asian Development Bank," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 73-88, 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:eee:forpol:v:53:y:2015:i:c:p:12-20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.