Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T21:21:41.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Governing Forest Supply Chains

Ratcheting up or Squeezing out?*

from Part II - Fisheries and Forestry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2019

By
Constance L. McDermott
Edited by
Judith van Erp ,
Michael Faure ,
André Nollkaemper  and
Niels Philipsen
Judith van Erp
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Michael Faure
Affiliation:
Universiteit Maastricht, Netherlands
André Nollkaemper
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Niels Philipsen
Affiliation:
Universiteit Maastricht, Netherlands
Get access

Summary

This chapter employs two contrasting theoretical frameworks for assessing the EU’s foreign forest ‘policy mix’. These are “Trading Up” and “Ecologically Unequal Exchange” (EUE) respectively. While Trading Up positions the EU as an environmental leader whose role is to bring the rest of the world up to its high environmental standards, EUE, in contrast, views the EU as a driver of global forest loss due to its unequal accumulation and consumption of global wealth and resources, and the resulting displacement of environmental harms. Each of these frameworks embodies different assumptions about the roles of policy and trade in shaping environmental and social outcomes, with conflicting implications for policy effectiveness. The findings of this chapter’s comparative analysis reveal that, while there is some variation among individual policy instruments, EU foreign forest policy places strong emphasis on law enforcement, standardization, measurement and enforcement. This is consistent with a Trading Up perspective, but inconsistent with an EUE perspective. Designing a ‘smart’ policy mix that better incorporates insights from EUE would require more emphasis on reducing EU consumption and supporting developing country initiatives that prioritize domestic and local access to forest resources, production and trade.
Type
Chapter
Information
Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm , pp. 195 - 210
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barron, D. P. & McDermott, C. L. 2015. ‘Private Funder Perspectives on Local Social and Environmental Impacts in “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation+”’. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 17(2), 277–293.Google Scholar
Borrego, A. & Skutsch, M. 2014. ‘Estimating the Opportunity Costs of Activities that Cause Degradation in Tropical Dry Forest: Implications for REDD+’. Ecological Economics 101, 1–9.Google Scholar
Butler, R. A., Koh, L. P. & Ghazoul, J. 2009. ‘REDD in the Red: Palm Oil Could Undermine Carbon Payment Schemes’. Conservation Letters 2(2), 67–73.Google Scholar
Cashore, B. & Stone, M. W. 2012. ‘Can Legality Verification Rescue Global Forest Governance? Analyzing the Potential of Public and Private Policy Intersection to Ameliorate Forest Challenges in Southeast Asia’. Forest Policy and Economics 18, 13–22.Google Scholar
Cashore, B. W. & Stone, M. W. 2014. ‘Does California Need Delaware? Explaining Indonesian, Chinese, and United States Support for Legality Compliance of Internationally Traded Products’. Regulation & Governance 8(1), 49–73.Google Scholar
Cashore, B., Auld, G., Bernstein, S. & McDermott, C. 2007. ‘Can Non-state Governance ‘Ratchet Up’ Global Environmental Standards? Lessons from the Forest Sector’. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 16(2), 158–172.Google Scholar
Cerutti, P. O., Tacconi, L., Nasi, R. & Lescuyer, G. 2011. ‘Legal vs. Certified Timber: Preliminary Impacts of Forest Certification in Cameroon’. Forest Policy and Economics 13(3), 184–190.Google Scholar
CONAFOR. 2010. Visión de México sobre REDD+, CONAFOR, SEMARNAT. Mexico City, Gobierno Federal.Google Scholar
EC. 2013a. ‘A New EU Forest Strategy: For Forests and the Forest-based Sector’, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committe and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, European Commission, 1–17.Google Scholar
EC. 2013b. The impact of EU consumption on deforestation: Comprehensive analysis of the impact of EU consumption on deforestation. Study funded by the European Commission, DG #NV, and undertaken by VITO, IIASA, HIVA and IUCN NL. Views or opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily represent those of IIASA or its National Member Organizations. Brussels, European Commission, 1–348.Google Scholar
EC. 2010. Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market (Text with EEA relevance). Brussels, European Commission, 1–12.Google Scholar
EC. 2003. Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Proposal for an EU Action Plan. Brussels, European Commission, 1–32.Google Scholar
EFI. 2014. EU FLEGT Facility > Voluntary Partnership Agreements, European Forest Institute. Available at: http://www.euflegt.efi.int/vpa.+Voluntary+Partnership+Agreements,+European+Forest+Institute.+Available+at:+http://www.euflegt.efi.int/vpa.>Google Scholar
Ewing, B., Moore, D., Goldfinger, S., Oursler, A., Reed, A. & Wackernagel, M. 2010. Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010. Oakland, Global Footprint Network, 1–113.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P. & Sinclair, D. 1998. Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hornborg, A. 1998. ‘Towards an Ecological Theory of Unequal Exchange: Articulating World System Theory and Ecological Economics’. Ecological Economics 25(1), 127–136.Google Scholar
ITTO. 2011. Annual Review and Assessment of the World Timber Situation 2011. Yokohama, International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), 1–206.Google Scholar
Ituarte-Lima, C., McDermott, C. L. & Mulyani, M. 2014. ‘Assessing Equity in National Legal Frameworks for REDD+: The Case of Indonesia’. Environmental Science and Policy 44 , 291–300.Google Scholar
Koulelis, P. & McDermott, C. 2019 (in press). ‘Incorporating A Global Perspective into Future-Oriented Forest Management Scenarios: The Role of Forest Footprint Analysis’. International Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Information Systems 10(1), 21.Google Scholar
Lesniewska, F. & McDermott, C. L. 2014. ‘FLEGT VPAs: Laying a Pathway to Sustainability via Legality: Lessons from Ghana and Indonesia’. Forest Policy and Economics 48, 16–23.Google Scholar
McDermott, C., Koulelis, P., Kubo, K. & Barron, D. 2014. ‘Integrating Global Forest Footprints into Forest Management Scenarios’. In Hinterseer, T., Koulelis, P., Jonsson, R., et al. (eds.), Synthesis Report on Integrated Forest Management Scenarios in Europe Including the National Case Study Reports and the Report on the Role of EU Commodity Consumption. Uppsala, INTEGRAL, EU FP7 Programme.Google Scholar
McDermott, C. L., Cashore, B. & Kanowski, P. 2010. Global Environmental Forest Policies: An International Comparison, London, Earthscan.Google Scholar
McDermott, C. L., Coad, L., Helfgott, A. & Schroeder, H. 2012. ‘Operationalizing Social Safeguards in REDD+: Actors, Interests and Ideas’. Environmental Science and Policy 21, 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyfroidt, P., Lambin, E. F., Erb, K. H. & Hertel, T. W. 2013. ‘Globalization of Land Use: Distant Drivers of Land Change and Geographic Displacement of Land Use’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5(5), 438–444.Google Scholar
Meyfroidt, P., Rudel, T. K. & Lambin, E. F. 2010. ‘Forest Transitions, Trade, and the Global Displacement of Land Use’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(49), 20917–20922.Google Scholar
Mulyani, M. & Jepson, P. 2013. ‘REDD+ and Forest Governance in Indonesia: A Multistakeholder Study of Perceived Challenges and Opportunities’. The Journal of Environment and Development 22(3), 261–283.Google Scholar
Nepstad, D., McGrath, D., Stickler, C., et al. 2014. ‘Slowing Amazon Deforestation through Public Policy and Interventions in Beef and Soy Supply Chains’. Science 344(6188), 1118–1123.Google Scholar
Obidzinski, K., Dermawan, A., Andrianto, A., Komarudin, H. & Hernawan, D. 2014. ‘The Timber Legality Verification System and the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) in Indonesia: Challenges for the Small-scale Forestry Sector’. Forest Policy and Economics 48, 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oosterveer, P. 2014. ‘Promoting Sustainable Palm Oil: Viewed from a Global Networks and Flows Perspective’. Journal of Cleaner Production 107, 146–153.Google Scholar
Osborne, T. M. 2011. ‘Carbon Forestry and Agrarian Change: Access and Land Control in a Mexican Rainforest’. The Journal of Peasant Studies 38(4), 859–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overdevest, C. & Zeitlin, J. 2014. ‘Constructing a Transnational Timber Legality Assurance Regime: Architecture, Accomplishments, Challenges’. Forest Policy and Economics 48, 6–15.Google Scholar
Peskett, L., Schreckenberg, K. & Brown, J. 2011. ‘Institutional Approaches for Carbon Financing in the Forest Sector: Learning Lessons for REDD+ from Forest Carbon Projects in Uganda’. Environmental Science & Policy 14(2), 216–229.Google Scholar
Rice, J. 2007. ‘Ecological Unequal Exchange: Consumption, Equity, and Unsustainable Structural Relationships within the Global Economy’. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 48(1), 43–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudel, T., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P. & Laurance, W. 2009. ‘Changing Drivers of Deforestation and New Opportunities for Conservation’. Conservation Biology 23(6), 1396–1405.Google Scholar
Setyowati, A. & McDermott, C. L. 2017. ‘Commodifying Legality? Who and What Counts as Legal in the Indonesian Wood Trade’. Society & Natural Resources 30, 750–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen-Olsen, K., Weinzettel, J., Cranston, G., Ercin, A. E. & Hertwich, E. G. 2012. ‘Carbon, Land, and Water Footprint Accounts for the European Union: Consumption, Production, and Displacements through International Trade’. Environmental Science & Technology 46(20), 10883–10891.Google Scholar
UNFCCC. 2014. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its nineteenth session, held in Warsaw from 11 to 23 November 2013: Part Two. Bonn, UNFCCC, 1–43.Google Scholar
UNFCCC/AWGLCA. 2011. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change/Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action.Google Scholar
Vogel, D. 1995. Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global Economy. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vogel, D. 1997. ‘Trading up and Governing across: Transnational Governance and Environmental Protection’. Journal of European Public Policy 4(4), 556–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallerstein, I. 1974. ‘The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis’. Comparative Studies in Society and History 16(4), 387–415.Google Scholar
Wiedmann, T. O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., et al. 2013. ‘The Material Footprint of Nations’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(20), 6271–6276.Google Scholar
Xiufang, S. & Canby, K. 2011. FLEGT Asia, Baseline Study 1, China: Overview of Forest Governance, Markets and Trade, Washington DC, EFI-FLEGT Asia Regional Office, Forest Trends, 1–52.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×