Between private and public: the emergence of socioenvironmental governance in the forestry sector

2– Keywords

Forest; institutional change; socioenvironmental governance; path dependence; certification; regulation;

3– Justification/Motivation

The internationalization of production chains has challenged policy makers and regulators about the most effective governance mechanisms to monitor socioenvironmental dimensions on these products (Gunningham, 2009[1]). The development of governance tools has deeply changed on the last decades, with the increasing presence of private actors playing roles once dominated by public actors.  The forest sector is widely mentioned as one of the most successful experiences of private socioenvironmental governance, presenting certification bodies operating worldwide for almost two decades (Pattberg, 2005a[2]). These new governance mechanisms have become more important to the development of agricultural markets, influencing the design of institutions in emerging markets, as biofuels. The analysis of socioenvironmental governance on the forest sector brings important insights about the technological, institutional and local elements that affect the development of private governance. This analysis can be extended to other agricultural markets where socioenvironmental dimensions are a relevant attribute.

4– Research Problem

This article focus on the emergence and evolution of socioenvironmental governance mechanisms in the forest sector, known as a successful experience in the development of private certification systems operating worldwide, such as the Forest Stewardship Council and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes. The almost twenty years of development of these mechanisms on different regions allows a comparison of which elements have influenced the adoption and success of certification mechanisms. Local attributes like law enforcement, consumers preferences and organizational and technological variables of forest production chains play an important role on the adoption and effectiveness of socioenvonmental governance on each place.

5– Methods/Theoretical Approach

Methods – Historical analysis based on the review of the literature (secondary data) on international relations and political science, as well as documents and reports, focusing on the changes on the socioenvironmental governance in the last 5 decades. The same method will be applied to understand the specificities that led to the emergence of private governance mechanisms on the forest sector.

Theoretical Approach – literature on institutional change (North, 1990[3], Greif, 2006[4], Aoki, 2001[5]) and on the emergence of private institutions (Brousseau and Raynaud, 2006[6]) applied to socioenvironmental governance and certification.

6– Discussion

The globalization and the changes in the political relations which followed this process throughout the last decades transformed the role played by state and private actors on the socioenvironmental governance. New actors (e.g. NGOs and business associations) have participated and, in many cases, coordinated governance institutions (Non-state Market Driven Governance Systems) aiming to promote a better use of natural resources and the development of market for “green” products (Cashore, 2002[7]).

Many political science and international relations scholars have been focusing on the overlaps between private and public governance (Falkner, 2003[8]; Pattberg, 2005b[9]). New forms of governance as certification and labeling of socioenvironmental dimensions are expanding on the last years and can be pointed as the main institution of coordination in many sectors.

The forest sector experience shows how important are the local attributes, such as environmental legislation, consumer preferences, and the forestry industry structure, which are key elements for the success of private governance mechanisms (McDermott et. al, 2008[10]; Gulbrandsen, 2005[11]). Countries with lower law enforcement have their certification mechanisms more driven to enforce the law instead of requiring more stringent standards. As predicted by Brousseau and Raynaud (2006), the development of private institutions like certifications systems is the result of a complex interaction between public and private institutions, in which the existence of an effective legislation reduces the need for private certification but, on the other hand, the absence on any regulatory mechanism makes more difficult the adoption of certification, due to the high costs necessary to adapt productive practices.

In terms of certification adoption, empirical evidence shows that countries where the forest sector is more vertically integrated (industry and agriculture) and have more sector organizations are more interested in adopting private certifications. The competition between certification bodies also plays an important role in terms of balancing the stringency of the standards required and the costs to achieve these sustainability levels.

7– Expected Results

This research aims to make a comparative analysis of the main factors that affect the emergence and institutional path of socioenvironmental governance, with emphasis on private certification systems for the forest sector. The main findings can be extended to understand how this sort of institutions is been developed in new “green” sectors, as the biofuel international market.  The use of institutional literature make possible to verify how institutional configurations can affect the trajectory of public and private mechanisms, as well as the results that may overcome from this kind of interaction.

[1] GUNNINGHAM, N. (2009), Environment law, regulation and governance: Shifting architectures. Journal of Environmental Law, 21(2), 179-212

[2] PATTBERG, P.H. The Forest Stewardship Council: Risk and Potential of Private Forest Governance. The Journal of Environment & Development, 14(3), pp.356-374. 2005

[3] NORTH, D. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[4] GREIF, A. (2006), History Lessons: The Birth of Impersonal Exchange: The Community Responsibility System and Impartial Justice. Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 221-236, Spring.

[5] AOKI, M. (2001), Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis. MIT Press.

[6] BROUSSEAU, E.; RAYNAUD, E. The Economics of Private Institutions: An Introduction to the Dynamics of Institutional Frameworks and to the Analysis of Multilevel Multi-type Governance. Working Paper SSRN, 2006.

[7] CASHORE, B. (2002), Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule making authority. Governance Journal, v.15, n.4.

[8] FALKNER, R. (2003), Private Environmental Governance and International Relations: Exploring the Links. Global Environmental Politics. 3(2), pp. 72-87.

[9] PATTBERG, P. (2005) The Institutionalization of Private Governance: How Business and Nonprofit Organizations Agree on Transnational Rules. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, Vol. 18, No. 4, October, 589–610)

[10] MCDERMOTT, C.L.; NOAH, E.;  CASHORE, B. (2008) Differences That “Matter”? A Framework for Comparing Environmental Certification Standards and Government Policies. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 10(1), pp.47-70.

[11] GULBRANDSEN, L.H. (2005) Sustainable Forestry in Sweden: The Effect of Competition Among Private Certification Schemes. The Journal of Environment & Development, 14(3), pp.338-355.