Private Governance and the South: lessons from global forest politics

Abstract

Private governance beyond the state is emerging as a prominent debate in International Relations, focusing on the activities of private non-state actors and the influences of private rules and standards. However, the conceptual framework of governance has until recently been employed predominantly with reference to the oecd world. Despite this restricted view, a growing number of processes, organisations and institutions are beginning to affect developing countries and new institutional settings open up avenues of influence for actors from the South. In the context of a lively debate about global governance and the transformation of world politics, this article asks: what influences does private governance have on developing countries, their societies and their economies? What influence do southern actors have in and through private governance arrangements? I argue that we can assess the specific impacts of private governance, as well as potential avenues of influence for actors from the South, with regard to three functional pathways: governance through regulation, governance through learning and discourse, and governance through integration. Focusing in particular on private governance in the global forest arena, I argue that, while southern actors have not benefited so much economically from private certification schemes, they have been partially empowered through cognitive and integrative processes of governance.

Notes

1 For recent contributions to the debate on private forest governance, see B Cashore, G Auld & D Newsom, Governing Through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-State Authority, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004; LH Gulbrandsen, ‘Overlapping public and private governance: can forest certification fill the gaps in the global forest regime?’, Global Environmental Politics, 4 (2), 2004, pp 75 – 99; and P Pattberg, ‘What role for private rule-making in global environmental governance? Analysing the forest stewardship council (fsc)’, International Environmental Agreements, 5 (2), 2005, pp 175 – 189.

2 Forest Stewardship Council, News + Notes: An Information Service of the Forest Stewardship Council, 4 (2), 2006.

3 C Cutler, V Haufler & T Porter (eds), Private Authority and International Affairs, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999; R Falkner, ‘Private environmental governance and international relations: exploring the links’, Global Environmental Politics, 3 (2), 2003, pp 72 – 87; P Pattberg, ‘The institutionalisation of private governance: conceptualising an emerging trend in global environmental politics’, Global Governance Working Paper No 9, Amsterdam: The Global Governance Project, 2004; and K Ronit & V Schneider, ‘Global governance through private organizations’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 12 (3), 1999, pp 243 – 266.

4 B Reinalda, B Arts & M Noortmann, ‘Non-state actors in international relations: do they matter?’, in B Arts, M Noortmann & B Reinalda (eds), Non-State Actors in International Relations, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001, pp 1 – 3.

5 For examples, compare further F Biermann, ‘Institutions for scientific advice: global environmental assessments and their influence in developing countries’, Global Governance, 8 (2), 2002, pp 195 – 219; M Barnett & M Finnemore, Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004; and F Biermann & S Bauer, ‘Managers of global governance: assessing and explaining the effectiveness of intergovernmental organisations’, Global Governance Working Paper No 15, Amsterdam: The Global Governance Project, 2005.

6 For examples, see J Bendell, Terms for Endearment: Business, ngos and Sustainable Development, Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2000; P Glasbergen & Groenenberg, ‘Environmental partnership in sustainable energy’, European Environment, 11 (1), 2001, pp 1 – 13; S Heap, ngos and the Private Sector: Potential for Partnerships?, Oxford: intrac, 1998.

7 T Börzel & Thomas Risse, ‘Public – private partnerships: effective and legitimate tools of international governance’, in E Grande & L W Pauly (eds), The Reconstitution of Political Authority in the 21st Century, forthcoming.

8 For a recent discussion of the partnership paradigm and North – South relations, see R Abrahamsen, ‘The power of partnerships in global governance’, Third World Quarterly, 25 (8), 2005, pp 1453–1467.

9 For recent examples, see K Dingwerth, The Democratic Legitimacy of Transnational Rule-Making: Normative Theory and Empirical Practice, Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin, 2005; and P Pattberg, ‘Private governance and the changing nature of authority’, paper presented to the 45th Annual International Studies Association Convention, Montreal, 2004.

10 R Falkner, ‘Private environmental governance and international relations’, pp 72 – 73.

11 Ibid, p 73.

12 S Bass, ‘Global forest governance: emerging impacts of the Forest Stewardship Council’, paper presented at the sustra Workshop on ‘Architecture of the Global System of Governance of Trade and Sustainable Development’, Berlin, 2002.

13 T Bartley, ‘Certifying forests and factories: states, social movements, and the rise of private regulation in the apparel and forest products fields’, Politics & Society, 31 (3), 2003, pp 433 – 464; and P Pattberg, ‘The institutionalization of private governance: how business and non-profit organizations agree on transnational rules’, Governance, 18 (4), 2005, pp 589 – 610.

14 Forest Stewardship Council, fsc Principles and Criteria, Oaxaca: fsc Asociacion Civil (ac), 2000.

15 The fsc defines northern organisations and individuals as those based in high-income countries and southern organisations and individuals as based in low, middle and upper-middle income countries. Compare Forest Stewardship Council, Statutes, Oaxaca: fsc ac, 2002, para 14. According to the World Bank Group definition, low income countries are those with less than $765 gross national income (gni); middle income those between $766 and $3035; upper-middle those between $3036 and $9385; high income countries are those which generate more than $9386 gni per capita.

16 Forest Stewardship Council, Statutes, paras 12 – 13.

17 Personal interview with fsc regional officer, November 2003.

18 Standard setting, as opposed to the more general process of establishing and maintaining constitutive regulations, is defined as the making of voluntary, expertise-based structural, procedural or substantive regulation. Standards can take the form of management schemes, guidelines, product and process labels or general codes of conduct and can further be specified as product and process standards. Compare further D Kerwer, ‘Standardizing as governance: the case of credit rating agencies’, in A Heretier (ed), Common Goods Reinventing European and International Governance, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littelfield, 2002, pp 297 – 298.

19 Forest Stewardship Council, Process for Developing fsc Forest Stewardship Standards, Bonn: fsc ac, 2003, p 9.

20 The world's total forest cover—including commercially operated as well as protected areas—is 3.9 billion hectares. The fsc-certified forest area makes up 1.36% of the total forest cover.

21 Forest Stewardship Council, Forest Stewardship Council ac By-Laws, Bonn: fsc ac, 2002, p 1.

22 Ibid, p 2.

23 For coc and forest management certificates the relation is 28.1% to 71.9% in favour of North America and Europe.

24 S Bass, X Font & L Danielson, ‘Standards and certification: a leap forward or a step back for sustainable development?’ in International Institute for Environment and Development (iied) (ed), The Future is Now, Vol 2, London: iied, 2002, p 64.

25 Ibid.

26 R de Camino & M Alfaro, Certification in Latin America: Experience to Date, London: odi, 1998.

27 S Bass, X Font & L Danielson, ‘Standards and certification’, p 71.

28 Community forestry refers to forest management where communities are involved in the planning, management or overall control of a forestry operation.

29 S Bass, K Thornber, M Markopoulos, S Roberts & M Grieg-Gran, Certification's Impact on Forests, Stakeholders, and Supply Chains, London: iied, 2001, p 31.

30 Personal interview with fsc staff member, November 2003.

31 P Pattberg, ‘What role for private rule-making in global environmental governance?’.

32 Personal interview with fsc staff member, November 2003.

33 Forest Stewardship Council, fsc Principles and Criteria, principle 1.3.

34 The fsc standards demand compliance with all ilo labour conventions that are related to forestry, in particular those numbered 29, 87, 97, 100, 105, 111, 131, 138, 141, 142, 143, 155, 169, 182, as well as the ilo Code of Practice on Safety and Health in Forestry Work.

35 J Mayers, J Evans & T Foy, Raising the Stakes: Impacts of Privatization, Certification, and Partnerships in South African Forestry, London: iied, 2001.

36 G Segura, Forest Certification and Governments: The Real and Potential Influence on Regulatory Frameworks and Forest Policies, Washington, DC: Forest Trends, 2004, p 9.