Whose forest is it anyway? A critical exploration of the network governance model and the Congo Basin Forest Partnership

Abstract

The Congo Rainforest of central Africa is a resource of global significance, found within the boundaries of some of the poorest countries in the world. These two factors make it particularly complex to govern. This article argues that the Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP) is an example of governance that aims to match the complexity of the governance challenge with a form of organisation that copes better with complexity, namely the network. It traces both the general change in governance theory and the way it has played out in the forestry sector specifically. After a descriptive overview of the CBFP, the article moves to a critical exploration of the network governance model demonstrated in this as yet understudied partnership. The following two questions were identified as key to a preliminary analysis of the CBFP: ‘Who are the stakeholders?’ and ‘What influence do these different stakeholders have?’ Secondly, the article explores the potential of multi-stakeholder tools often applied at the local level for purposes of deepening analysis at the regional and international levels, using the CBFP as a case study.

Keywords:

• central Africa
• Congo forest
• forest governance
• network governance
• Congo Basin Forest Partnership
• multi-stakeholder tools

Notes

1. See, for instance, CBFP (Congo Basin Forest Partnership), The Forests of the Congo Basin: State of the Forest 2006, <http://www.cbfp.org/docs/key_docs/Les%20forets%20du%20Bassin%20du%20Congo%202006%20neu.pdf>; and De Wasseige C, D Devers, P De Marcken, R Eba'a Atyi, R Nasi & PH Mayaux, The Forests of the Congo Basin: State of the Forest 2008, <http://www.observatoire-comifac.net/edf2008.php?l=en>.

2. CBFP, op. cit.; De Wasseige C et al., op. cit.

3. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) has been mandated to follow-up on these partnerships. For more, including a partnership database, see the ‘Partnerships for Sustainable Development’ section of the website of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs’ Division for Sustainable Development, <http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_aofw_par/par_index.shtml>.

4. Andonova LB & MA Levy, ‘Franchising global governance: making sense of the Johannesburg Type II Partnerships’, Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development. London: Earthscan 2003/4, p. 19.

5. For more, see the IIED Power Tools website, <http://www.policy-powertools.org/>.

6. See, for instance, Mayers J, ‘The four Rs’, Power Tools Series. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 2005a.

7. These categories are used as on the CBFP website, <http://www.cbfp.org/>. This categorisation is not unproblematic, as discussed later in the article. For now, the UC Atlas of Global Inequality's glossary entry for ‘NGO’ is instructive: ‘This is a widely used term for various organizations that are not part of government, particularly those focusing on development, environment and human rights. The term is not usually used for corporate enterprise, nor for religious institutions. The term is unsatisfactory both because the diversity of the organizations it could signify is wide, and because the category is defined by what those organizations are not, government, rather than by what they are’, <http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/about.html>.

8. Visseren-Hamakers IJ & P Glasbergen, ‘Partnerships in forest governance’, Global Environmental Change, 17, 3–4, 2007, pp. 408–19.

9. For more information about the Congo Basin Forest Partnership, see the CBFP website <www.cbfp.org>.

10. See the CBFP website at, <www.cbfp.org>.

11. Bass S & S Guéneau, ‘Global forest governance: Effectiveness, fairness and legitimacy of market-driven approaches’, Ideés Pour le Débat, 13. Paris: Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationales (IDDRI), 2005, pp. 1–12.

12. Burke T, ‘Copenhagen 2009: Political Risks Briefing’, E3G, February 2009, <http://www.e3g.org/images/uploads/Copenhagen_2009_Political_Risks_Briefing.pdf>.

13. See, for instance, Butler, RA, ‘A place out of time: Tropical rainforests and the perils they face’, 9 January 2006, <http://rainforests.mongabay.com/redd/>.

14. Andonova LB & MA Levy, op. cit. p. 21; and Bruch C & J Pendergrass, ‘Type II partnerships, international law, and the commons’, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 15, 4, Summer 2003, pp. 855–87.

15. Bruch C & Pendergrass, op. cit.

16. Andonova LB & MA Levy, op. cit., pp. 29–31.

17. See the UN Commission for Sustainable Development's online partnership database for more information about these Type II partnerships, <http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/public/partnerships/title_all_1.html>.

18. Mayntz R, ‘From government to governance: Political steering in modern societies’, paper presented at Summer Academy on IPP, Wuerzburg, 7–11 September 2003, p. 1.

19. Jabeen N, ‘Good or good enough governance in South Asia: Constraints and possibilities’, inaugural address as Professor to the Prince Claus Chair in Development and Equity 2006–2007, Utrecht University, 2 April 2007.

20. Schneider V & JM Bauer, ‘Governance: Prospects of complexity theory in revisiting systems theory’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, 14 April 2007, p. 10.

21. Provan KG & P Kenis, ‘Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 2, 2008, pp. 229–52.

22. Other categorisations include corporatism, bureaucracy or price and authority. See Bradach JL & RG Eccles, ‘Markets vs. hierarchies: From ideal types to plural forms’, Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 1989, pp. 97–118.

23. EU New Modes of Governance Project, ‘Glossary of shared terminology’, <http://www.eu-newgov.org/public/Glossary.asp>.

24. See the definition of Treib O, H Bähr & G Falkner, ‘Modes of Governance: A Note towards Conceptual Clarification’, European Governance Papers (EUROGOV) No N-05-02, 2005, <http://www.connex-network.org/eurogov/pdf/egp-newgov-N-05-02.pdf>. They define a network broadly as a ‘non-hierarchical constellation of interdependent actors with varying power resources’. Other identified forms include communities, associations and clans.

25. EU New Modes of Governance Project, op. cit.

26. Sørensen E, ‘Meta-governance: The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance’, paper presented at the Conference of Democratic Network Governance, Helsinger, 22–23 May 2003, p. 2.

27. Sørensen E, ‘Meta-governance: The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance’, paper presented at the Conference of Democratic Network Governance, Helsinger, 22–23 May 2003, p. 2.

28. Glück P, J Rayner, B Cashore, A Agrawal, S Bernstein, D Capistrano, K Hogl, BM Liss, C McDermott, JS Maini, T Oksanen, P Ollonqvist, H Pülzl, E Rametsteiner & W Pleschberger, ‘Changes in the governance of forest resources’, in Mery G, R Alfaro, M Kanninen & M Lobovikov (eds), Forests in the Global Balance: Changing Paradigms, IUFRO World Series, 17. Helsinki: International Union of Forest Research Organizations, 2005, p. 55.

29. Schneider & Bauer, op. cit., p. 14.

30. Schneider & Bauer, op. cit.

31. Koliba C, J Meek & A Zia, ‘Gordian knot or integrated theory? Critical conceptual considerations for governance network analysis’, paper presented at the 5^th Annual TransAtlantic Dialogue: Future of Governance, Washington, DC, June 2009, p. 1.

32. Glück P et al., op. cit., p. 75.

33. Glück P et al., op. cit., p. 75.

34. Glück P et al., op. cit., p. 56.

35. Scott J, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998, pp. 11–12.

36. Glück P et al., op. cit., p. 52.

37. Glück P et al., op. cit., p. 71.

38. Forest Stewardship Council (online), <www.fsc.org>. For more about the Forest Stewardship Council see, for instance, Vallejo N & P Hauselmann, ‘Governance and multi-stakeholder processes’, Paper published as part of the Sustainable Commodity Initiative. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), 2004; Bass S & S Guéneau, op. cit.; Visseren-Hamakers IJ & P Glasbergen, op. cit.; and Glück P et al., op. cit.

39. Glück P et al., op. cit., p. 62.

40. Glück P et al., op. cit., p. 81.

41. Vallejo N & P Hauselmann, ‘Governance and multi-stakeholder processes’, paper published as part of the Sustainable Commodity Initiative. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), 2004, p. 5.

42. For more see, for instance, Armitage D, ‘Governance and the commons in a multi-level world’, International Journal of the Commons, 2, 1, 2008, pp. 7–32.

43. Bass S & S Guéneau, op. cit.

44. Bass S & S Gueneau, op. cit., p. 3

45. Visseren-Hamakers IJ & P Glasbergen, op. cit., p. 409.

46. See, for instance, Visseren-Hamakers IJ & P Glasbergen, op. cit. and Bass S & S Guéneau, op. cit.

47. For more on this, see Du Preez M & K Sturman, ‘Seeing the wood for the trees: Forestry governance in the DRC’, Research Report 4. Johannesburg: South African Institute of International Affairs, 2009.

48. CEEAC, ‘Communiqués de presse: Réeunion de concertation CEEAC, institutions du TR + aité COMIFAC: Communiqué fional’, 29 January 2008, <http://www.ceeac-eccas.org/index.php?rubrique=documentation&cat=1&id=135>.

49. Andonova LB & MA Levy, op. cit, p. 22.

50. Andonova LB & MA Levy, op. cit, p. 22.

51. Andonova LB & MA Levy, op. cit, p. 3.

52. Andonova LB & MA Levy, op. cit, pp. 24–5.

53. Glück P et al., op. cit., pp. 54–5.

54. Which countries should be classified as having high forest cover and which as having low forest cover is a hotly debated issue. Complications exist from the start, with disagreements about the definition of ‘forest’. See, for instance: Lund HG, ‘Definition of Low Forest Cover (LFC)’, Report prepared for the International Union of Forestry Research Organisations (IUFRO), Manassas, 1999, pp. 1–22. This paper did not wish to get caught in that debate and therefore used Glück and his colleagues’ table and categories, as is. They based their definition on a forest cover per capita basis.

55. See, for instance, Andonova LB & MA Levy, op. cit., p. 24.

56. Andonova LB & MA Levy, op. cit., p. 27–8.

57. Again, according to Glück and his co-authors’ categories, as explained above.

58. Andonova LM & MA Levy, op. cit., p. 21.

59. This is illustrated well by the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business rankings, where central African countries cluster near the bottom. See <http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/>.

60. Visseren-Hamakers & Glasbergen, op. cit., p. 415.

61. Mayers J, ‘Stakeholder power analysis’, Power Tools Series. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 2005, p. 2.

62. Some representatives could be considered as having overlapping membership. A rule of thumb was used to determine the primary membership, or where not possible a point would be divided between two categories.

63. For more on the Congo Basin Forest Fund, see the UNFF website at: <http://www.cbf-fund.org/> as well as the African Development Bank Group page on the UNFF at: <http://www.afdb.org/en/topics-sectors/initiatives-partnerships/congo-basin-forest-fund/>.

64. CBFP, 2005, Co-operation Framework for Partner Members of the Congo Basin Forests Partnership, Brazzaville, <http://www.cbfp.org/workingstructure.html>.

65. Original uses French acronym, CEEAC.

66. The Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP), ‘Agenda of thematic workshops’ at the 6th CBFP Plenary, 11–12 November 2009, Yaoundé, Cameroon.

67. Mayers J, ‘Stakeholder power analysis’, Power Tools Series. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 2005b, p. 2.

68. Mayers J, 2005b, op. cit., p. 13.

69. Mayers J & S Vermeulen, ‘Stakeholder influence mapping’, Power Tools Series. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 2005.

70. Mayers J & S Vermeulen, ‘Stakeholder influence mapping’, Power Tools Series. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 2005.

71. Mayers J, 2005b, op. cit.

72. Mayers J, 2005a, op. cit.

73. See the IIED Power Tools website, <http://www.policy-powertools.org/>.

74. See, for instance: Brandes U, P Kenis & J Raab, ‘Explanation through network visualization’, Methodology, 2, 1, 2006, pp. 16–23.