Non-State Global Governance: Is Forest Certification a Legitimate Alternative to a Global Forest Convention? Steven Bernstein Benjamin Cashore University

Non-State Global Governance: Is Forest Certification a Legitimate

Alternative to a Global Forest Convention?

Steven Bernstein Benjamin Cashore

University o f Toronto Yale University

November 2001

Central Questions:

• Is forest certification a viable alternative to a Global Forest Convention?

• What is required for a non-state Market Driven (NSMD) Governance System to gain rule-making authority?

Main Argument

As a non-state form of governance, certification requires political authority beyond the state. Legitimacy in the eyes of its primary audiences (producers and purchasers down the supply chain) is required for it to be viable as a form of governance to promote sustainable forest management.

International Legitimacy

• Fitness with existing international norms and institutions of global environmental and economic governance.

Domestic Legitimacy

• Legitimacy of NSMD

• Legitimacy of the content of the particular certification scheme

Conceptual/Background Issues:NSMD as a source of authority

Features NSMD Governance

Shared Private/Public Governance

Traditional International Governance

Location of authority

Diffuse: producers and consumers along the supply chain (audience/market players); non-state institution as location, interpreter, and implementer, of rules.

Some delegation possible (e.g., de facto granting authority to technical experts), but Sovereign governments remain ultimate authority (explicit or implicit). Transfer of authority is rare.

Sovereign governments. Some delegation to institutions is possible. Transfer of authority is rare.

Source of authority

Shifting international norms enabling markets, economic incentives, acceptance of program by supply and demand side audiences

State sovereignty and consent (deep structure of international system). Possibly legalization or constitutionalization

State Sovereignty and consent (deep structure of international system). Possibly legalization or constitutionalizaiton

Role of governments

Interested player, (potential facilitator or debilitator)

Shares policy making authority

Has policy making authority

Conceptual/Background Issues: Forest Certification

• Market-driven logic

• Recognizes those companies and landowners who voluntarily operate “well-managed” or sustainable forestlands

• Conception 1: Creates upward pressure on environmental standards (FSC)

• Conception 2: Gives approval to existing sustainable practices; maintains business influence (CSA, SFI, etc.)

Conceptual/Background Issues: Forest Stewardship Council

• Formed in 1993 following Rio

• Spearheaded by WWF

• Headquartered in Oaxaca, Mexico

• Accredits organizations (certifiers) that perform evaluations to certify company matches 10 principles

• Regional standards developed based on principles

Forest Stewardship Council

International Legitimacy:Fit with international social

structure• Rules and norms compete for social

fitness to be acceptable to relevant audiences

• Current social structure in area of environment can be characterized as “Liberal Environmentalism.”–Sovereignty over resources (Political)–Free trade and open markets (Economic)–Polluter Pays and Precautionary Principle (Management)

International Legitimacy: Compatibility with multilateral

institutions• Failure of international negotiations

–Sovereignty

–Trade

–Aid

–Current stage, UNFF

• Therefore discussed by states in relation to trade and environment issue, not in relation to a forest treaty

International Legitimacy: Compatibility with multilateral

institutions• WTO and trade negotiations primary

setting

• Specifically under Technical Barriers to Trade agreement (TBT)

• Committee on Trade and Environment discussions unresolved. Open in principle, but conflicts remain.

• Main issue is PPMs

• Voluntary schemes possibly protected from trade action, but pressures for harmonization.

• Distinguishing different kinds of legitimacy

• Distinguishing different types of “audiences” who give, or don’t give legitimacy

• Distinguishing legitimacy “achievement” strategies certification programs employ

Domestic/Regional Legitimacy: How is rule-making authority granted?

Certification Program (NSMD Governance System)

Types of Legitimacy

Legitimacy Granting Model for Forest Certification Governance Systems

Pragmatic

Profit maximizing behaviour;

Short term material self interest

Often result of boycott campaigns

Not very durable

Moral

Principled beliefs

“Right thing to do”

More durable than pragmatic

Types of Legitimacy

Certification Program (Governance System)


Cognitive

“to do otherwise is unthinkable”

“understandable”

-durable

Types of Legitimacy




Pragmatic Moral Cognitive

Types of Legitimacy

Least Durable

Most Durable


External Audiences:

Identifying those that have role in granting authority

Tier 1: Immediate Audience

Tier 2: Civil Society



Types of Legitimacy

Least Durable

Most Durable


Tier 2: Civil SocietyTier 1: Immediate Audience

Economic- Dema

nd side

Economic – Supply Side

State – as

actor

State - as

institution

Consumer behavior

Political culture



Types of Legitimacy

Least Durable

Most Durable


Social Organiza

tions

Manipulation

Economic- Dema

nd side


State - as

institution

Consumer behavior


State – as

actor

Most Durable



Types of Legitimacy

Least Durable

Most Durable

Legitimacy Granting Model for Forest Certification Governance SystemsAchievement Strategies

Social Organiza

tions

Political culture

Change external audience support:

e.g. create buyers groups, boycotts, advertising

Illustration of Model

FSC: Advertising as Manipulation Techniques


FSC: Advertising as Manipulation Techniques

End of Manipulation Achievement Strategy: Carrot Replaces Stick

Conform

Economic- Dema

nd side


State - as

institution


State – as

actor



Types of Legitimacy

Least Durable

Most Durable


Consumer behavior

Social Organiza

tions

Political culture

Adapt to external pressures:

i.e. Change certifications rules and procedures to adapt to concerns from external audiences

Inform

Economic- Dema

nd side


State - as

institution

Values and

Attitudes


State – as

actor



Types of Legitimacy

Least Durable

Most Durable


Advertise

Target information to groups likely to support you

Consumer behavior

Social Organiza

tions


FSC: Advertising as Informing Technique

Manipulation

Conform

Tier 2: Civil Society

Select



Types of Legitimacy

Least Durable

Most Durable


Economic- Dema

nd side


State - as

institution

Tier 1: Immediate Audience

State – as

actor

Consumer behavior

Social Organiza

tions

Political culture

• Legitimacy granting dynamic

• Certification dynamics about much more than simply profit maximizing behavior

• Intersection of self interest, moral and cognitive support from a wide range of external audiences

• Role of civil society –as consumers and value holders is important

What framework recognizes

• Each certification program (private governance system) had a core audience who supported it for moral reasons

• This moral support must be maintained, which constrains certification programs in their efforts to seek legitimacy from non-core audiences

• A certification program needs to achieve either pragmatic or moral legitimacy from economic supply side and demand side audiences to succeed

Preliminary Propositions

• Witnessing a wide range of innovative policy instruments to address global environmental challenges.

• Those who wish to see effective and durable governance in forest certification need to understand better the processes through which long-term legitimacy is granted and why some regions more open to certification than others

• This “analysis of policy” a crucial step in developing rigorous “analyses for policy”.

Practical relevance

Documents

Non-State Global Governance: Is Forest Certification a Legitimate Alternative to a Global Forest Convention? Steven Bernstein Benjamin Cashore University