Comparing Forest Governance Performances of Regional Regimes. A Comprehensive Analysis

Funding: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)

Principal Investigators: Prof. Dr. Diana Panke, Prof. Dr. Daniela Kleinschmit

Research Associates: Alex B. Onatunji M.Sc., Tainá E. Siman, M.A.

Abstract

Globalization, internationalization and an increasing number of cross-border environmental challenges like climate change and biodiversity have led political actors to recognize the need of forest policy beyond the domestic level.

This has also been mirrored in research with an increasing number of studies on the international forest regime. This body of work revealed that the international regime is fragmented and contributes to forest governance, but does so only with limited effectiveness. While the international level is often under scrutiny, we know less about the governance performances of regional regimes dealing with forest policy despite the fact that there are a total of 76 different regimes on the regional level of which the European Union or the Congo Basin Forest Partnership are prominent examples.

Given that the international forest regime’s effectiveness is limited, the comparative and comprehensive study of different regional forest governance regimes and their differences and similarities in performance becomes all the more important. By adopting a comparative approach, this project contributes towards closing gaps in our knowledge about regional regimes. To this end, it examines three research questions on three dimensions of performance, output (words), outcome (deeds) and impact (effects), of forest governance in regional regimes. These are:

1. Do regional regimes differ concerning the type and extend of forest governance output they produce (number of policies, decisions, declarations etc. a regional regime passes) and how can observed variation be explained?
2. Do some regional regimes perform better concerning forest governance outcomes (activities based on regional regime output) and why?
3. When do regional regimes reach a high impact of forest governance (problem-solving ability) and how can variation in this respect be accounted for?