气候变化领域集成服务门户(CCPortal): Protecting "First world" markets and "Third world" nature: The politics of illegal logging in Australia, the European Union and the United States

CCPortal

DOI	10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.005
	Protecting "First world" markets and "Third world" nature: The politics of illegal logging in Australia, the European Union and the United States
	Leipold S.; Sotirov M.; Frei T.; Winkel G.
发表日期	2016
ISSN	0959-3780
卷号	39
英文摘要	Global forest governance has recently seen the emergence of a timber legality regime. In an aim to regulate global timber trade flows, the US, the EU and Australia adopted laws prohibiting illegally harvested timber from entering their markets. While some view this as a milestone for environmental and social stewardship in the global forest sector, the effects of the regime remain contested.In order to better understand likely effects of the regime, we apply the Discursive Agency Approach to analyze discursive dynamics of policy making among the stakeholders involved in the creation of each law and their effects on governance design and implementation.Based on 120 interviews in the US, Australia, the EU and with global organizations/institutions, as well as 19 informal conversations, 300 documents, and participant observation data, our results show that legality is a powerful concept in forest governance. Drawing attention away from sustainability, it enables discursive divides between the global North and South as well as between wood producers and importers. These divides were crucial for the emergence of the legality regime. While some forest industry groups perceived the new laws as an opportunity, others saw them as a threat. In all three regions this led to coalitions between supportive industry factions and environmental groups. These coalitions were based on a complementarity of goals; environmentalists aimed to protect "Third World" forests while industry groups aimed to protect "First World" markets against growing competition from these former regions. Yet each coalition was composed differently and employed distinct - albeit related - discursive strategies in policy making. This affected the design of each law and its implementation. The shift from sustainability towards legality re-surfaces prominently in implementation. Stakeholder discussions range from coercive "threatening" to more learning-oriented "educating" approaches. We conclude by discussing the effects these discursive struggles in Australia, the EU and the US have on the global timber legality regime. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd.
英文关键词	Discursive agency; Forest policy; Global forest governance; Legality verification; Trade policy
学科领域	complementarity; European Union; global trade; legal system; logging (timber); policy making; political discourse; questionnaire survey; stakeholder; sustainability; timber trade; trade policy; Australia; United States
语种	英语
scopus关键词	complementarity; European Union; global trade; legal system; logging (timber); policy making; political discourse; questionnaire survey; stakeholder; sustainability; timber trade; trade policy; Australia; United States
来源期刊	Global Environmental Change
文献类型	期刊论文
条目标识符	http://gcip.llas.ac.cn/handle/2XKMVOVA/117343
作者单位	Forest and Environmental Policy Group, Institute of Environmental Social Sciences and Geography, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacherstr. 4, Freiburg i. Br., 79106, Germany; European Forest Institute, Yliopistokatu 6, Joensuu, 80100, Finland
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714	Leipold S.,Sotirov M.,Frei T.,et al. Protecting "First world" markets and "Third world" nature: The politics of illegal logging in Australia, the European Union and the United States[J],2016,39.
APA	Leipold S.,Sotirov M.,Frei T.,&Winkel G..(2016).Protecting "First world" markets and "Third world" nature: The politics of illegal logging in Australia, the European Union and the United States.Global Environmental Change,39.
MLA	Leipold S.,et al."Protecting "First world" markets and "Third world" nature: The politics of illegal logging in Australia, the European Union and the United States".Global Environmental Change 39(2016).