Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Cadman long


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Cadman long

  1. 1. Quality of global (forest) governance & institutional legitimacy USQ TOOWOOMBA Tim Cadman BA Hons MA (Cantab) PhD (UTas)
  2. 2. Summary •  There are many (forest) governance initiatives, some useful, some not: telling the difference is not always easy •  Stakeholders need a simple method to determine if they should participate •  This presentation provides –  a means of classifying diverse governance systems and –  A set of principles, criteria and indicators (PC&I) to evaluate governance quality and rate legitimacy •  Looks at four case studies: FSC, ISO 14000, PEFC, UNFF
  3. 3. Modern (environmental) governance •  “the coordination of interdependent social relations in the mitigation of environmental disruptions” (Mackendrick 2005) •  Governance systems understood as “governance as structure” and “governance as process”(Pierre and Peters 2000) •  Participation as structure, deliberation as process (Cadman 2009) •  Together, effective interaction between structure and process delivers the quality of outcomes, which determine legitimacy (Kooiman 1993, 2000):
  4. 4. Figure 3.2 Conceptual model of contemporary global governance INSTITUTION Governance System Inputs Interaction Structure Process (Collaborative) (Participative) (Deliberative) Outputs Outcomes (Substantive and behavioural) (Determination of governance Legitimacy quality)
  5. 5. How can you compare different institutions? •  Previously, governance theory has identified many different types of institution: public private partnerships (PPPs), ‘new’ public management (NPM), etc. –  This makes comparison difficult •  Rather than identifying institutions by type, it is better to identify by key factors: –  Authority (state or non-state) –  Democracy (aggregative or deliberative) –  Innovation (new or old governance styles) •  These can then be located in the ‘universe’ of global governance:
  6. 6. Figure 0.2 Typological framework for the classification of four hypothetical governance institution s AUTHORITY (x-axis) State Institution A High Aggregative Institution B Medium High INNOVATION Low (y-axis) Old New High High Low High Medium DEMOCRACY (z-axis) Deliberative Institution D High Institution C KEY Non-state Institution A Authority - state (medium); Democracy - aggregative (medium); Innovation - old (medium) Institution B Authority - state (high); Democracy - deliberative (medium); Innovation - new (high) Institution C Authority - non-state (medium); Democracy - deliberative (medium); Innovation - new (medium) Institution D Authority - non-state (high); Democracy - aggregative (low); Innovation - old (high)
  7. 7. What system of measurement can you use? •  All governance theorists identify a range of governance attributes, which deliver ‘good’ governance: e.g transparency, accountability, interest representation, inclusiveness, etc. –  But they have not sought to identify the structural and procedural relationship between these arrangements •  Cadman (2009) identifies the relationship between these attributes, and locates them in a hierarchical framework (following Lammerts van Beuren and Blom 1997):
  8. 8. Case studies •  Using the classification framework and PC&I Cadman 2009 investigated the governance quality of four global forest institutions: –  Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) –  ISO 14000 series (TC 207) –  Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes (PEFC) –  United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF)
  9. 9. Results: Classification State UNFF DEMOCRACY (z-axis) High Aggregative PEFC Medium High Low INNOVATION Old New (y-axis) High ISO High Low KEY High Authority - state (medium-high); Democracy - aggregative (low); UNFF Deliberative Medium Innovation -state(low) Authority – old (low-medium); Democracy - aggregative PEFC (low-medium); Innovation -- new (medium) Authority – non-state (medium-high); Democracy - deliberative FSC High Non-state ISO Authority – non-state (low); - new (medium-high) (medium-high); Innovation Democracy - aggregative (low); (x-axis) FSC Innovation - old (low) AUTHORITY
  10. 10. Results: Evaluation The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again. Principle 1. Meaningful Participation Criterion 1. Interest representation 2. Organisational responsibilit y Sub- Highest possible score: 9 Highest possible score: 6 total Lowest possible score: 3 Lowest possible score: 2 (out of 15) Indicator Inclusive- Equality Resource s Total Accountability Transparency Total ness FSC 3 2 2 7 2 2 4 11 ISO 2 1 2 5 2 1 3 8 PEFC 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 5 UNFF 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 6 Principle 2. Productive deliberation Criterion 3. Decision ma k i n g 4. Implementation Sub- Highest possible score: 9 Highest possible score: 9 total Lowest possible score: 3 Lowest possible score: 3 (out of 18) Indicator Democracy Agree- Dispute Total Behavioural Problem Durability Total men t settlemen t change solving FSC 2 3 1 6 2 2 3 7 13 ISO 2 2 1 5 2 1 3 6 11 Legitimacy PEFC 1 2 1 4 2 1 2 5 9 UNFF 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 4 7 Rating Grand Total (out of 33) FSC 24 ISO 19 PEFC 14 UNFF 13
  11. 11. Conclusions •  Preliminary: –  Non-state systems may be a better option; BUT –  Insufficient case studies to be definitive AND –  It is not non-state systems per se but their quality of governance that counts •  Implications: –  Stakeholders should pay attention to the governance systems of the institutions in which they participate •  They could be wasting their time on a system with poor governance: it will not solve the problem (eg climate change) or meet sectoral needs –  There may be ‘decoy’ institutions (Dimitrov 2005) gaining legitimacy –  There is an urgent need for consistent global governance standards