The document discusses frameworks for evaluating the quality and legitimacy of global forest governance institutions. It presents a classification system to compare different governance systems based on their authority, democratic principles, and innovation. The document also introduces a set of principles, criteria, and indicators to measure governance quality and outcomes. As case studies, it applies this framework to analyze four institutions: the Forest Stewardship Council, ISO 14000, the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes, and the United Nations Forum on Forests.

1. Quality of global (forest) governance
&
institutional legitimacy
USQ
TOOWOOMBA
Tim Cadman BA Hons MA (Cantab) PhD (UTas)

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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):

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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