Saltar al contenido principal

ETHNOS_APP

Inicio • Búsqueda • Revistas • Lista 0

Flegt

Another ‘forestry fad’

Datos Bibliográficos

ID12668664
AutoresRebecca L Rutt (0000-0002-9664-2782, University of East Anglia, autor de correspondencia), Rodd Myers (0000-0002-3434-7294, University of East Anglia), Sabaheta Ramcilovic‐suominen (0000-0002-3209-545X, University of Eastern Finland), Constance L Mcdermott (0000-0002-5238-0936, University of Oxford)
Año2018
Volumen89
Páginas266-272
Fecha de publicación2018-08-25
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaEnvironmental Science & Policy (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1462-9011 • E-ISSN: 1873-6416
EditorialElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1016/j.envsci.2018.08.012
OpenAlexW2888173478
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas19
Referencias citadas19

There has been recent debate around the role of ‘fads’ in global conservation measures, and the lessons they hold for achieving desired conservation and development outcomes. Fads are characterized by initially widespread enthusiasm and major mobilization of resources followed by abandonment in favor of the next fad. Debate centers less on whether such fads exist, but rather on whether they represent opportunities for incremental policy learning, or are symptomatic of the more systemic failure of a market-based conservation agenda and the reinforcement of existing power inequalities. The European Union (EU)’s Forest Law Enforcement, Governance, and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan aims to prevent the trade of illegal timber among the EU and its trading partners especially in the ‘Global South’. Fifteen years since launching the Action Plan, we ask whether the processes and outcomes of FLEGT, and specifically the Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs), resonate with the dynamics observed in other processes dubbed ‘fads’ within conservation and development arenas, and if so, what we can learn from this. Drawing from interviews, grey literature, and scholarship, we examine FLEGT VPAs as following three key stages of a fad: (1) there is initial enthusiasm by a wide range of actors for FLEGT as something ‘new’ or ground-breaking, (2) discrepancies and disagreements emerge about its end goals, i.e. whether it’s core purpose is to distinguish legal from illegal wood in the EU marketplace, or to achieve deeper governance reforms; while the means for achieving those goals borrow heavily from previous market-based initiatives (3) actors and champions become fatigued, yet at the same time frame elements of their own involvement as a ‘success’. Identifying these fad-like characteristics calls into question the ‘newness’ of FLEGT, by uncovering its many similarities to other market-based measures such as certification that exacerbate inequalities. Hence, branding FLEGT a success without challenging its role in the unequal concentration of power and resources, is likely to further entrench these inequalities in subsequent conservation fads, while a focus on incremental learning misses the larger failures and injustices of market-based approaches and can reinforce their re-emergence

Business · Geography · Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management · Forestry

  • "Wood Security"

    Open Access•Gerhard Dieterle, Alain Karsenty•The International Forestry Review•2020

  • FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreement implementation in Ghana

    Mary Adams, M A Adams et al.•The International Forestry Review•2021

  • The political logics of EU-FLEGT in Thailand's multistakeholder negotiations

    Open Access•Sophie R Lewis, Janette Bulkan•Journal of Political Ecology•2022

  • Examining the EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) action plan in Ghana through a governmentality lens

    Open Access•Christian Pilegaard Hansen•Journal of Political Ecology•2022

  • Imposing legality

    Open Access•Ahmad Maryudi, Constance L Mcdermott et al.•Journal of Political Ecology•2020

  • Transformation or more of the same? The EU’s deforestation-free products regulation through a radical transformation lens

    Open Access•Elke Verhaeghe, Sabaheta Ramcilovic‐suominen•Environmental Science & Policy•2024

  • Improving Indonesia’s timber legality and sustainability verification system

    Open Access•Depi Susilawati, Peter Kanowski et al.•Environmental Science & Policy•2022

  • Quo vadis global forest governance? A transdisciplinary delphi study

    Open Access•A Begemann, Lukas Giessen et al.•Environmental Science & Policy•2021

  • Legality requirements for wood import in the EU

    Open Access•Jan Brusselaers, Jeroen Buysse•Forest Policy and Economics•2020

  • When P stands for politics. The role of the EU in the VPAs

    Open Access•Marjolein Derous, Elke Verhaeghe•Forest Policy and Economics•2019

  • Perceptions of wood-processing industries on FLEGT implementation

    Open Access•T T Pham, Pham Thu Thuy et al.•Forest Policy and Economics•2021

  • Experimental’ or business as usual? Implementing the European Union Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Voluntary Partnership Agreement in Ghana

    Open Access•Christian Pilegaard Hansen, Rebecca L Rutt et al.•Forest Policy and Economics•2018

  • Impact of the FLEGT license on Indonesian plywood competitiveness in the European Union

    Open Access•Imade Yoga Prasada, Agus Dwi Nugroho et al.•Forest Policy and Economics•2022

  • Reducing emissions from land use change in Indonesia

    Open Access•Luca Tacconi, Muhammad Zahrul Muttaqin•Forest Policy and Economics•2019

  • Tracing timber legality in practice

    Open Access•Bas Arts, Bas Heukels et al.•Forest Policy and Economics•2021

  • Mapping policy actor networks and their interests in the FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreement in Lao PDR

    Open Access•Sabaheta Ramcilovic‐suominen, Marko Lovrić et al.•World Development•2019

  • Renting legality

    Open Access•Ahmad Maryudi, Rodd Myers•Geoforum•2018

  • Standards as Authority

    Open Access•Julia Drubel•Regulation & Governance•2026

  • Experimentalist interactions

    Open Access•Jonathan Zeitlin, Christine Overdevest•Regulation & Governance•2021

  • Questioning Redd+ and the future of market‐based conservation

    Open Access•Ronald Fletcher, R S G Fletcher et al.•Conservation Biology•2016

  • Operationalizing social safeguards in Redd

    Open Access•Constance L Mcdermott, Lauren Coad et al.•Environmental Science & Policy•2012

  • Redduced

    Open Access•Constance L Mcdermott•Environmental Science & Policy•2012

  • Can legality verification rescue global forest governance

    Open Access•Benjamin Cashore, Michael W Stone•Forest Policy and Economics•2012

  • The emergence of the European Union Timber Regulation

    Open Access•Metodi Sotirov, Maike Stelter et al.•Forest Policy and Economics•2017

  • Participation, public policy-making, and legitimacy in the EU Voluntary Partnership Agreement process

    Open Access•Astrid Marie Hansen Wodschow, Astrid Wodschow et al.•Forest Policy and Economics•2015

  • Experimental’ or business as usual? Implementing the European Union Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Voluntary Partnership Agreement in Ghana

    Open Access•Christian Pilegaard Hansen, Rebecca L Rutt et al.•Forest Policy and Economics•2018

  • FLEGT VPAs

    Open Access•Feja Lesniewska, Constance L Mcdermott•Forest Policy and Economics•2014

  • Commodifying Legality? Who and What Counts as Legal in the Indonesian Wood Trade

    Abidah B Setyowati, Abidah Setyowati et al.•Society & Natural Resources•2016

  • Promising Change, Delivering Continuity

    Open Access•Jens Friis Lund, Eliezeri Sungusia et al.•World Development•2016

  • Illegality and inequity in Ghana’s cocoa-forest landscape

    Open Access•Mark Hirons, Constance L Mcdermott et al.•Land Use Policy•2018

  • Renting legality

    Open Access•Ahmad Maryudi, Rodd Myers•Geoforum•2018

  • Experimentalism in transnational forest governance

    Open Access•Christine Overdevest, Jonathan Zeitlin•Regulation & Governance•2017

  • Selling Success

    Open Access•Bram Büscher•World Development•2014

  • Is Good Policy Unimplementable? Reflections on the Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice

    Open Access•David Mosse•Development and Change•2004

Obras citantes distintas19
Citas por año2,38
Intervalo de citas2018 - 2026 (9)
Velocidad de citacióncurrent
Altamente citadoNo
Tipos de citaNeutras: 19
Ethnos_APP • Proyecto Open Source • Licencia MIT • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacidad y Cookies • Documentación de la API: api.ethnos.app/docs • Código de la API: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Código del Frontend: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae