Grounding international modes of governance into National Forest Programmes

Abstract

In this article we outline three different modes of natural resource governance that can be traced in international policy making and planning over the last 40 years. We show that a shift from the hierarchical to the heterarchical mode of governance can be found in natural resource governance. Agenda 21 introduced new planning ideas to the international decision-making process, with all countries and levels of government asked to assume responsibility for natural resource policy. Deliberation and participation of major groups is now emphasised, and forests are viewed at the international level as an inter-state matter of a transboundary nature. The deliberations and outputs of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF), the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) and the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) are an empirical validation of this. We further argue that different planning approaches were inspired by the hierarchical and heterarchical modes of governance. The Tropical Forestry Action Plan, aimed at reducing deforestation in tropical forest countries, was primarily a technocratic planning tool, implemented by external staff and focused mainly on the forestry sector. National Forest Programmes (NFP), on the contrary, are oriented at implementing international commitments to enhance sustainable forest management following deliberative and participatory approaches at the national level. NFPs can also be seen as a framework for national decision-making activities, hence this shift in the mode of governance is also reflected at the national level. We further outline what the international community expects NFPs to deliver, as referred to in the Proposals for Action issued by the IPF and IFF. Analysis indicates that those IPF/IFF Proposals for Action making reference to NFPs are in those categories calling for improved international co-operation and technology transfer, as well as the provision of financial assistance and the promotion of public participation. We propose a conceptual framework for assessing the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action at the national level. This assessment can be used to identify and communicate relevant topics, priorities, implementation responsibilities and implementation gaps. It can also be used as an ex post-evaluation tool to analyse the implementation of international agreements.