Abstract
Non-technical summaryDespite efforts to address the global forest crisis, deforestation and degradation continue, so we need to urgently revisit possible solutions. A failure to halt the global forest crisis contributes to climate change and biodiversity loss and will continue to result in inequalities in access to, and benefits from, forest resources. In this paper, we unpack a series of powerful myths about forests and their management. By exposing and better understanding these myths and what makes them so persistent, we have the basis to make the social and political changes needed to better manage and protect forests globally.
Highlights
In the context of the Paris Agreement and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), there is increasing emphasis on technologies and approaches that raise ambitions for the sustainable governance of forests
We identify five persistent myths in forest governance: (1) states manage forests independently for societal benefit; (2) sustainable forest management is threatened by small-scale farmers and people seeking a living on the forest margins; (3) markets are the solution to deforestation and forest degradation; (4) what is counted – through valuation – counts; and (5) sustainable forest governance initiatives currently ‘include’ local communities in decision-making
We have set out the limitations of dominant approaches to forest governance framed around a set of myths and lock-ins
Summary
In the context of the Paris Agreement and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), there is increasing emphasis on technologies and approaches that raise ambitions for the sustainable governance of forests. We identify five persistent myths in forest governance: (1) states manage forests independently for societal benefit; (2) sustainable forest management is threatened by small-scale farmers and people seeking a living on the forest margins; (3) markets are the solution to deforestation and forest degradation; (4) what is counted – through valuation – counts; and (5) sustainable forest governance initiatives currently ‘include’ local communities in decision-making These five myths are associated with five types of ‘lock-in’ that form part of a broader ideological framework based on power dynamics. Identifying and pointing to alternatives to these myths based on already available, yet ignored, evidence can challenge current thinking and open new debates and perspectives on transformational action Our identification of these five myths does not mean that we consider them necessarily ‘untrue’, but that we consider them to be partial and incomplete, serving particular interests and political dynamics while side-lining alternative explanations or solutions that might lead to more desirable or effective outcomes. Important initiatives for forest governance already exist at national and local levels, our analysis offers a comprehensive assessment of systemic failures that naturalize dominant ideologies and guide practices in forest governance that impede effective solutions for halting deforestation and forest degradation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
