IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v169y2024ics1389934124001758.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The legally binding agreement on forests in Europe – Analyzing the unsuccessful attempts at regional regime creation

Author

Listed:
  • Gordeeva, Evgenia
  • Pülzl, Helga
  • Wolfslehner, Bernhard
  • Weber, Norbert

Abstract

The attempt at creating a legally binding agreement on forests in Europe has failed after two periods of negotiations. The first period (2011–2015) ended with an unresolved question about what organization should become the Convention's host. During the second negotiation period (2018–2021) the parties arrived at the conclusion to transfer secretarial duties to UNECE. However, eventually, the process was closed due to lack of consensus by the participating parties. Our analysis of the reasons that stood behind the failed agreement has confirmed two key conflicts typical for international forest agreements and occurring at both international and national levels – the tension between commodity and amenity-oriented goals and the question of national interest and relative power. Given the dynamics of the forest policy discussion, new opportunities for a legally binding agreement on forests in Europe may arise in future.

Suggested Citation

  • Gordeeva, Evgenia & Pülzl, Helga & Wolfslehner, Bernhard & Weber, Norbert, 2024. "The legally binding agreement on forests in Europe – Analyzing the unsuccessful attempts at regional regime creation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:169:y:2024:i:c:s1389934124001758
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103321
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124001758
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103321?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:169:y:2024:i:c:s1389934124001758. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.