IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v92y2018icp169-180.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Facing the complexities of the global timber trade regime: How do Chinese wood enterprises respond to international legality verification requirements, and what are the implications for regime effectiveness?

Author

Listed:
  • Nathan, Iben
  • Chen, Jie
  • Hansen, Christian Pilegaard
  • Xu, Bin
  • Li, Yan

Abstract

The emergence of transnational approaches to combat illegal logging and related trade through legality verification (LV) has spurred debate about the implications for the global timber trade regime. Scholars debate to what extent the various actors will support LV, and whether LV will undermine private forest certification and higher standards due to operators' venue shopping. This paper explores Chinese wood enterprises' responses and discusses the implications for regime effectiveness. Based on primary data from 158 questionnaires and secondary data we find that, although the majority of the sampled export-oriented Chinese companies have heard about LV requirements, only few have detailed knowledge. Furthermore, they look to their customers' different requirements, and therefore often apply multiple measures simultaneously rather than do venue shopping. The question whether LV will undermine standards and certification therefore to a high extent bounces back to customers and import authorities. On the other hand, the Chinese companies consider the complexities of the timber regime a major constraint for meeting customers' requirements and therefore for own uptake and support. There is hence a need to reduce complexity in order to ensure regime effectiveness. We suggest this is best achieved by increased transparency of and alignment between the various LV regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathan, Iben & Chen, Jie & Hansen, Christian Pilegaard & Xu, Bin & Li, Yan, 2018. "Facing the complexities of the global timber trade regime: How do Chinese wood enterprises respond to international legality verification requirements, and what are the implications for regime effecti," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 169-180.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:92:y:2018:i:c:p:169-180
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2018.05.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934117303167
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.05.003?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krasner, Stephen D., 1982. "Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 185-205, April.
    2. Deborah S. Davenport, 2005. "An Alternative Explanation for the Failure of the UNCED Forest Negotiations," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 5(1), pages 105-130, February.
    3. Tegegne, Yitagesu T. & Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & FOBISSIE, KALAME & Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J. & Lindner, Marcus & Kanninen, Markku, 2017. "Synergies among social safeguards in FLEGT and REDD+ in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 1-11.
    4. Cashore, Benjamin & Stone, Michael W., 2012. "Can legality verification rescue global forest governance?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 13-22.
    5. Lesniewska, Feja & McDermott, Constance L., 2014. "FLEGT VPAs: Laying a pathway to sustainability via legality lessons from Ghana and Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 16-23.
    6. Springate-Baginski, Oliver & Thein, Aung Kyaw & Neil, Anthony & Thu, Win Myo & Doherty, Faith, 2014. "Democratising timber: An assessment of Myanmar's emerging ‘Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade’ (FLEGT) process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 33-45.
    7. Overdevest, Christine & Zeitlin, Jonathan, 2014. "Constructing a transnational timber legality assurance regime: Architecture, accomplishments, challenges," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 6-15.
    8. Ochieng, Robert M. & Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J. & Nketiah, Kwabena S., 2013. "Interaction between the FLEGT-VPA and REDD+ in Ghana: Recommendations for interaction management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 32-39.
    9. Raustiala, Kal & Victor, David G., 2004. "The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 277-309, April.
    10. Wenbin Huang & Andreas Wilkes & Xiufang Sun & Anne Terheggen, 2013. "Who is importing forest products from Africa to China? An analysis of implications for initiatives to enhance legality and sustainability," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 339-354, April.
    11. Lars H. Gulbrandsen, 2004. "Overlapping Public and Private Governance: Can Forest Certification Fill the Gaps in the Global Forest Regime?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 4(2), pages 75-99, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bernard Hoekman & Charles Sabel, 2019. "Open Plurilateral Agreements, International Regulatory Cooperation and the WTO," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 10(3), pages 297-312, September.
    2. Cashore, Benjamin & Nathan, Iben, 2020. "Can finance and market driven (FMD) interventions make “weak states” stronger? Lessons from the good governance norm complex in Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    3. Jonathan Zeitlin & Christine Overdevest, 2021. "Experimentalist interactions: Joining up the transnational timber legality regime," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 686-708, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hansen, Christian P. & Rutt, Rebecca & Acheampong, Emmanuel, 2018. "‘Experimental’ or business as usual? Implementing the European Union Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Voluntary Partnership Agreement in Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 75-82.
    2. Singer, Benjamin & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Towards a donut regime? Domestic actors, climatization, and the hollowing-out of the international forests regime in the Anthropocene," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 69-79.
    3. Satyal, Poshendra, 2018. "Civil society participation in REDD+ and FLEGT processes: Case study analysis from Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia and the Republic of Congo," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 83-96.
    4. Ronald Mitchell, 2013. "Oran Young and international institutions," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, March.
    5. Joana Carlos Bezerra & Jan Sindt & Lukas Giessen, 2018. "The rational design of regional regimes: contrasting Amazonian, Central African and Pan-European Forest Governance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 635-656, October.
    6. Adams, Marshall Alhassan & Kayira, Jean & Tegegne, Yitagesu Tekle & Gruber, James S., 2020. "A comparative analysis of the institutional capacity of FLEGT VPA in Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Ghana, Liberia, and the Republic of the Congo," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    7. Timothy Cadman & Lauren Eastwood & Federico Lopez-Casero Michaelis & Tek N. Maraseni & Jamie Pittock & Tapan Sarker, 2015. "The Political Economy of Sustainable Development," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15773.
    8. Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2022. "Ordering global governance complexes: The evolution of the governance complex for international civil aviation," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 293-322, April.
    9. Carlsen, Kirsten & Hansen, Christian Pilegaard & Lund, Jens Friis, 2012. "Factors affecting certification uptake — Perspectives from the timber industry in Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 83-92.
    10. Helmut Breitmeier & Sandra Schwindenhammer & Andrés Checa & Jacob Manderbach & Magdalena Tanzer, 2021. "Aligned Sustainability Understandings? Global Inter-Institutional Arrangements and the Implementation of SDG 2," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 141-151.
    11. Benjamin Cashore & Michael W. Stone, 2014. "Does California need Delaware? Explaining Indonesian, Chinese, and United States support for legality compliance of internationally traded products," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 49-73, March.
    12. Averell Schmidt, 2024. "Treaty withdrawal and the development of international law," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 785-808, October.
    13. Reischl, Gunilla, 2012. "Designing institutions for governing planetary boundaries — Lessons from global forest governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 33-40.
    14. Metodi Sotirov & Benno Pokorny & Daniela Kleinschmit & Peter Kanowski, 2020. "International Forest Governance and Policy: Institutional Architecture and Pathways of Influence in Global Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-25, August.
    15. Juerges, Nataly & Newig, Jens, 2015. "How interest groups adapt to the changing forest governance landscape in the EU: A case study from Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 228-235.
    16. Carmen Rodríguez Fernández-Blanco & Sarah L. Burns & Lukas Giessen, 2019. "Mapping the fragmentation of the international forest regime complex: institutional elements, conflicts and synergies," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 187-205, April.
    17. Benjamin Cashore & Jette Steen Knudsen & Jeremy Moon & Hamish van der Ven, 2021. "Private authority and public policy interactions in global context: Governance spheres for problem solving," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1166-1182, October.
    18. Karsenty, Alain, 2019. "Certification of tropical forests: A private instrument of public interest? A focus on the Congo Basin," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Ochieng, Robert M. & Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J. & Nketiah, Kwabena S., 2013. "Interaction between the FLEGT-VPA and REDD+ in Ghana: Recommendations for interaction management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 32-39.
    20. Anne Egelston & Scott Cook & Tu Nguyen & Samantha Shaffer, 2019. "Networks for the Future: A Mathematical Network Analysis of the Partnership Data for Sustainable Development Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-13, October.

    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:92:y:2018:i:c:p:169-180. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.