Forest Governance: Hydra or Chloris?

Recently, my Cambridge Element entitled ’Forest Governance: Hydra or Chloris?’ was published, in which I reflect on twenty years of working in the field to analyse the ‘two-world universe’ I perceive in forest governance. An Element is a publication type between a full-fletched book and a concise journal paper; a booklet of about 90 pages in this case. It offers more space to authors than a paper to elaborate upon their arguments, and it offers readers a more succinct overview of a body of knowledge than a voluminous book.

Current problems worldwide, like deforestation, illegal logging, forest fires and climate change, have increased interest in the topic of forest governance. Broadly, it refers to (re)directing the use, management and conservation of forests in accordance with certain policy ambitions and goals. Governance is generally executed by governments, sub-national authorities, and international organizations, but ever more in collaboration with non-governmental organizations and business associations. This may happen through law, communication, power or financial incentives, and under more or less democratic or authoritarian rule.

To explain how forest governance works in practice, several case studies on forests are analyzed: Forest Certification Schemes (FSC and PEFC); Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (commonly known as REDD+); Participatory Forest Management (or PFM); Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (or FLEGT); and Forest Sector Governance within the Netherlands.

About 35% of the world’s forests – so about 1.4 billion hectares – are potentially reached by these governance interventions (this figure is based on an analysis of data bases of several international forest organizations). And, about half of those initiatives that were scientifically assessed produce more or less beneficial impacts for forests and/or people (this figure is based on systematic, mixed-methods literature reviews). Examples of such benefits are better forest conditions, forest expansion, improved livelihoods and empowerment of communities.

But how to interpret this outcome? Here, the subtitle of ’Forest Governance’ comes into play: Hydra or Chloris. Hydra is the multi-headed, serpent-like beast that Heracles has to fight to complete his twelve labours in Greek mythology. Every time he chops off a head, it regrows double, and continues attacking him. The Hydra metaphor refers to the difficulty of transforming old state forestry bureaucracies towards new, more effective and legitimate governance arrangements. Hence, forest policies and governance initiatives remain absent, weak or symbolic at best, and deforestation and illegal logging just continue. In contrast, the worldview of Chloris – the Goddess of flowers in Greek mythology – is used to sketch an opposite, more optimistic picture of forest governance. ‘Let a thousand flowers grow’, several of which will definitely bloom. Encapsulating the idea that forest governance initiatives might indeed make a difference on the ground.

From the latter, Chloris perspective, the 1.4 billion ha potential reach, and the 50% ‘success rate’ of the forest governance interventions seem good results; after all, these refer to at least some progress in problem-solving. Critical scholars, however, put this so-called progress into perspective. Although some improvements may be attained in some parts of the world, tropical deforestation and marginalization of poor, forest-dependent people persists – or even aggravates – over time, while the interests of the happy few – rich countries and big companies –continue to be furthered in the forest sector, mostly through unsustainable pathways. The million-dollar question is, of course: Who’s right? The problem-solving theorist and his/her data and findings (Chloris) or the critic and his/her data and findings (Hydra). The conclusion is both, depending on context (local translation of governance initiatives, local geographies, local political economies, local forest values, etc.). Consequently, the booklet concludes that forest governance must be viewed as a ‘two-world universe’, embodying both the Hydra and the Chloris. Yes, the political economy of deforestation and illegal logging still expands in some parts of the world. And yes, new forest governance initiatives do benefit both people and forests in other parts. Hence, those studying and working in forest governance should not be overly optimistic, nor overly pessimistic, about the performance of the sector. Instead, it is vital to view forest governance through a lens of local context to understand how these two worlds can exist.

Download element here.

Register for the online seminar of the element on 14 December from 15:00-17:00 hours.