Discursive fragmentation of the international forest regime complex: Towards a better understanding of multi-level forest policy discourses
Zusammenfassung der Projektergebnisse
The project “Discursive fragmentation of the international forest regime complex: Towards a better understanding of multi-level forest policy discourses” had initially three major objectives: 1) to develop a genealogy of forest policy discourses at both the national and international levels; 2) to analyze and describe the effects of ‘discursive fragmentation’ in the development of forest policy; 3) to reflect upon the relation between actors and discourses, for example, concerning the role of ‘discursive elites’ and ‘discursive strategies’ in affecting certain policy outcomes. The project has achieved these goals, but has, moreover, generated a couple of methodological (theoretical) and substantial results that will be listed in the following. First, a new analytical (theoretical) heuristic for the analysis of discursive agency was developed and applied empirically in the project: the “Discursive Agency Approach” has been developed based on a review of existing approaches of discourse analysis, as well as exploratory and previous work of the team; it addresses a gap in the current academic debate in discourse analysis by making agency accessible to empirical investigation. Second, the project has generated new knowledge related to two key fields in international forest policy; the debate about transgenic trees, and the politics of illegal logging. As for the first topic, the project has analyzed the scientific and policy discourses related to transgenic trees, and has demonstrated how paradigm changes in the scientific debate links to changes in the policy discourse. As for illegal logging policies, the project has not only, for the first time, applied a constructionist discourse perspective to this field, but has, also for the first time, analyzed the policy making processes in Australia, the EU and the US, the three “countries/regions of origin” of the global legality verification regime. This knowledge offers new perspectives and innovative contributions to the debate on global forest governance. Finally, the project has initiated and organized several academic events, inter alia panels at conferences, and, most important, a special issue on “Discourse, power and environmental policy – Two decades of discursive policy analysis” with the Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, edited jointly by Sina Leipold, Georg Winkel and Peter H. Feindt and Reiner Keller, following a similar special issue published in this journal in 2005.
Projektbezogene Publikationen (Auswahl)
- (2014): Creating forests with words - A review of forest-related discourse studies. Forest Policy and Economics 40 (2014): 12-20
Leipold, S.
(Siehe online unter https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.12.005) - (2014): Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Participation in Forest Policy. A case study from Baden-Württemberg. Land Use Policy 39 (2014) 166–176
Maier, C.; Lindner, T. & Winkel, G.
(Siehe online unter https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.018) - (2015): Assessment of the EU Timber Regulation and FLEGT Action Plan. From Science to Policy 1 (European Forest Institute)
Jonsson, R.; Giurca, A.; Masiero, M.; Pepke, E.; Pettenella, D.; Prestemon, J. & Winkel, G.
- (2015): Promise or Peril? On the Issue of Genetically Modified Trees and Possible Future Forests. Global
Cettie, S
- (2015): Whose Integration is this? European forest policy between the gospel of coordination, institutional competition, and new spirits of integration. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy
Winkel, G. & Sotirov, M.
(Siehe online unter https://doi.org/10.1068/c1356j) - Demolishing Dikes: Multiple Streams and Policy Discourse Analysis. Policy Studies Journal 10 (2015)
Winkel, G., & Leipold, S.
(Siehe online unter https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12136) - (2016): Divide and conquer - Discursive agency in the politics of illegal logging in the United States. Global Environmental Change 36 (2016): 35-45
Leipold, S. & Winkel, G.
(Siehe online unter https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.11.006)
