Kathleen Buckingham

When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration

We present a historical overview of forest concepts and definitions, linking these changes with distinct perspectives and management objectives. Policies dealing with a broad range of forest issues are often based on definitions created for the purpose of assessing global forest stocks, which do not distinguish between natural and planted forests or reforests, and which have not proved useful in assessing national and global rates of forest regrowth and restoration. Implementing and monitoring forest and landscape restoration requires additional approaches to defining and assessing forests that reveal the qualities and trajectories of forest patches in a spatially and temporally dynamic landscape matrix. New technologies and participatory assessment of forest states and trajectories offer the potential to operationalize such definitions. Purpose-built and contextualized definitions are needed to support policies that successfully protect, sustain, and regrow forests at national and global scales. We provide a framework to illustrate how different management objectives drive the relative importance of different aspects of forest state, dynamics, and landscape context.

The Potential of Bamboo is Constrained by Outmoded Policy Frames

INTRODUCTIONThere is a disjunction between modern international forestrypolicyandtheneedsofmanypeopleindevelopingcountries.Recent international forest policy has focused on the impli-cations of tropical deforestation for climate change, biodi-versity loss and livelihoods. In particular the efficacy of theREDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degra-dation) mechanism has dominated international discourse.However, a keyemerging issue for many developing nationsiscontinuedsupplyoftimberandpulpresourcesinthefaceofincreasingdemand.Bamboopresentsapromisingalternativetoproducts producedbysilvicultural forestry(Hunter 2002).Currently, international policy focuses on forests as treedlands thereby marginalising bamboo forestry development.ThisyearistheInternationalYearofForests.Inthissynopsiswe argue that policy makers should take this opportunity toencourage a policy process that will accord bamboo equalstatus to silviculture in future international forest regimes.Bamboo species are highly versatile and rapidly renew-able, long been used as a timber alternative for flooring,construction, furniture, charcoal, crafts and food. Newtechnologies are extending bamboo’s value as a source ofcomposite fibres: for paper, viscose and rayon fabrics, andin the construction of wind turbines. The rapid growth ratesof bamboo (75–1,000 mm per day in peak growing periods)mean that it can be harvested more frequently than com-parable short-rotation silviculture species (e.g. Eucalyptus)(Kumar and Sastry 1999).Countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America areassessing their bamboo resources. Whilst authoritativestatistics are lacking, estimates suggest a global bambooresource of 31.3 million hectares distributed across 21countries (FAO 2010). China has the fastest growingbamboo sector: having increased by 54% since 1970 andnow standing at 5.38 million hectares (2.8% of total forestlands) (SFA 2009) worth an estimated US

Can’t See the (Bamboo) Forest for the Trees: Examining Bamboo’s Fit Within International Forestry Institutions

11.8 billion(Dou and Yu 2008). However, of the 1,200 bamboo spe-cies, only 58 species produce timber, 18 are used for pulpand paper and 56 for edible shoots (Li and Kobayashi2004).THE MARGINALIZATION OF BAMBOOIN INTERNATIONAL FOREST POLICYThe potential of developing countries to develop theirbamboo resources is constrained by the combination ofbamboo’s ambiguous institutional position and the domi-nance of silvicultural forestry. The problem has at least fourdimensions: (1) Some forms of cultivation are governed byagricultural departments others by forest production, butbamboo is not ‘core’ business to either; (2) Historic policyframes equate forests with trees which seek to accommodatebamboo in silvicultural management logics and statisticsdespite it being a fundamentally different plant; (3) thepower and influence of western silvicultural science andpractice in international development; (4) the growinginfluence of market-based forest policy instruments, notablyForest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification and theREDD mechanism, which are designed for trees and notfor bamboo. As a result bamboo receives minimal attentionby development agencies, research and development is

Vegetal politics: belonging, practices and places

Over the centuries, governments and international agencies have developed a wide range of institutions to manage timber resources and conserve values provided by treed lands. Concerns regarding the sustainable supply of timber have provided opportunities for the development of substitute resources; however, bamboo and other non-timber forest resources have not been a part of the development of these institutions. Bamboo is a unique Non-Timber Forest Product, as it is often classified as forest or timber, and therefore must adhere to the same regulations as timber. Given the recent global expansion of bamboo, it is timely to examine the interplay between bamboo and the traditional institutions of forest governance. This paper aims to contribute to debates regarding cognitive institutional constraints on the development of substitute natural resources using bamboo as a case study, with specific focus on the applicability of Forest Stewardship Council certification, timber legality verification and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation to bamboos.

Forest certification with Chinese characteristics: state engagement with non-state market-driven governance

Cultural geography has a long and proud tradition of research into human–plant relations. However, until recently, that tradition has been somewhat disconnected from conceptual advances in the social sciences, even those to which cultural geographers have made significant contributions. With a number of important exceptions, plant studies have been less explicitly part of more-than-human geographies than have animal studies. This special issue aims to redress this gap, recognising plants and their multiple engagements with and beyond humans. Plants are not only fundamental to human survival, they play a key role in many of the most important environmental political issues of the century, including biofuels, carbon economies and food security. In this introduction, we explore themes of belonging, practices and places, as discussed in the contributing papers. Together, the papers suggest new kinds of ‘vegetal politics’, documenting both collaborative and conflictual relations between humans, plants and others. They open up new spaces of political action and subjectivity, challenging political frames that are confined to humans. The papers also raise methodological questions and challenges for future research. This special issue grew out of sessions we organised at the Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting in New York in 2012.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES: Diplomats and Refugees: Panda Diplomacy, Soft “Cuddly” Power, and the New Trajectory in Panda Conservation

Forest certification is conceptualized as non-state market–driven (NSMD) governance, whereby forces within the market are used to drive sustainable practices at the forest management level and throughout supply chains. Whilst recent scholarship has considered the “cross fertilization” and hybrid nature of the state and non-state in creating sustainable forest governance, these studies have tended to focus on national cases involving democratic countries where the “space” for private standards and auditors is relatively unconstrained. This study seeks to fill this gap though an examination of the entry of transnational forest certification approaches into China. Drawing on extensive fieldwork conducted in China during 2010, it traces the creation of a new forest certification scheme, which aims to be adopted under the Program for Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). The study examines the legitimacy sought by the Chinese government on three fronts–to appeal to the differing needs of both international and domestic markets simultaneously, whilst ultimately assuming a legitimate form of (institutionalized) domestic governance, which allows the government to maintain their authority over the mechanism and its operations. The study also focuses on the principles of NSMD governance through an analysis of the legitimate authority afforded to the state, third-parties and NGOs within China. It contributes to political geography by examining how isomorphic forms of institutionalized governance are reproduced within local settings, with the aim of adhering to both global norms of legitimate governance and domestic norms of legitimate power.

The Global Restoration Initiative

Chinas practice of gifting and loaning giant pandas has been given new impetus as a result of damage to panda-conservation facilities caused by the 2008 Sichuan earthquake and Chinas rise as an economic power. We suggest that a new, third phase of panda diplomacy is under way that is distinct from the previous two. Phase 1 during the Mao era (in the 1960s and 1970s) took the form of China gifting pandas to build strategic friendships. Phase 2 followed Deng Xiaopings rise to power in 1978 when gifts became gift loans involving a capitalist lease model based on financial transactions. In the emerging phase 3, panda loans are associated with nations supplying China with valuable resources and technology and symbolize Chinas willingness to build guanxi—namely, deep trade relationships characterized by trust, reciprocity, loyalty, and longevity. Notable is the correlation of guanxi loan deals with nations supplying resources and technologies to China in the aftermath of the 2008 earthquake in panda habitat. As captive breeding resumes with the completion of repairs to the earthquake-damaged Wolong Breeding center, we predict that panda diplomacy will increase and that panda conservation, more than ever, will be the outcome of a complex, dynamic interplay among politics, markets, and conservation science.

Whose sustainability counts? Reflections on an Indian oasis and the drive for certified bamboo

Abstract A global analysis indicates that more than 2 billion ha of cleared and degraded forest lands—an area twice the size of China—are not in productive agriculture or human habitation. Restoring these lands represents an immense opportunity to improve food security, human livelihoods, water supplies, climate stability, and natural resource management demonstrated through successful examples of restoration in Niger, Nepal, Brazil, India, and Ethiopia. However, challenges remain. It is essential to assess the motivation for restoration, the enabling conditions, and the factors that make implementation possible. Before rushing into restoration decisions, it is important to recognize that returning a landscape to its former ecosystem may not be possible (or even desirable) in some places. In order to create resilient landscapes for the 21st century, we need to simultaneously restore forests and increase the productivity of existing agricultural lands, which support human livelihoods and well-being.

What is a Conservation Actor

This paper traces a controversial development in India called Lavasa. Lavasa is a new hill station being created in Maharashtra, which aims to tap into a new eco-city trend of urban development. In order to ascertain “world-class” status, the city requires globally recognized standards. This study follows the Forest Stewardship Council certification process. This seemingly easy model of bamboo certification assisted in identifying underlying existing local tensions regarding land tenure, indigenous peoples rights, potential landslide areas, and inequitable pay for women. Through a focus on one site of consumption and production, the paper explores two linked issues: the global “branding” of sustainable cities and sustainable product certification. Whilst both the city and certification reproduced neoliberal spaces of governance, a performativity lens highlighted the political outcomes of envisioning different “realities”. The paper argues that the concerns of distributional equity are a major challenge developing countries face in advancing sustainability.