Forest sustainability indicator systems as procedural policy tools in global environmental governance

This paper explains why nine criteria and indicator schemes for forest management are little used instrumentally to monitor sustainability, at most being used to structure reports or statistics, and why the schemes lack coherent designs, with only 29% of indicators in five schemes suited to practical monitoring. It outlines a new Knowledge-Action Framework, devised to analyse governing across the spectrum from government to the new style of governance, in which society steers itself. This proposes that conceptual and symbolic uses may be as important in governance as instrumental uses; science is less privileged; and indicator choice must satisfy a wider range of stakeholders than previously. Conceptual uses enable unambiguous learning by multiple stakeholders with conflicting views in governance; symbolic uses promote an ambiguous consensus between them; and the large numbers of indicators accumulated achieve ‘plurality of satisfaction’ but make monitoring impractical. Conceptual and symbolic uses are examples of new procedural policy instruments that facilitate multidirectional interactions between diverse groups in governance. Criteria and indicator schemes are termed procedural policy tools as they combine various procedural instruments. A new generic taxonomy shows continuity as substantive policy instruments long used by governments evolve into procedural instruments. Evaluation of the schemes finds evidence for conceptual and symbolic uses, indicator accumulation and restrictions on scientific inputs. The paper advances global environmental governance theory, and argues that the best way to overcome constraints on sustainability monitoring is through autonomous scientific research.