Increasing representation of states by utilitarian as compared to environmental bureaucracies in international forest and forest–environmental policy negotiations Lukas Giessen a,b, ⁎, Max Krott b , Torsten Möllmann b a Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands b Chair of Forest and Nature Conservation Policy, University of Göttingen, Germany abstract article info Article history: Received 16 August 2012 Received in revised form 31 July 2013 Accepted 19 August 2013 Available online 8 September 2013 Keywords: Bureaucratic politics International forest regime complex Global forest governance UNFF CBD This article analyses the representation of selected countries (EU-27 and the five influential “forest states”) to in- ternational forest-related negotiations by national utilitarian vis-à-vis conservation-oriented ministerial bureau- cracies. It is hypothesised that due to the bureaucracies' informal goal of gaining and maintaining responsibility over political issues, mainly ministries of agriculture including forestry and ministries of environment are com- peting for the task of representing states in international forest and forest–environmental negotiations. A survey design based on a semi-structured questionnaire was used to study the bureaucratic representation of the select- ed states to the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) and to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) ne- gotiations between 2000 and 2011. The results show that in the processes under study the representation of states by utilitarian types of bureaucracies is rather increasing, while the role of conservationist bureaucracies is declining. Likewise, the roles of ministries of foreign affairs and economic affairs are declining, while hybrid or- ganisations on agriculture/environment were observed being on a strong increase. Under CBD negotiations the vast majority of responding countries was represented by environmental bureaucracies, while agricultural ones played a marginal role. In contrast, under UNFF negotiations countries were represented by agricultural, eco- nomic and hybrid agricultural/environmental bureaucracies in approx. equal shares. Agricultural bureaucracies especially gained influence under UNFF negotiations during the study period. The article concludes on these trends also highlighting options for future research. © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Forest and forest–environmental negotiations within an interna- tional forest regime complex by states' bureaucracies The behaviour of states' governments in international forest-related negotiations is influenced by what is called a unitary and rational actor's national interest (Werland, 2009; Arts, 2012, in general Walt, 2006). It is, however, also influenced by the different preferences of the govern- ments' bureaucracies, ministries, agencies and departments involved (Krott, 1990, 2005; Krott and Hasanagas, 2006, in general Allison, 1971; Stern, 1998). The influence of such distinct state bureaucracies even increases in cases of low economic and political relevance, the so-called low politics (Willetts, 2001). Depending on its political and economic implications, forest policy can be either of low (e.g. if talking about forest biodiversity) or high such relevance (e.g. if talking about the sovereignty of highly forested states in their utilisation of natural re- sources or climate change implications, Humphreys, 2006; Lövbrand, 2009; Negi and Giessen, unpublished). This offers diverse venues for bu- reaucratic influence on a country's preferences in international forest- related negotiations by national ministries and departments responsi- ble for e.g. agriculture, forestry, environment, foreign affairs or trade. International forest-related negotiations continuously take place in multiple processes resulting in a body of international forest-related policy, which is referred to as an international forest regime-complex (Giessen, 2012, 2013a, 2013b; Rayner et al., 2010; Arts and Babili, 2013). 1 According to Humphreys (2006) the main parts of this regime complex are: • Hard legal instruments, such as the United Nations Framework Con- vention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES); Forest Policy and Economics 38 (2014) 97–104 ⁎ Corresponding author at: Chair of Forest and Nature Conservation Policy, University of Göttingen, Germany. Tel.: +49 163 4878000; fax: +49 551 39 3415. E-mail address: lgiesse@uni-goettingen.de (L. Giessen). 1 Previous literatures refer to an international forest regime, others to the broader no- tion of global forest governance (see e.g. Arts and Babili, 2013; Giessen, 2013a, 2013b; Humphreys, 2006; Smouts, 2008; Singer, 2008; Dimitrov, 2006 on the forest regime and Brown, 2001; Pattberg, 2005; Glück et al., 2005; Chan and Pattberg, 2008; Sander and Pattberg, 2008; Levin, McDermott and Cashore, 2008; Werland, 2009; Arts and Buizer, 2009; Giessen and Böcher, 2009; Humphreys, 2009; Hoogeveen and Verkooijen, 2011; Visseren-Hamakers and Glasbergen, 2007; Garrelts and Flitner, 2011 on the broader no- tion of global forest governance). 1389-9341/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.08.008 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Forest Policy and Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol