1. Introduction
Although proclaimed “dead” [
1] and “useless” [
2], sustainability is beyond doubt one of the most relevant concepts in contemporary society. The discourse on sustainability profoundly influenced an understanding of sustainable forest management (SFM) [
3]. The understanding of sustainability in the forest-based sector (FBS) is actor-specific [
4]. A modern understanding of SFM goes beyond the principle of sustainable yield management and is shaped by a spectrum of social demands [
5,
6]. Normative judgments on sustainability underpin concepts such as a safe operating space, which are employed to estimate sustainable timber production scenarios [
7,
8]. SFM became, therefore, a contested concept, and rivalling stakeholders competed to incorporate their ideas and interpretations of SFM into policy institutions [
9,
10].
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) emerged as one of the key stakeholders in the FBS [
11]. NGOs have strongly influenced forest or forest-related policy areas or strategies at international, national or regional level in various countries [
12,
13]. Environmental activism has also substantially influenced both the raw material supply and markets of the FBS [
14]. The impact of NGO advocacy is most highly tangible with regard to the application of corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices. FBS companies made substantial changes in their organizational systems only after receiving pressure from NGOs and economic stakeholders [
15,
16]. Nylund and Kröger [
4] suggested that differences in prioritization and framing of sustainability and related notions like environmental justice elicit different conceptualizations of sustainability between the pulp and paper industry, on the one side, and local communities and NGOs on the other.
Environmental justice is, like sustainability, a multifarious concept [
17]. In general, the concept of environmental justice examines the equity of principles regulating a distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. Some researchers [
18] have criticized the current mainstream understanding of sustainability by suggesting that a stronger emphasis must be placed on an environmental justice to ensure that sustainability becomes a “just sustainability”. A distinction made between distributive and procedural justice is central to the different perceptions of environmental justice [
17]. The former questions how just the generation and the allocation of environmental benefits and burdens are while the latter questions the fairness of the environmental decision-making processes [
17,
19]. Moreover, stakeholders’ perceptions of procedural and distributive justice determine the acceptance of forest policies. Procedural justice (operationalized as an acceptance of decision-making processes related to forest management) and distributive justice (operationalized as acceptance of forestry operations) are some of the main explanatory factors of stakeholders′ perception of the legitimacy of a forest policy [
20]. A higher perception of legitimacy leads to an acceptance of a forest policy [
21].
Considerations related to distributive and procedural justice in the FBS are especially prominent in the ongoing debates over the neoliberalization of forest governance [
22,
23]. A neoliberal, environmental governance strongly relies on the ethical responsibility of consumers and corporations; hence, it encompasses a patchwork of market-based regulatory bodies, including public–private partnerships, multi-stakeholder initiatives, NGOs and voluntaristic mechanisms [
24,
25,
26]. The establishment of certification schemes, such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), represent an example of marketization, a type of a neoliberal resource governance reform [
27,
28]. According to Bakker [
27], a commons versus a commodity debate lies at the core of the discussion between proponents and adversaries of neoliberal environmental governance. NGOs have taken distinctly different standpoints in the debate on the neoliberalization of environmental governance. Some strongly reject it [
18], while others facilitate the further expansion of market-based governance mechanisms [
25].
NGOs strive to change the existing practices of the FBS by framing public opinion through the media [
14]. Different definitions and understandings of sustainability can hinder further development of the FBS. For example, Knauf [
29] demonstrates how the definitions, and the operationalization of sustainability indicators within the “strong sustainability” and “sustainable buildings” discourse in Germany limit the raw material base and marketing opportunities of the FBS.
The literature review revealed a gap considering the understanding of NGOs’ specific conceptualization of SFM. So far, the research has focused on conflicts between NGOs and other stakeholders over international forest policy and corporate social responsibility [
4,
12,
14]. However, it remains unclear whether the conceptualizations of SFM differ among various NGOs. Gaining a better understanding of the divergences among NGOs can provide additional knowledge regarding the issues and values that underpin the different conceptualizations of SFM. As such, this further contributes to the understanding of origins of conflicts over forest management.
In this study, we employed a frame analysis of NGO press releases to elucidate the NGO-specific conceptualization of SFM, as well as to investigate differences in understanding among various environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs). Based on the literature review, we particularly considered the differences in the emphasis placed on distributive or procedural justice and those related to the commons versus commodity debate. Because normative ideas which underpin resource management decisions, like sustainability, are most highly evident in the suggestions that prescribe how the world should be [
30], we focused on NGO propositions with respect to silvicultural systems and forest governance models to identify NGO-specific conceptualizations of SFM.
3. Results
By analyzing ENGO press releases, we identified two master frames employed by the ENGOs (environmentalist master frame and environmental justice master frame).
Table 6 provides a comparative overview of the identified ENGO master frames based on their variable features. In the first two sections below, we describe the identified master frames with respect to their framing features (diagnostic, prognostic and motivational) and compare them based on the variable features of master frames (attributional orientation, articulational scope, magnitude of change). We also illustrate the identified master frames by providing canonical examples of statements featured in the analyzed material.
In the following two sections, we demonstrate how different characteristics of the master frames contribute to different conceptualizations of SFM. Lastly, by highlighting the differences between the master frames, we provide a conceptual model, which illustrates how differences between the master frames underpin contrasting conceptualizations of SFM.
3.1. Master Frame Environmental Justice
The following ENGOs can be allocated with the environmental justice master frame: the World Rainforest Movement, Friends of the Earth, and Global Forest Coalition. The ENGOs associated with the environmental justice master frame strongly reject the concept of SFM in any guise. SFM is perceived as a fundamentally flawed concept. It is, therefore, labelled as a “myth” or a “nasty little euphemism that allows destructive and often illegal logging to continue with impunity”:
“Sustainable forest management” allows an inherently destructive activity such as logging to continue with the promise of “keeping the forests standing”. But the concession model, while beneficial to logging companies, is destructive for the forest and harmful for the communities for whom the forest provides a livelihood, especially for women. Even worse, the concept, backed up by numbers indicating that only a “small amount” of timber will be taken out, also serves as a “passport” for companies to enter into new forest areas and supposedly conserve these by just taking out a “few” trees”
The crux of this critique lies in the perception of logging activities and presently dominant forest governance models as inherently leading to distributive injustice. Logging activities are believed to cause a shift in social power from the people to private companies through a commodification of forests.
“For these people who depend on forests, non-timber forest products like fruits, seeds and medicinal plants have a huge importance, as well as fishing, hunting and also agriculture”. Peasants in forest areas traditionally practice agriculture based on knowledge transmitted over many generations, conserving, not destroying forests. Forests are fundamental for peasants to guarantee their food sovereignty. We oppose the increasing commodification of natural resources like forests, pushed by TNCs [transnational corporations] and mechanisms like REDD [United Nations Program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation]”
Likewise, any kind of forest certification further exacerbates the unjust social distribution of power, benefits, and harms generated by logging. Such a radical critique, which requires a complete rethinking of the SFM concept, is in accordance with the transformative character of the environmental justice master frame.
“RSPO [Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil] and FSC are not working to transform a heavily concentrated and unequal production model that provides cheap vegetable oil and fiber for global food, energy or pulp and paper industries into a localized model of small-scale production based on agroecological and social justice principles….They are about increasing the share of RSPO-certified palm oil and FSC-certified wood products and the safeguarding of corporate profits through providing a ‘green’ label to greenwash ultimately inherently unsustainable industrial monoculture plantations”
By the same token, international organizations like the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Bank are blamed as the main culprits for deforestation. The definition of forest employed by FAO and World Bank contribute to the unjust power distribution in society and deforestation because timber plantations are classified as planted forests:
“The present FAO definition benefits first and foremost corporate interests, especially the tree plantation and timber industries. These companies—national and transnational—exacerbate and often drive land and resource grabbing over territories of communities across the global South”
Timber plantations represent the dominant issue with respect to the diagnostic frame feature. A wide range of both environmental and social concerns that are brought up, are related to the expansion and management of timber plantations. Among environmental issues, the negative impact of wood harvesting on biodiversity and climate change are the issues that are the most strongly emphasized.
However, as with diagnostic framing, the prognostic feature can be tied to systemic causes. The rationale and motivation for the conduct of the proposed solutions are firmly grounded in the critique of a contemporary social structure and a dominant economic development paradigm:
“This federation is committed to environmental, social and gender justice and system change, which implies understanding the structural causes of environmental problems and to demand and build real solutions to realize people’s rights.…The top priority for the next 2 years will be to mobilize people in all corners of the world for a radical change in our food and energy systems, as well as to collectively defend forest and biodiversity and challenge corporate power and the neoliberal architecture of free trade and investments agreements...Friends of the Earth International has started a system change process which focuses on analyzing and challenging the power and privilege granted by capitalism and patriarchy to global elites that endanger life on the planet as we know it”
Although the scope of the proposed solutions is limited, their inherent goal is to cause a systemic change on a largest possible scale. Therefore, the environmental justice frame represents a transformative type of master frame. With respect to the location, the analyzed statements refer almost exclusively to the tropics and Global South. The attributional orientation of the environmental justice frame is external because the blame is always assigned to the economic and political system and its major representatives, while the authors portray themselves as acting outside the system boundaries. Lastly, the applied rhetoric is highly particularistic and tightly organized around a critique of neoliberalism and the dominant economic paradigm. The breadth of proposed solutions and actors to whom the blame is assigned are limited and both are, in essence, linked to systemic causes. Hence, the articulational scope of the master frame is restricted.
3.2. Environmentalist Master Frame
Five of the analyzed ENGOs could be allocated with the environmentalist master frame: the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, Fern, Rainforest Alliance, and The Nature Conservancy. Tropical deforestation and degradation of ancient and endangered forests represent the dominant issues with respect to the diagnostic frame feature. Both dominant issues are associated with a wide scale of environmental and social concerns. Concerns about biodiversity degradation are commonly raised because high biodiversity levels are associated with the optimal provision of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and ecosystem services:
“While there are several connections between biodiversity and healthy human life, the new report focuses on four areas specifically—those relating to medicinal drugs, microbial diversity, infectious diseases and mental health. It also outlines the role biodiversity plays in providing food, water and vital ecosystem services to communities worldwide, especially indigenous peoples, forest-dwellers, fisherfolk and others who are directly dependent on forests, rivers, lakes and oceans for their lives and livelihoods”
Together with the social and environmental concerns, the spectrum of grievances also covers economic issues. The economic role of forests is described as a complex fusion of regulating, supporting, and provisioning ecosystem services. Hence, forests are conceived of as both a source of raw materials and a source of other environmental and social benefits:
“Forests are providing some of the most vital nature services that underpin the global economy and are critical for supporting the lives and prosperity of local people, communities and humanity globally. If protected and managed responsibly these key ecosystems can continue to provide economic and social benefits now and for future generations, while contributing to the local and global ecological balance essential to all life on Earth…Ultimately, this partnership is working to ensure that forests continue to be an ongoing sustainable source of fiber within a world enriched by extensive, resilient forest landscapes benefiting biodiversity, climate and human well-being”
Among the proposed solutions, calls for environmental protection and conservation dominate the discourse. World heritage sites, high conservation value (HCV) and high carbon storage (HCS) sites, intact forest landscapes (IFLs), as well as more ambiguous categories such as primeval, natural, ancient, and virgin forests are all to protected from commercial use.
“It’s not illegal to chop down the last critical forest landscapes, but it is brutal. That is exactly why we need a proper process for defining the areas in need of legal protection. The logging in these forest areas must stop now. We cannot engage in wordplay while harvesters are actively cutting down precious forested areas”
However, the range of proposed solutions is broad and encompasses a vast spectrum of activities that range from improvements of forest management techniques to corrections of international trade agreements and requirements for improvements in the enforcement of national legal frameworks:
“Restoring forests on formerly forested lands, and avoiding further loss of global forests, are the two largest opportunities. Success depends in large part on better forestry and agricultural practices, particularly those that reduce the amount of land used by livestock. … Meanwhile, improved forestry practices across expanded and existing working forests can produce more wood fiber while storing more carbon, maintain biodiversity, and help clean our air and water”
As shown by the quotes above, both the diagnostic and prognostic frame features are broad in scope and not based on a single idea or concept. The applied rhetoric of the environmentalist master frame employs universalistic concepts like “responsible forest management”, “environmental and social benefits” or “wellbeing”, which allow for interpretative flexibility.
The blame for environmental harm is commonly assigned to an individual company or to an institution. For example, large pulp and paper companies operating in Southeast Asia are often singled out and targeted in ENGO campaigns. The proposed solutions attempt to decouple industrial practices from environmental harm by correcting and improving the production and consumption practices. Moreover, the proposed solutions do not address only a single actor, but generally require the investment of shared effort and collaboration between governments, private sector actors and members of civil society. Hence, the participation of multiple stakeholders in decision-making is almost universally demanded.
“We urge Indonesia’s government to use the momentum of APP’s [Asia Pulp and Paper] move to strengthen and extend the moratorium, starting with a review of all existing forest concessions. As a matter of urgency, the government should improve enforcement of forestry laws to help companies like APP implement their conservation policies. Only concerted action from government, industry and Indonesian civil society can finally turn the tide of extinction facing Sumatra’s tigers”
The environmentalist master frame has an internal attributional orientation because blame is assigned to individual actors within the present economic and socio-political systems, but never to a paradigm underlying the presently dominant economic and political models. Moreover, the environmentalist master frame assigns blame to a multitude of actors and proposes a wide range of solutions that require the cooperation of many actors, including the ENGOs themselves. The magnitude of change is reformative, because the solutions are generally proposed to correct or improve the present production systems and consumption patterns. The proposed solutions and identified problems are also associated with a broad range of issues and not based on a single idea (e.g., a critique of neoliberalism). Furthermore, the applied rhetoric is not particularistic and allows for an interpretative flexibility. Therefore, the environmentalist master frame has an elaborate, articulational scope. Lastly, although issues in Global South are more strongly emphasized, plenty of statements addressed issues in the Global North. The geographical scope is, therefore, worldwide.
3.3. Sustainable Forest Management and the Environmental Justice Master Frame
Calls for more forest protection dominate the prognostic frame feature. However, the forest should be conserved by abandoning fence and fine conservation models and by shifting to forest management approaches based on traditional, customary practices and the recognition of indigenous land tenure rights.
“The customary practices of Indigenous peoples, local communities and women, and their traditional knowledge, do not only contribute to biodiversity conservation and restoration, they also form a cornerstone for ecosystem-based climate resilience. These practices almost always have very significant climate mitigation co-benefits and must be prioritized in any potential future climate deal”
Together with the implementation of traditional forest management practices, the forest should be managed as a common pool resource. In such a manner, the commodification of forests and the related unjust distribution of social power can be prevented:
“Nature is a common good that we all share rights to and have responsibility over. It should be managed democratically by a commons-centered approach and not by a market based approach that takes power away from the people and gives more resources to those who can pay the most. Many organizations, scientists and people have come together through this statement to expose that the motive is profit, not conservation”
The most desirable type of forest management is, hence, a small-scale, commons-centered approach, based on the customary practices and traditional knowledge of local communities. As such, it is exclusively associated with a social forestry management paradigm.
“It′s clearly time we put the management of forests back in the hands of the communities who have managed them sustainably for generations”, said Rojas. “False solutions like REDD+ cause incalculable harm. Community forest management is a collection of methodologies representing centuries of wisdom working with nature. Community forest management is climate-, biodiversity- and people-friendly”
Moreover, the transfer of property rights to local communities and their empowerment in the decision-making process are seen as safeguards against market and state failures in forest management. Based on the information mentioned above, we conclude that placing a specific emphasis on distributive justice, considering forests as common pool resources and endorsing extensive forest management techniques aimed at a provision of NTFPs are central considerations with respect to SFM within the environmental justice master frame.
3.4. Sustainable Forest Management and the Environmentalist Master Frame
Several forest conservation and forest management approaches occur in the prognostic frame feature of the environmentalist master frame without any of them being dominant. Which approach to forest conservation or forest management is desirable depends highly on contextual factors, such as geographical region, biodiversity value, carbon stocks and cultural value. Natural forest in the tropics, HCV, and HCS sites as well as more ambiguous categories like ancient, primeval and virgin forest in other parts of the world are all to be strictly conserved.
Community forestry is commonly endorsed in areas populated by forest dependent and indigenous peoples. Therefore, forest management approaches associated with the social forestry management paradigm are considered to be the most desirable types of forest management in areas where local communities strongly depend on forests for their livelihoods and an income from forest management is essential for further social development.
“Social Forestry is part of BFCP’s [Berau Forest Carbon Program′s] main strategies in the management of forest and other natural resources. Merabu is a model village in community-based natural resource management by applying an approach called “inspirational community actions to effect change” (SIGAP). This approach addresses the challenges villages face by helping to empower them to better protect and manage their forests and improve their livelihoods. Merabu will share its experience in managing forest sustainably and implementing green growth at the site level”
Furthermore, ecoforestry is commonly proposed as an alternative to large-scale industrial practices in buffer zones of protected areas. Ecoforestry is associated with both ecosystem forest management and social forestry management paradigms:
“The Greenpeace flagship, Rainbow Warrior, sailed into the Indonesian province of Papua for the first time today as part of a global campaign to help protect the world’s last ancient forests. Greenpeace is on a mission to protect the Paradise Forests, the last ancient forests in Asia Pacific, from illegal and destructive logging, and is launching an eco-forestry program in Papua to offer community-based forest management as an alternative to large-scale, industrial logging”
However, together with the conservation and implementation of extensive approaches to forest management, “responsible” commercial forest management is also endorsed. “Responsible” commercial forest management should also be based on ecoforesry practices like selective logging:
“While there is an unquestionable need for formal protection of a representative portion of the region’s and the world’s most socially and environmentally important forests, the majority of the world’s forests will remain outside of protected areas. Well-managed selective logging concessions can buffer protected areas, support healthy populations of rare or endangered species and benefit people. Responsible forestry, including both intensive commercial management and community forestry, has a key role to play in conserving global biodiversity, preventing illegal logging and providing economic and social benefits to society”
Certification of commercial forest management is an obligatory requirement for a sustainable, commercial forest management. The FSC certification represents the only forest certification scheme that is endorsed by the ENGOs. The FSC certified forest management is associated with the ecosystem management paradigm:
“FSC is the best forest management assurance system available, and is recognized as the top level of commitment by leading environmental groups operating within the tropical forest industry. FSC certification ensures the forest management is (1) environmentally appropriate—protecting and maintaining natural communities and high conservation value forests (2) socially beneficial—respecting the rights of workers, communities and indigenous peoples and (3) economically viable—building markets, adding best value and creating equitable access to benefits”
Accordingly, timber plantations are considered to be sustainable sources of wood, provided that they have not been established on previously deforested land and that the criteria for procedural justice have been fulfilled (e.g., a provision of a free prior and informed consent). The presence of such timber plantations is considered to alleviate market pressure from other socially and environmentally more valuable forests.
“For example, WWF’s analysis shows that the amount of wood we take from forests and plantations each year may need to triple by 2050. According to FRA2015 [The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015], plantations are expanding and supplying an increasing proportion of the world’s wood. In the right place and managed sustainably, tree plantations can reduce the pressure to bring natural forest areas into production”
Together with FSC certification, procedural justice is a crucial element of sustainable, commercial forest management. The decision-makers are urged to integrate a wide range of stakeholders into decision-making practices in order to avoid social conflicts over forest management practices:
“Industrial-scale agricultural concessions, many foreign-owned, are often allocated throughout West and Central Africa without proper land-use planning. This frequently generates social conflicts when forest clearance takes place without prior consent of local communities. This can result in severe negative ecological impacts and effects on endangered wildlife species as many concessions overlap with forest areas of high biodiversity value. “Governments need to urgently develop a participatory land use planning process prior to the allocation of industrial concessions, ... ”Projects that are being developed without adequate community consultation and are located in areas of high ecological value should not be allowed to proceed and risk further social conflict and environmental damage”
In conclusion, the exact conceptualization of sustainable forest management depends highly on contextual factors. Only forest management practices associated with social forestry and ecosystem forest management are perceived as sustainable. However, FSC certification and the achievement of procedural justice emerge as the main convergences between the forest management practices endorsed within the environmentalist master frame.
3.5. Conceptual Model Depicting Differences in Conceptualization of SFM between the Master Frames with
Figure 1 presents a conceptual model based on the results presented in the previous sections. The conceptual model depicts how different standpoints in the debate on the commodity versus commons and differences in the understanding of environmental justice influence different conceptualizations of sustainable forest management. For example, the ENGOs associated with the environmentalist master frame consider timber plantations to be sustainable sources of wood, provided that they satisfy the FSC environmental and social safeguards. Conversely, the ENGOs associated with the environmental justice master frame renounce any kind of timber plantation as a sustainable source of wood, because these contribute to distributive injustice. Furthermore, the ENGOs associated with the environmental justice master frame reject forest certification because it is considered to contribute to distributive injustice and commodification of forests. The ENGOs associated with the environmentalist master frame consider FSC certification to be the main means of transforming industrial forest management into sustainable forest management.