Protecting “First world” markets and “Third world” nature: The politics of illegal logging in Australia, the European Union and the United States.

Global forest governance has recently seen the emergence of a timber legality regime. In an aim to regulate global timber trade flows, the US, the EU and Australia adopted laws prohibiting illegally harvested timber from entering their markets. While some view this as a milestone for environmental and social stewardship in the global forest sector, the effects of the regime remain contested. In order to better understand likely effects of the regime, we apply the Discursive Agency Approach to analyze discursive dynamics of policy making among the stakeholders involved in the creation of each law and their effects on governance design and implementation. Based on 120 interviews in the US, Australia, the EU and with global organizations/institutions, as well as 19 informal conversations, 300 documents, and participant observation data, our results show that legality is a powerful concept in forest governance. Drawing attention away from sustainability, it enables discursive divides between the global North and South as well as between wood producers and importers. These divides were crucial for the emergence of the legality regime. While some forest industry groups perceived the new laws as an opportunity, others saw them as a threat. In all three regions this led to coalitions between supportive industry factions and environmental groups. These coalitions were based on a complementarity of goals; environmentalists aimed to protect “Third World” forests while industry groups aimed to protect “First World” markets against growing competition from these former regions. Yet each coalition was composed differently and employed distinct – albeit related – discursive strategies in policy making. This affected the design of each law and its implementation. The shift from sustainability towards legality re-surfaces prominently in implementation. Stakeholder discussions range from coercive “threatening” to more learning-oriented “educating” approaches. We conclude by discussing the effects these discursive struggles in Australia, the EU and the US have on the global timber legality regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]