Divide and conquer—Discursive agency in the politics of illegal logging in the United States. (January 2016) - Leipold, Sina
Highlights: We analyze multi-level illegal logging politics as struggles over discursive agency. We focus on agency and strategies in the US policy discourse. Discursive strategies of dividing legitimate and illegitimate agents are central. Discursive divides between agents determine perceptions of policy effectiveness. The global legality verification regime rests upon perceptions of law enforcement. Abstract: In 2008 the US amended the century-old US Lacey Act to prohibit the import of illegally harvested or traded timber. Together with similar policies in the EU and Australia, this initialized a paradigm shift in global forest governance towards a legality (verification) regime that could substantially contribute to environmental and social stewardship in the forest sector. The analysis of the formation and implementation of these new policies in the US, Europe and Australia is, however, only just beginning. Based on 31 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, 19 informal conversations, more than 100 documents, and participant observation data, we analyze the policy making and implementation of the 2008 US Lacey Act amendment. Our results suggest two essential drivers for this policy change: (1) the deployment of discursive divide-and-conquer strategies and (2) a shift away from sustainability to legality, on both the international level and in the US. Based on the Discursive Agency Approach, we illustrate how carefully deployed discursive and governance strategies were crucial for building a coalition between environmentalists and parts of the wood (products) industry. This coalition was able to create a powerful storyline that muted the opposition and presented a politically attractive amendment proposal. We further show how these strategies have significant effects on the perception of the amended Lacey Act and its implementation. During implementation, coalitions as well as discursive and governance strategies shifted substantially but were still determined by the pre-amendment policy discourse. We conclude by exploring the importance of our findings for what we might expect from the concept of legality in global forest and environmental governance.