s:2399:"%T International Forest Governance for the Future: From Criticism to Alternatives 
%A Kleinschmit, D. 
%A Arts, B. 
%A Assembe-Mvondo, S. 
%A Böcher, M. 
%A Brockhaus, M. 
%A Cordova-Pineda, D.A. 
%A Giurca, A. 
%A Gordeeva, E. 
%A Maryudi, A. 
%A Sotirov, M. 
%A Sufo Kankeu, R. 
%A Winkel, G. 
%A Ziegert, R.F. 
%X In this Chapter, we identify and explore the major criticisms of International Forest Governance (IFG). We also present alternatives to current IFG approaches. Our critiques span from technical issues embedded within the accepted IFG framework, to broader challenges of the entire IFG. In response to these critiques, a spectrum of solutions and alternative governance approaches has emerged, ranging from technical fixes and incremental changes to radical transformations. In contrast to the past debate over legally binding versus non-binding aspects of IFG, the current emphasis is on governance beyond government. Despite critiques highlighting the ineffectiveness of these new modes of governance, the scientific call for participation and integration of non-governmental actors is mainstreamed. The review identifies a shift towards ‘critical critiques’ that delve into fundamental governance weaknesses, advocating for radical changes to address power asymmetries and envisioning alternative governance settings. The discussion here also underscores the changing nature of critiques, moving from an environmental output focus on deforestation to a broader societal critique, emphasizing input and throughput legitimacy over output. The importance of addressing the critiques and evaluating whether solutions align with these issues is highlighted, particularly in the context of measuring and monitoring within IFG rules. Technical innovations are presented as both potential solutions and sources of new challenges. Two potential ways forward are proposed. One suggests building on existing approaches, treating them as learning experiences adaptable to diverse national and local contexts to avoid the cyclic adoption and abandonment of new processes. The other, responding to critical critiques, advocates for a radically new IFG framework, rooted in understanding the perceived problems at the local level and addressing them through deliberative and collaborative means, steering away from hegemonic discourses such as emissions-focused approaches. 
";