Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
into environmental (and social) conditions of production and, in turn, to how envi-
ronmental regulations, certifi cation and labelling can create new opportunities for
value capture that restructure production networks (Stringer, 2006). While com-
modity networks are often deeply embedded in territorial structures, the focus in
much of this work is on the emergence of new actors and spaces outside the territo-
rial state and the way these can infl uence the environmental consequences of pro-
duction and consumption in ways that exceed the reach of formal state regulation.
Product boycotts, public campaigns and social activism are symptoms of the emer-
gence of alternative or parallel 'regulatory' mechanisms that often articulate
with
the state (by, for example, pointing to the way corporate behaviour in one jurisdic-
tion does not meet legal standards in another) but yet are not
of
the state. Product
labeling and certifi cation schemes - such as those associated with the Forestry Stew-
ardship Council or Fair Trade - illustrate the increased importance of information
and information provision in producing new modalities of governance (Mol 2006).
Other work highlights a deliberate move towards the enrollment of third parties
and market-based mechanisms - the outsourcing or 'privatisation of governance' -
that complement the regulatory function of the state (O'Rourke, 2003, Cashore
et al., 2004). Bennett (2000), for example, has shown how private insurers have
become enrolled into a state regulatory framework to achieve regulatory goals of
reducing environmental damage associated with pollution from ocean-going oil
tankers. Research like this draws attention to modalities of regulation along com-
modity chains: in the case of oil tanker regulation, a concern for the effectiveness
or quality of regulation positioned private insurers at the centre of the regulatory
programme rather than merely a means to an end.
Governance as collective action for resource management
A third signifi cant strand of research on environmental governance problematises
governance as a social action problem. This work draws on both a long tradition
of human ecology (which stresses social adaptation to environmental systems), and
on the 'new institutional economics'. The latter highlights the role of social institu-
tions - understood as formal and informal rules, conventions and codes of behav-
iour - in regulating human activities and rejects the individualism of neoclassical
models of rational (economic) behaviour (Mehta et al., 2001). Geographers and
anthropologists have examined the infl uence that different property regimes have
on the governance of environments and resources. Much of this work challenges
Hardin's (1968) highly infl uential metaphor of the 'tragedy of the commons', which
asserts that collective resource management will inevitably fail and that, as a con-
sequence, private ownership or state-control of resources is preferable. Research on
a range of forestry, pasture and fi sheries governance regimes around the world not
only demonstrates that collective resource management regimes are widespread and
can be resilient in the face of economic and environmental change; it also illustrates
how many alternate forms of resource and environmental governance are possible
beyond the stark choice posed by Hardin between 'state' or 'private'. The intellec-
tual recognition of successful collective modes of environmental governance has
provided a justifi cation for decentralised, participatory and community-based
natural resource management, and for hybrid management arrangements involving
state and local groups (Mehta et al., 2001). Such co-management regimes are now
ubiquitous, their uptake driven partly by evidence of successful self-management at
