It matters how we talk about forests and forest policies, for the chances to reach compromises in forest-related debates, and for the chances of success for certain policies. Two renowned international researchers will focus on two examples: perceptions and misperceptions of market-based forest policies, and the portrayal of forestry debates in the media.

Welcome to an open lecture hosted by the Pufendorf IAS' Theme: Let's talk about the Swedish Forests. We have invited two international guests, who will also open up for discussions with the audience after their talks. 

Please register for this event asap, no later than 26 February. Refreshments will be served.

How do we talk about forestry? Policy misconceptions and media conflicts

Professor Benjamin Cashore, National University of Singapore

Are Finance and Market Driven Policy Tools the Solution or the Problem? Lessons from three Decades of Transnational Forest Governance

Why is it that, despite over three decades of forest focused finance and market driven (FMD) policy interventions, the world continues its slide toward catastrophic forest degradation and deforestation that exacerbate climate and threaten mass extinctions and ecosystem collapse? In this talk, Professor Benjamin Cashore presents a provocative framework to explain this paradox. He argues that unconscious biases in how scholars and practitioners conceive of environmental problems have led to persistent misdiagnosis - and failed solutions. Drawing on his book under contract at MIT Press, The Environmental Policy Paradox, Cashore calls for bold new approaches that carefully anticipate successful policy interventions rather than learning the wrong lessons from failed experiments. He illustrates this argument by assessing forest certification, forest legality verification and the European Union’s No-Deforestation Regulation.

Professor Daniela Kleinschmit, University of Freiburg

Framing the Difference: Polarization in Environmental Media Communication

In order to be heard amid the vast amount of information available, media communication employs attention-grabbing tactics. Particularly when it comes to controversial environmental policy issues, the simplified framing, pointing towards “supporters” and “opponents” points to a polarization between stakeholder groups involved. Using various examples from media communication studies, particularly in relation to forests and climate, this presentation highlights framing patterns in media communication. The empirical results show that not even the dominant climate discourse supports a deliberative discussion and mutual understanding but furthers conflicting frames.

More information about the Pufendorf IAS' Theme

Read about the interdisciplinary research group on the Pufendorf IAS' website: 

Let’s Talk about Swedish Forests: From Polarisation to Sustainable Transition | The Pufendorf Institute for Advanced Studies