Page 42 - Governing Congo Basin Forests in a Changing Climate • Olufunso Somorin

Chapter 1
operationalized in a ‘coordinative’ policy sphere (Schmidt, 2002). Importantly, as a theoretical approach, DI bridges the gap between institutional theory and discourse theory (Arts and Buizer, 2009). Whereas it brings in new dynamics and discursive understandings in institutional thinking, it helps discourse theory to go beyond mere ideas, concepts and communication and to refocus on their (selective) institutionalization and materialization (Buijs et al., 2014).
In this thesis, I adopt the analytical elements of discursive institutionalism: discourses, institutions and actors in terms of their consequences for governance process analysis. First, I consider the concept of environmental governance as a specific form or subcategory of a broader governance approach (Armitage and Plummer, 2010). The specific focus on environmental governance is useful for a myriad of reasons. The first and main reason is that this thesis focuses on two crucial topics in the environmental field: forests and climate change. Besides, the field offers an interesting case study since governance experiments are already taking place due to the nature of the topics. Second, policy fields concerning environmental questions can be seen as good examples of increasing challenges related to implementation and co-ordination (Böcher et al., 2008). Consequently, governance issues are currently discussed intensively in environmental policy (Jordan et al., 2003; Glück et al., 2005; Haas, 2006). Third, for decades, environmental issues also faced the dilemma on the definition of issues and formation of policies and measures to mitigate undesirable consequences, hence, giving rise to evolution of governance as a potential ‘panacea’ (Bulkeley and Mol, 2003). Fourth, the complex interrelationships between different environmental problems including biodiversity loss, climate change, pollution and ecological degradation, from global to local levels, require innovative governance systems that can solve these problems (Glasbergen, 1998; Lemos and Agrawal, 2006). Finally, the limitations of the traditional command and control, state-centric approaches to environmental problems are now well-recognized. This recognition has heralded a new consideration for governance systems forged to address recurring and emerging environmental problems (Belkes et al., 2003; Folke 2007; Armitage and Plummer, 2010).
In this thesis, two definitions of environmental governance are considered relevant for their emphasis on similarities and for their possible application to the study of policy processes of adaptation and mitigation strategies in the
22