An Alternative Explanation for the Failure of the UNCED Forest Negotiations

Abstract

Scholars have offered numerous explanations for success stories such as the ozone regime but have paid little attention to failed cases, such as the failure to attain agreement on a global forest convention in 1992. Discussions of this case frequently attribute the failure to a prioritization of sovereignty above all other interests on the part of Malaysia and other developing countries. I offer an alternative explanation, based on interview data and documents and reports from the era. Although the US was the first state to propose a global forest convention in 1990 and remained the lead state in negotiations, the benefits of a global forest treaty at the domestic level did not outweigh the potential costs to the US of manipulating the preferences of the anti-convention coalition towards favoring agreement. Use of counter-factual scenarios demonstrates that it was this rather than sovereignty issues that precluded a forest treaty.