WORKING DRAFT IN PROGRESS The EU and the UN Forest Negotiations: a case of failed international environmental governance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past two decades, global environmental governance has emerged as an empirical reality and an important scholarly topic. The European Union (EU) plays an important part in such governance, even taking a leading role in cooperative ventures and treaty negotiation. Yet the EU’s record in negotiations varies, from great successes such as the Montreal Protocol to apparent failures as in the recent breakdown of talks over a United Nations (UN) convention on forest management. This paper examines the EU’s role in this latter case to shed light on global environmental governance and the pursuit of sustainable development. The UN negotiations from 1995-2006 help to spotlight not only the EU’s role in the negotiations, but also the inner workings of global environmental governance generally and whether such governance can contribute to the wider goal of sustainable development. The paper argues that although this case might be interpreted as an instance of ‘failed governance’, the negotiation process itself helped to generate important norms such as sustainable forest management. In this respect, the analysis here shows the broader impact of global environmental governance beyond formal agreements. Contact information
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".