The scope and complexity of international forest-related governance have expanded tremendously over the last decades. As many as 41 ‘institutional elements’ were counted by scholars (from UNFF to UNFCCC to SDGs). The questions of how these governance arrangements ‘perform’, for what purpose and for whom are widely contested between scholars and practitioners. This paper compares three different analytical frames, which have been employed by some of the authors. These are 1) the consequences of a fragmented regime complex, 2) the global-local nexus and 3) the critical global political economy. The frames map out their contributions and key differences in analytical perspective and help focus and advance debates. Each perspective is based on different theories, epistemologies and methodological approaches and hence yields different key results. The first frame emphasises institutional and policy fragmentation, the symbolic nature of the agreements and the ineffectiveness of the policy measures; the second shows progress in discourses, institutional design, and on-the-ground performance, while the third finds global governance has reinforced inequalities in power and access to land and natural resources. All authors agree, however, that a shift in the balance of power and novel actor coalitions are necessary to change the current global forest governance trajectory significantly. They also acknowledge the need for much greater diversity in voice and representation in both the research and practice of global forest governance.

中文翻译：

---

全球森林治理的绩效：三种截然不同的观点

过去几十年来，国际森林相关治理的范围和复杂性急剧扩大。学者们统计了多达 41 个“制度要素”（从 UNFF 到 UNFCCC 再到 SDG）。这些治理安排如何“执行”、出于什么目的以及为谁而存在，这些问题在学者和实践者之间存在广泛争议。本文比较了一些作者所使用的三种不同的分析框架。这些是 1) 碎片化的政权复合体的后果，2) 全球与地方的联系，以及 3) 关键的全球政治经济。这些框架列出了他们的贡献和分析视角的主要差异，并有助于集中和推进辩论。每种观点都基于不同的理论、认识论和方法论，因此会产生不同的关键结果。第一个框架强调制度和政策的碎片化、协议的象征性和政策措施的无效性；第二个报告显示了话语、制度设计和实地绩效方面的进展，而第三个报告则发现全球治理加剧了权力以及土地和自然资源获取方面的不平等。然而，所有作者都同意，权力平衡的转变和新的参与者联盟对于显着改变当前的全球森林治理轨迹是必要的。他们还承认，在全球森林治理的研究和实践中，声音和代表性需要更加多样化。