Global forest governance in a fragmenting post-world war II order – What should remain?

After the events of the second World War, nations leaned toward multilateralism, and the post-World War II multilateral order provided a space where forests could be discussed through cooperation, aid, rights, development, and shared responsibility. Our policy forum argues that as this order re-organises, a fragmented International Forest Regime Complex is being re-shaped through trade rules, finance, climate institutions, geopolitical alignments, and conflict. As we move forward, what should remain? We argue that the central challenge is not to preserve the post-war order unchanged, but to retain the governance functions that allow fragmented forest governance to remain accountable, coordinated, adequately financed, and implementable across different political contexts. Rather than closing discussion, we offer this policy forum as an invitation for scholars, policymakers, practitioners, and stakeholders around the world to continue this conversation, and to examine from multiple disciplines and lenses what global forest governance should retain, revise, or rethink as the international order continues to change. Key policy highlights • Trade-based forest rules must retain trade accountability, but reject trade unilateralism that exports burdens without shared rule-making. • Forest finance must be coordinated, adequate for implementation, accountable, and capable of building durable domestic and local capacity. • Climate institutions must be connected to wider forest politics, domestic implementation, and fairer negotiating conditions. • International forest commitments must be backed by domestic resources, capable bureaucracies, and accountable implementation systems with domestic translation in mind. • Forest governance must treat conflict, insecurity, extraction, and weakened enforcement as core policy concerns, not external issues.