IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v133y2021ics1389934121002203.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping convergence of sustainable forest management systems: Comparing three protocols and two certification schemes for ascertaining the trends in global forest governance

Author

Listed:
  • Kadam, Parag
  • Dwivedi, Puneet
  • Karnatz, Caroline

Abstract

At the global level, two Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) systems, i.e., protocols and certification, have grown significantly in standardizing forest management practices. Protocols are driven by multi-stakeholder groups that outline a series of standardized criteria and indicators agreed upon by participating countries. On the other hand, forest certification involves market-driven multi-stakeholder standardization, assessment, and recognition of a forest management entity’s compliance with standards established by the respective certification program. In this study, we compare the trends in numbers and types of changes that have taken place over two consecutive periods (1995-2005 and 2005-2015) through case studies for three protocols (International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Forest Europe (FE), and Montreal Process (MP)) and two certification schemes (Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI)). A qualitative review of the respective systems’ institutional histories is followed by a graphical representation of the observed changes. We then compare the relative quantitative changes in the categories of criteria and indicators in the standards of the selected systems. We find that FSC may have been instrumental in other SFM systems changing the ecological types of Criteria & Indicators (C&Is) in both periods. Changes in SFI’s standards correspond to its institutional changes from a purely industry-driven system to being an independent organization. Furthermore, we find that ITTO has been more reactive in changing their C&Is as compared to MP and FE, which may have played a vital role in the standardization discourse. Nevertheless, based on our results, we argue that considering socio-economic institutional elements towards trends and developments in all the five standards is important. The selected five SFM institutions can use our findings regarding the trends in the standardization of global forest management to achieve their respective goals for ensuring the sustainability of forest resources worldwide.

Suggested Citation

  • Kadam, Parag & Dwivedi, Puneet & Karnatz, Caroline, 2021. "Mapping convergence of sustainable forest management systems: Comparing three protocols and two certification schemes for ascertaining the trends in global forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:133:y:2021:i:c:s1389934121002203
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102614
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934121002203
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102614?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Prestemon, Jeffrey P., 2015. "The impacts of the Lacey Act Amendment of 2008 on U.S. hardwood lumber and hardwood plywood imports," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 31-44.
    2. Pappila, Minna, 2013. "Forest certification and trust — Different roles in different environments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 37-43.
    3. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808, Decembrie.
    4. Krasner, Stephen D., 1982. "Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 185-205, April.
    5. Johansson, Johanna & Lidestav, Gun, 2011. "Can voluntary standards regulate forestry? -- Assessing the environmental impacts of forest certification in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 191-198, March.
    6. Sasser Erika N. & Prakash Aseem & Cashore Benjamin & Auld Graeme, 2006. "Direct Targeting as an NGO Political Strategy: Examining Private Authority Regimes in the Forestry Sector," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(3), pages 1-34, December.
    7. Sandra Moog & André Spicer & Steffen Böhm, 2015. "The Politics of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: The Crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 469-493, May.
    8. Cashore, Benjamin & Auld, Graeme & Newsom, Deanna, 2003. "Forest certification (eco-labeling) programs and their policy-making authority: explaining divergence among North American and European case studies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 225-247, September.
    9. Frank Biermann & Philipp Pattberg & Harro van Asselt & Fariborz Zelli, 2009. "The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 9(4), pages 14-40, November.
    10. Sasser, Erika N. & Prakash, Aseem & Cashore, Benjamin & Auld, Graeme, 2006. "Direct Targeting as an NGO Political Strategy: Examining Private Authority Regimes in the Forestry Sector," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 1-32, December.
    11. Carmen Rodríguez Fernández-Blanco & Sarah L. Burns & Lukas Giessen, 2019. "Mapping the fragmentation of the international forest regime complex: institutional elements, conflicts and synergies," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 187-205, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Metodi Sotirov & Benno Pokorny & Daniela Kleinschmit & Peter Kanowski, 2020. "International Forest Governance and Policy: Institutional Architecture and Pathways of Influence in Global Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-25, August.
    2. Guillaume Lescuyer & Raphaël Tsanga & Samir Nziengui & Eric Forni & Claudia Romero, 2021. "Influence of FSC certification on the governance of the logging sector in the Congo basin," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 45(3), pages 289-304, August.
    3. Heidingsfelder, Jens, 2019. "Private sustainability governance in the making – A case study analysis of the fragmentation of sustainability governance for the gold sector," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Stoll, Joshua S. & Johnson, Teresa R., 2015. "Under the banner of sustainability: The politics and prose of an emerging US federal seafood certification," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 415-422.
    5. van der Loos, Hendrik Z. Adriaan & Kalfagianni, Agni & Biermann, Frank, 2018. "Global aspirations, regional variation? Explaining the global uptake and growth of forestry certification," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 41-50.
    6. So, Hau Wing & Lafortezza, Raffaele, 2022. "Reviewing the impacts of eco-labelling of forest products on different dimensions of sustainability in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    7. Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2022. "Ordering global governance complexes: The evolution of the governance complex for international civil aviation," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 293-322, April.
    8. Nadine May & Edeltraud Günther & Peer Haller, 2019. "The sustainable use of wood as a regional resource—an ecological assessment of common and new processing technologies for wood poles [Die nachhaltige Nutzung von Holz als regionale Ressource - eine," NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum | Sustainability Management Forum, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 177-201, December.
    9. Carolyn Fischer & Thomas P. Lyon, 2014. "Competing Environmental Labels," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 692-716, September.
    10. Cinthia Soto Golcher & Ingrid J Visseren-Hamakers, 2018. "Framing and integration in the global forest, agriculture and climate change nexus," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(8), pages 1415-1436, December.
    11. Baron, David P., 2011. "Credence attributes, voluntary organizations, and social pressure," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1331-1338.
    12. Erin Leitheiser, 2021. "How domestic contexts shape international private governance: The case of the European Accord and American Alliance in Bangladesh," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1286-1303, October.
    13. Frank Wijen & Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline, 2019. "Controversy Over Voluntary Environmental Standards: A Socioeconomic Analysis of the Marine Stewardship Council," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-02071504, HAL.
    14. Carmen Rodríguez Fernández-Blanco & Sarah L. Burns & Lukas Giessen, 2019. "Mapping the fragmentation of the international forest regime complex: institutional elements, conflicts and synergies," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 187-205, April.
    15. Frank Biermann & Olwen Davies & Nicolien Grijp, 2009. "Environmental policy integration and the architecture of global environmental governance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 351-369, November.
    16. Hansmann, Ralf & Koellner, Thomas & Scholz, Roland W., 2006. "Influence of consumers' socioecological and economic orientations on preferences for wood products with sustainability labels," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 239-250, April.
    17. Simona Fiandrino & Francesco Scarpa & Riccardo Torelli, 2022. "Fostering Social Impact Through Corporate Implementation of the SDGs: Transformative Mechanisms Towards Interconnectedness and Inclusiveness," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(4), pages 959-973, November.
    18. Erica Johnson & Aseem Prakash, 2007. "NGO research program: a collective action perspective," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 40(3), pages 221-240, September.
    19. Peter Cihon & Matthijs M. Maas & Luke Kemp, 2020. "Fragmentation and the Future: Investigating Architectures for International AI Governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(5), pages 545-556, November.
    20. Erin M. Reid & Michael W. Toffel, 2009. "Responding to public and private politics: corporate disclosure of climate change strategies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(11), pages 1157-1178, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:133:y:2021:i:c:s1389934121002203. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.