IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v70y2016icp137-146.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participation and deliberation in Swedish forest governance: The process of initiating a National Forest Program

Author

Listed:
  • Johansson, Johanna

Abstract

Over the last two decades intergovernmental organizations have supported the initiation of National Forest Programs (NFPs): forums for joint deliberation by the state, private companies and NGOs that are intended to resolve conflicts over forestry and enhance sustainability. However, NFPs do not always reconcile conflicting perspectives or produce legitimate strategies for sustainable forestry. Thus, further analysis of NFPs' organization and processes is required, including exploration of effective means to address such challenges in early stages. These are key concerns of this paper, focusing on the first process to establish a Swedish NFP. Possibilities for an NFP to constitute a new arena for deliberation and consensus-building, producing forest policy statements and action plans considered legitimate by various stakeholders, are discussed. A number of key challenges are identified through a theoretical framework based on notions regarding the input and output legitimacy of collaborative governance. Analysis of official documentation, records of public hearings and stakeholder comments from the establishment phase in 2013–2015 suggests that the process will continually face a number of challenges, including balancing production and conservation values in the new bio-economy and securing equal stakeholder participation. The paper concludes with some remarks on the future of the NFP process.

Suggested Citation

  • Johansson, Johanna, 2016. "Participation and deliberation in Swedish forest governance: The process of initiating a National Forest Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 137-146.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:70:y:2016:i:c:p:137-146
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116301186
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.001?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. 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.
    2. Mena, Sébastien & Palazzo, Guido, 2012. "Input and Output Legitimacy of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 527-556, July.
    3. Primmer, Eeva & Kyllonen, Simo, 2006. "Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 838-853, November.
    4. Voitleithner, Johannes, 2002. "The National Forest Programme in the light of Austria's law and political culture," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 313-322, December.
    5. Sarkki, Simo & Heikkinen, Hannu I., 2015. "Why do environmentalists not consider compromises as legitimate?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 110-117.
    6. Saarikoski, Heli & Tikkanen, Jukka & Leskinen, Leena A., 2010. "Public participation in practice -- Assessing public participation in the preparation of regional forest programs in Northern Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 349-356, June.
    7. Winkel, Georg & Sotirov, Metodi, 2011. "An obituary for national forest programmes? Analyzing and learning from the strategic use of “new modes of governance” in Germany and Bulgaria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 143-154.
    8. Mikael Klintman, 2009. "Participation in Green Consumer Policies: Deliberative Democracy under Wrong Conditions?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 43-57, March.
    9. Uggla, Ylva & Forsberg, Maria & Larsson, Stig, 2016. "Dissimilar framings of forest biodiversity preservation: Uncertainty and legal ambiguity as contributing factors," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 36-42.
    10. Kangas, A. & Saarinen, N. & Saarikoski, H. & Leskinen, L.A. & Hujala, T. & Tikkanen, J., 2010. "Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 213-222, March.
    11. Elsasser, Peter, 2002. "Rules for participation and negotiation and their possible influence on the content of a National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 291-300, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Pülzl, Helga & Secco, Laura & Sergent, Arnaud & Wallin, Ida, 2018. "Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 4-15.
    2. Hussein Luswaga & Ernst-August Nuppenau, 2020. "Participatory Forest Management in West Usambara Tanzania: What Is the Community Perception on Success?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, January.
    3. Teder, Meelis & Kaimre, Paavo, 2018. "The participation of stakeholders in the policy processes and their satisfaction with results: A case of Estonian forestry policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 54-62.
    4. Valeria Ferreira Gregorio & Laia Pié & Antonio Terceño, 2018. "A Systematic Literature Review of Bio, Green and Circular Economy Trends in Publications in the Field of Economics and Business Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-39, November.
    5. Stjernström Olof & Pettersson Örjan & Karlsson Svante, 2018. "How Can Sweden Deal with Forest Management and Municipal Planning in the System of Ongoing Land-Use and Multilevel Planning?," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 10(1), pages 23-37, March.
    6. Hertog, Iris Maria & Brogaard, Sara, 2021. "Struggling for an ideal dialogue. An analysis of the regional dialogue processes within Sweden's first National Forest Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    7. Grundel, Ida & Christenson, Nina & Dahlström, Margareta, 2022. "Identifying interests and values in forest areas through collaborative processes and landscape resource analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    8. Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof & Shkaruba, Anton, 2018. "Governance and legitimacy of the Forest Stewardship Council certification in the national contexts – A comparative study of Belarus and Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 180-188.
    9. Tikkanen, Jukka, 2018. "Participatory turn - and down-turn - in Finland's regional forest programme process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 87-97.
    10. Stevanov, Mirjana & Krott, Max, 2021. "Embedding scientific information into forestry praxis: Explaining knowledge transfer in transdisciplinary projects by using German case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    11. Hengst-Ehrhart, Yvonne & Schraml, Ulrich, 2020. "Back to the Forest’s future: Guiding principles of German forest stakeholders and their impact on the forestry sector," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    12. Eva Lieberherr & Eva Thomann, 2020. "Linking throughput and output legitimacy in Swiss forest policy implementation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 495-533, September.
    13. Satyal, Poshendra, 2018. "Civil society participation in REDD+ and FLEGT processes: Case study analysis from Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia and the Republic of Congo," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 83-96.
    14. Xinwei Guo & Bin Yu & Meiyan Yan & Hui Guo & Junhu Ren & Hanxia Zhang & Zonggang Zhang, 2022. "Endogenous Development Models and Paths Selection of Rural Revitalization from the Perspective of Ecological Environment Advantages: A Case Study of Nanshi Village, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-24, September.
    15. Löfmarck, Erik & Uggla, Ylva & Lidskog, Rolf, 2017. "Freedom with what? Interpretations of “responsibility” in Swedish forestry practice," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 34-40.

    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. Tikkanen, Jukka, 2018. "Participatory turn - and down-turn - in Finland's regional forest programme process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 87-97.
    2. Weber, Norbert, 2018. "Participation or involvement? Development of forest strategies on national and sub-national level in Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 98-106.
    3. Winkel, Georg & Sotirov, Metodi, 2011. "An obituary for national forest programmes? Analyzing and learning from the strategic use of “new modes of governance” in Germany and Bulgaria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 143-154.
    4. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Pülzl, Helga & Secco, Laura & Sergent, Arnaud & Wallin, Ida, 2018. "Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 4-15.
    5. Balest, Jessica & Hrib, Michal & Dobšinská, Zuzana & Paletto, Alessandro, 2018. "The formulation of the National Forest Programme in the Czech Republic: A qualitative survey," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 16-21.
    6. Fabra-Crespo, M. & Rojas-Briales, E., 2015. "Comparative analysis on the communication strategies of the forest owners' associations in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 20-30.
    7. Kangas, Annika & Heikkilä, Juuso & Malmivaara-Lämsä, Minna & Löfström, Irja, 2014. "Case Puijo—Evaluation of a participatory urban forest planning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 13-23.
    8. Bowditch, Euan A.D. & McMorran, Rob & Bryce, Rosalind & Smith, Melanie, 2019. "Perception and partnership: Developing forest resilience on private estates," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 110-122.
    9. Elsasser, Peter, 2007. "Do "stakeholders" represent citizen interests? An empirical inquiry into assessments of policy aims in the National Forest Programme for Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1018-1030, May.
    10. Valkeapää, Annukka & Karppinen, Heimo, 2013. "Citizens' view of legitimacy in the context of Finnish forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 52-59.
    11. Bethmann, Stephanie & Simminger, Eva & Baldy, Jana & Schraml, Ulrich, 2018. "Forestry in interaction. Shedding light on dynamics of public opinion with a praxeological methodology," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 93-101.
    12. Kozová, Mária & Dobšinská, Zuzana & Pauditšová, Eva & Tomčíková, Ivana & Rakytová, Iveta, 2018. "Network and participatory governance in urban forestry: An assessment of examples from selected Slovakian cities," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 31-41.
    13. Wallin, Ida & Carlsson, Julia & Hansen, Hans Peter, 2016. "Envisioning future forested landscapes in Sweden – Revealing local-national discrepancies through participatory action research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 25-40.
    14. Teder, Meelis & Kaimre, Paavo, 2018. "The participation of stakeholders in the policy processes and their satisfaction with results: A case of Estonian forestry policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 54-62.
    15. Vainio, Annukka & Paloniemi, Riikka, 2012. "Forest owners and power: A Foucauldian study on Finnish forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 118-125.
    16. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    17. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    18. Sharifah R.S. DAWOOD, 2023. "The Use Of Quadruple Helix Model In Smart Cities Development: Evidence From Bandar Cassia Township In Penang, Malaysia," Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 18(2), pages 78-100, May.
    19. 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).
    20. Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof & Shkaruba, Anton, 2018. "Governance and legitimacy of the Forest Stewardship Council certification in the national contexts – A comparative study of Belarus and Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 180-188.

    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:70:y:2016:i:c:p:137-146. 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.