IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v85y2017ip1p147-160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing national impacts of international environmental regimes for biodiversity protection and climate mitigatio in boreal forestry – Experiences from using a quantitative approach

Author

Listed:
  • Solberg, Birger
  • Bergseng, Even
  • Lindstad, Berit H.

Abstract

Several international regimes provide numerous recommendations for sustainable forest management and there is a growing interest in knowing more about the potential and actual effects of such regimes and improving their effectiveness. National implementation of such regimes go through different stages of development, from changes ‘on paper’ in regulations and guidelines (labelled output), to behavioural changes among target groups (labelled outcome) before responses are seen on the natural environment (labelled impacts). The main purpose of this paper is to apply a quantitative bio-economic model for analysing the potential impacts on Norwegian forestry of two international regimes (the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) and an extended version of the Kyoto Protocol), and to discuss the weak and strong points in using this kind of method in policy analysis. Our findings imply that: (i) The CBD regime has rather limited impacts on the forest structure and harvest as long as it is practised with an intensity corresponding to the forest certification schemes used at present in Norway, or with lower intensity. (ii) Practiced with maximum consideration to biodiversity the potential impact of the CBD regime on the forest structure and harvest is strong, and it can reduce the income from timber production by 30% or more compared to present forestry practices. This reduction is highest when forest climate mitigation is given low consideration. (iii) There is a significant mutual relationship between the two regimes analysed, in the meaning that the weaker one of them is implemented, the stronger marginal impact has the other. (iv) Using quantitative bio-economic modelling in policy impact analyses like this contributes to the methodological literature on regime effectiveness, and has several advantages. But due considerations should be given to underlying basic assumptions related to agent behaviour and the ecosystem detail level required.

Suggested Citation

  • Solberg, Birger & Bergseng, Even & Lindstad, Berit H., 2017. "Assessing national impacts of international environmental regimes for biodiversity protection and climate mitigatio in boreal forestry – Experiences from using a quantitative approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 147-160.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:85:y:2017:i:p1:p:147-160
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.09.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934117304392
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.09.003?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. Solberg, Birger & Moiseyev, Alexander & Kallio, A. Maarit I., 2003. "Economic impacts of accelerating forest growth in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 157-171, July.
    2. Oran R. Young, 2001. "Inferences and Indices: Evaluating the Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 1(1), pages 99-121, February.
    3. Sebastian Oberthür & Thomas Gehring, 2006. "Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: The Case of the Cartagena Protocol and the World Trade Organization," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 6(2), pages 1-31, May.
    4. Bolkesjø, Torjus Folsland & Solberg, Birger & Wangen, Knut Reidar, 2007. "Heterogeneity in nonindustrial private roundwood supply: Lessons from a large panel of forest owners," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 7-28, May.
    5. Bolkesjo, Torjus Folsland & Baardsen, Sjur, 2002. "Roundwood supply in Norway: micro-level analysis of self-employed forest owners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 55-64, May.
    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. Park, Mi Sun & Lee, Hyowon, 2019. "Accountability and reciprocal interests of bilateral forest cooperation under the global forest regime," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 32-44.
    2. Joana Carlos Bezerra & Jan Sindt & Lukas Giessen, 2018. "The rational design of regional regimes: contrasting Amazonian, Central African and Pan-European Forest Governance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 635-656, October.

    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. Trømborg, Erik & Havskjold, Monica & Lislebø, Ole & Rørstad, Per Kristian, 2011. "Projecting demand and supply of forest biomass for heating in Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 7049-7058.
    2. Koch, Sebastian P. & Schwarzbauer, Peter & Stern, Tobias, 2013. "Monthly wood supply behavior of associated forest owners in Austria—Insights from the analysis of a micro-econometric panel," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 331-346.
    3. Rodríguez-Vicente, Verónica & Marey-Pérez, Manuel F., 2010. "Analysis of individual private forestry in northern Spain according to economic factors related to management," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 269-295, December.
    4. Kuuluvainen, Jari & Karppinen, Heimo & Hänninen, Harri & Uusivuori, Jussi, 2014. "Effects of gender and length of land tenure on timber supply in Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 363-379.
    5. Tobias Böhmelt & Jürg Vollenweider, 2015. "Information flows and social capital through linkages: the effectiveness of the CLRTAP network," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 105-123, May.
    6. Raul Lejano, 2006. "The Design of Environmental Regimes: Social Construction, Contextuality, and Improvisation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 187-207, June.
    7. Beach, Robert H. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Yang, Jui-Chen & Murray, Brian C. & Abt, Robert C., 2005. "Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management: a review and synthesis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 261-281, March.
    8. Asbjørn Aaheim & Rajiv Chaturvedi & Anitha Sagadevan, 2011. "Integrated modelling approaches to analysis of climate change impacts on forests and forest management," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 247-266, February.
    9. Josset, Clement & Shanafelt, David W. & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Probabilistic typology of private forest owners: A tool to target the development of new market for ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    10. Melanie van Driel & Frank Biermann & Rakhyun E. Kim & Marjanneke J. Vijge, 2022. "International organisations as ‘custodians’ of the sustainable development goals? Fragmentation and coordination in sustainability governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(5), pages 669-682, November.
    11. Hengeveld, Geerten M. & Schüll, Elmar & Trubins, Renats & Sallnäs, Ola, 2017. "Forest Landscape Development Scenarios (FoLDS)–A framework for integrating forest models, owners' behaviour and socio-economic developments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P2), pages 245-255.
    12. Sanderink, Lisa & Nasiritousi, Naghmeh, 2020. "How institutional interactions can strengthen effectiveness: The case of multi-stakeholder partnerships for renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    13. Julia Touza & Charles Perrings & María Chas Amil, 2010. "Harvest Decisions and Spatial Landscape Attributes: The Case of Galician Communal Forests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 75-91, May.
    14. Frank Biermann & Michele Betsill & Joyeeta Gupta & Norichika Kanie & Louis Lebel & Diana Liverman & Heike Schroeder & Bernd Siebenhüner & Ruben Zondervan, 2010. "Earth system governance: a research framework," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 277-298, December.
    15. Arild Underdal, 2013. "Meeting common environmental challenges: the co-evolution of policies and practices," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 15-30, March.
    16. Felix Kalaba & Claire Quinn & Andrew Dougill, 2014. "Policy coherence and interplay between Zambia’s forest, energy, agricultural and climate change policies and multilateral environmental agreements," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 181-198, May.
    17. Cai, Zhen & Narine, Lana Landra & D'Amato, Anthony & Aguilar, Francisco Xavier, 2016. "Attitudinal and revenue effects on non-industrial private forest owners' willingness-to-harvest timber and woody biomass," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 52-61.
    18. Kallio, A. Maarit I. & Hänninen, Riitta & Vainikainen, Nina & Luque, Sandra, 2008. "Biodiversity value and the optimal location of forest conservation sites in Southern Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 232-243, September.
    19. Pickering, Jonathan & Skovgaard, Jakob & Kim, Soyeun & Roberts, J. Timmons & Rossati, David & Stadelmann, Martin & Reich, Hendrikje, 2015. "Acting on Climate Finance Pledges: Inter-Agency Dynamics and Relationships with Aid in Contributor States," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 149-162.
    20. James Hollway & Jean-Frédéric Morin & Joost Pauwelyn, 2020. "Structural conditions for novelty: the introduction of new environmental clauses to the trade regime complex," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 61-83, March.

    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:85:y:2017:i:p1:p:147-160. 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.