Reporting practices of State Forest Enterprises in Europe

Liubachyna, Anna; Secco, Laura; Pettenella, D.

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.019

Cited by 29 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As a consequence, the concept refers de facto to a wide range of initiatives dealing with diverse societal challenges, and it is probably more widespread in practice 7 than reported in scientific literature (ibidem), not emerging as strongly and as frequently everywhere. For example, it was noted that Anglo-Saxon countries are more socially innovative than the countries of continental Europe (Nicholls et al, 2015), where forest sectors are still predominantly hierarchically organized, dominated by public actors, and decisions are taken in a top-down manner (Buttoud et al, 2011;Brukas, 2015;Liubachyna, 2017;Rogelja and Shannon, 2017;Secco et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a method of evaluating social innovation in forest-dependent rural communities: First suggestions from a science-stakeholder collaboration

Secco¹,

Pisani²,

Re³

et al. 2019

Forest Policy and Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we refer to "forestry domain" in a broad sense, including activities, forest sector components, actors and policies connected with the use and management of forest resources. For example, "nature tourism" is included within the forestry domain if it is based on recreational or educational activities organized in a forest site or in relation to forest resources (e.g., Wilkes-Alleman, J., Ludvig, A., 2019). 2 More information about the EU-funded Horizon 2020 project SIMRA (Social Innovation in Marginalized Rural Areas) that is at the basis of this definition is available at: www.simra-h2020.eu. Such project involves scientists, NGOs and practitioners aimed at understanding how social innovation emerges, what its impacts are and how it can be supported through policy. 10 The GIZ Monitoring and Evaluation Unit does not distinguish between outputs, outcomes, impacts, but simply refers to 'results'.According to this model, any output, outcome, or impact is a goal, and anything that may be achieved, more or less directly or indirectly, is a result. 11 The identification of existing evaluation frameworks, approaches, methods and tools for analysis was carried out by expert teams each working on one of four main domains, namely the economic, social, environmental, and institutional aspects. They each followed common selection criteria and procedures defined by specific guidelines . Overall, 111 frameworks, approaches and methods were fully analysed through the use of 107 variables. They have been identified in the four domains and pre-analysed for the purposes of SIMRA project respectively by: ICRE8 (Greece) (economic aspects), University of Foggia (Italy) (social aspects), EFI (Finland) (environmental aspects) and DLO (The Netherlands) (governance/institutional aspects). The trans-disciplinary frameworks/approaches/methods and tools have been identified and pre-analysed by the University of Padova (Italy). More details are available on: Secco et al. 2017 (Deliverable 4.2; www.simra-h2020.eu). 12 These experts and stakeholders are the official members of the SIMRA Social Innovation Think Tank (SITT), created in 2016 by the SIMRA Consortium. Since its creation, SIMRA has carried out three consultations, two online (July 2016 and July 2017), and one face-to face workshop (held in Bratislava, Slovakia, October 26 to 28 2016). The SITT stakeholder consultation is one of the key elements of SIMRA project, carried out under main responsibility and coordination of IFE SAS (Slovakia), which arranged both the workshop in Bratislava and the two online consultations. In the various rounds, the SITT members were consulted on several different issues related to social innovation in marginalised rural areas, not only on methodology aspects. More information are available at: www.simra-h2020.eu.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a method of evaluating social innovation in forest-dependent rural communities: First suggestions from a science-stakeholder collaboration

Secco¹,

Pisani²,

Re³

et al. 2019

Forest Policy and Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In that respect, favorable policy conditions could stimulate the engagement of private forest owners in SI initiatives, creating collaborations and partnerships and diversifying their activities for social, environmental and economic benefits. These collaborations and partnerships could spin off new organizational and governance arrangements among state, private and civil actors related to forestry, thus transforming a hierarchically organized forest sector, and shifting the traditional understanding of forestry as a primary production branch of the economy (Liubachyna et al, 2017;Rogelja and Shannon, 2017;Secco et al, 2017;Brukas, 2015;Weiss, 2013;Buttoud et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implications of policy framework conditions for the development of forestry-based social innovation initiatives in Slovenia

Rogelja

Ludvig

Weiss

et al. 2018

Forest Policy and Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regardless of the crucial role of civil society in social innovation, European Union (EU) social innovation concepts emphasized market-economic features rather than social by prioritizing social business over social movements. By emphasizing the economic features of social innovation, social enterprises, as ventures with both social and economic goals, are frequently associated with social innovation, especially in the developed economies. As an EU member country, Slovenia needed to adjust its policies to the EU social innovation concepts. Bearing in mind the EU interpretation of social innovation and the significance of state policies for its development, our aim is to investigate the policy framework conditions for the development of forestry-based social innovation initiatives in Slovenia. We found out that the prevalent economic understanding of social innovation reflects in Slovenian policy documents by equating social innovation with social enterprise. In this sense, the view of social innovation as both growth engine and a way for solving societal problems translates into explicit statements on social innovation in cohesion policy documents and progresses by operationalization of social innovation through indicators solely on social enterprise. Within the regulatory framework on social entrepreneurship, social enterprise is defined strictly with respect to legal forms, activities, profit sharing and governance, imposing barriers to the registration and development. Similarly to cohesion policy, the Rural Development Programme embraces a market-oriented understanding of social innovation and focuses explicitly on social enterprise. Forest policy documents do not explicitly mention social innovation or social enterprise. This is reasonable for documents adopted before 2011 when social innovation and social enterprises became a part of the prevailing discourse in Slovenia. However, newly adopted forest policy documents also do not integrate either social innovation or social enterprise. As forestry-based social innovation initiatives cannot be officially recognized as such, there are two possible ways for them to develop. The first applies to marketoriented, forestry-based social innovation initiatives that offer new products or services. Such initiatives can register as social enterprises and mobilize resources they can access within the social entrepreneurship regulatory framework and the Rural Development Programme measures explicitly addressing social enterprise. The second way addresses forestry-based social innovation initiatives that are not market-oriented. Those initiatives will have to navigate through policy framework conditions for resources available through the Rural Development Programme and forest policy instruments that target cooperation and networking.

show abstract

“…State-owned forestry enterprises in Europe are often for-profit companies that have sustainable forest management and sustainable wood production as a core activity [70]. In Nordic countries, there is an increased importance of forest environmental services with new business activities being developed, such as renewable energy, real estate and recreation activities [71]. In China, these types of enterprises share similarities with non-profits and focus on societal benefits, such as enhancing ecosystem functions and economic benefits for the community [72].…”

Section: Nature-based Organisationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovating with Nature: From Nature-Based Solutions to Nature-Based Enterprises

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nature-based solutions (NBS) to address societal challenges have been widely recognised and adopted by governments in climate change and biodiversity strategies. Nevertheless, significant barriers exist for the necessary large-scale implementation of NBS and market development is still in its infancy. This study presents findings from a systematic review of literature and a survey on private sector agents in the planning and implementation of NBS, with the aim to identify them. In this study, we propose a typology for organisations delivering NBS and a categorisation of their economic activities. The most common organisation type found is nature-based enterprise which offers products or services where nature is a core element and used sustainably and engages in economic activity. Moreover, eleven categories of economic activities were identified, ranging from ecosystem restoration, living green roofs, and eco-tourism to smart technologies and community engagement for NBS. Nature-based enterprises contribute to a diverse range of sustainable economic activities, that standard industry classification systems do not adequately account for. The recognition of the value created by these activities is essential for designing effective policy support measures, and for market development of the sector and its potential to facilitate the wider adoption of NBS.

show abstract

Reporting practices of State Forest Enterprises in Europe

Cited by 29 publications

References 16 publications

Towards a method of evaluating social innovation in forest-dependent rural communities: First suggestions from a science-stakeholder collaboration

Towards a method of evaluating social innovation in forest-dependent rural communities: First suggestions from a science-stakeholder collaboration

Implications of policy framework conditions for the development of forestry-based social innovation initiatives in Slovenia

Innovating with Nature: From Nature-Based Solutions to Nature-Based Enterprises

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About