The participation of non-industrial private forest owners in forest certification programs: The role and effectiveness of intermediary organisations

Boakye-Danquah, John; Reed, Maureen G.

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2018.12.006

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study used an online survey to analyze stakeholder opinions and perceptions towards PES schemes within the framework of COST Action CA15206-PESFOR-W (Forests for Water). Studies have shown that the main aspects of PES schemes are: ecosystem services assessments and their promotion, e.g., [32,41,50,53], which can help achieve environmental and socioeconomic targets with PES schemes, e.g., [50,54,55], and institutional contexts of PES schemes, e.g., [38,39,56].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do Stakeholders Working on the Forest–Water Nexus Perceive Payments for Ecosystem Services?

Báliková

Červená

Meo

et al. 2019

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays, great emphasis is placed on the relationship between forest and water because forests are considered as substantial sources of many water ecosystem services. The aim of this paper is to analyze the stakeholder opinions towards the relationship between forests and water and the potential development of water-related payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes. The study is developed in the context of COST Action CA15206-PESFOR-W (Forests for Water) aimed at synthesizing current knowledge about the PES schemes across Europe. The stakeholder opinions were mapped out using a structured questionnaire consisting of 20 questions divided into four thematic sections. The data were collected through an online survey. The results showed opinions of 142 stakeholders from 23 countries, mainly from Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. In order to analyze the collected data, the stakeholders were grouped in buyers, sellers, intermediaries, and knowledge providers. The survey results indicated that the most important category of water ecosystem services according to our sample of stakeholders is regulating services followed by provisioning services. Further findings pointed out the highest importance that shared values and direct changes in land management can have when designing water-related PES schemes. The role of public authorities and collective collaboration of different stakeholders, with emphasis on local and expert knowledge, are also identified as of crucial importance. The results show that stakeholder opinions can serve as a starting point when designing PES schemes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do Stakeholders Working on the Forest–Water Nexus Perceive Payments for Ecosystem Services?

Báliková

Červená

Meo

et al. 2019

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The format for the certification was that of group certification, managed by forest companies or certification organisations. This meant that the motives for certification for the forest owners were altered; peer pressure, benchmarking and group practices may have lowered the threshold for certification [24].…”

Section: Forest Certification and Contribution To Environmental Respo...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Today, forest certification is well-established in the Swedish forest context, and forest owners with multiple objectives are just as likely to be aware about forest certification. Forest owners that don't experience the financial benefits of forest certification can still be interested in certification due to value alignment [24]. Contributing to environmental responsibility through certification is an important motive [11,36].…”

Section: Forest Certification and Contribution To Environmental Respo...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most studies of forestry certifications are of quantitative nature. Previous qualitative studies focused on in-depth and context-based knowledge of forest owners and certifications have been used to study drivers and barriers for smallholder certification [22], forest owners' interest and perception prior certification [23], and the role of intermediary organisation [24]. These studies have contributed to the identification of a research gap that relates to the demographics of current small forestry owners and their motives to certify their forestry operations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Motives for Sustainability Certification—Private Certified Forest Owners’ Perspectives

Thorning

Mark‐Herbert

2022

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional forest-management practices are currently being scrutinised. Forest certification may verify sustainable development practices in primary forest production. However, certification of privately owned forest lands cannot be taken for granted, as it is associated with the demands and challenges of forest management. Despite these challenges, some private owners of forest lands chose to certify their operations. The aim of this study is to explain these motives for certification. A qualitative approach, based on thematic interviews with selected forest owners, offers a context-bound and contemporary understanding. The implications of this research are seen in market development for certified forest resources and policy adaptations to support voluntary certification schemes.

show abstract

“…Among the main motivations for participating in forest certification are the following: landowner interest, knowledge and awareness, alignment of certification aims with landowner's values, low cost, market access, and benefits (e.g., Boakye-Danquah and Reed 2019). Public image or feedback on management practices are mentioned by community-based forestry practitioners, while their expectations for economic benefits are low (Crow and Danks 2010).…”

Section: Voluntary Certification Schemesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Policy Instruments for Climate-Smart Mountain Forestry

Dubová

Slavíková

Azevedo

et al. 2021

Climate-Smart Forestry in Mountain Regions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implementing the Climate-Smart Forestry (CSF) concept into practice requires interaction among key stakeholders, especially forest owners and managers, policymakers (or regulators in general), forest consultants, and forest users. But what could be the most effective policy instruments to achieve climate smartness in mountain forests? Which ones would be the most acceptable for forest owners? And for the local forest communities? Should they be designed and implemented with the use of participatory approaches or rather on a top-down basis? This chapter summarizes key policy instruments structured in three subsequent categories: command-and-control, voluntary market-based instruments, and community cooperation. It provides examples of their functioning in the forestry sector and discusses their suitability for the implementation of climate smart forestry. It appears that there are many policy instruments used with varying degrees of success such as forest concessions or voluntary certification schemes. A wide range of instruments are responding to direct regulation; this has been seen as insufficient to deal with natural hazards and calamities.

show abstract

The participation of non-industrial private forest owners in forest certification programs: The role and effectiveness of intermediary organisations

Cited by 13 publications

References 26 publications

How Do Stakeholders Working on the Forest–Water Nexus Perceive Payments for Ecosystem Services?

How Do Stakeholders Working on the Forest–Water Nexus Perceive Payments for Ecosystem Services?

Motives for Sustainability Certification—Private Certified Forest Owners’ Perspectives

Review of Policy Instruments for Climate-Smart Mountain Forestry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About