Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Legitimacy and Effectiveness of Forest Certification in Sweden- A North- South devide in forest governance
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology.
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology.
2007 (English)In: IUFRO, Division 6.12.02 – Forest governance, conference ”Scientific framework for environmental and forest governance”, August 27-28, Göttingen, Germany, 2007Conference paper, Published paper (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
Abstract [en]

Abstract

Forest certification can be conceived of one of many rapidly growing non-state market driven (NSMD) modes of governance. The effectiveness of NSMD schemes like forest certification is usually evaluated by various indicators like standard contents, certified area, degree of participation etc. However, the effectiveness of NSMD can be evaluated both in terms of problem solving capacity (out-put legitimacy) and in terms of its procedure (input legitimacy). The development forest certification in Sweden illustrates how the history of forestry, including sociology of ownership, affects the development and adoption of different certification standards through, among other factors, differences in input legitimacy. Industrial and northern forestry favours FSC whereas southern small-scale private forest owners favour PEFC certification. By studying certification through input and output legitimacy we can better understand forest owner choices and preferences between the competing FSC and PEFC certification systems. Out-put efficiency can be operationalised as the demand of a standard times the area certified. The near complementary geographical coverage of the two schemes and their high degree of acceptance in their different “areas of operation” confers a high degree of output legitimacy – but in different parts of the country and for different types of ownership.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2007.
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-21139OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-21139DiVA: diva2:187665
Available from: 2007-12-05 Created: 2007-12-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

By organisation
Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 16 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf