Book contents
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Cambridge Studies on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Governance
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Part I Conceptual Approaches to Smart Mixes
- Part II Fisheries and Forestry
- 5 The Pursuit of Good Regulatory Design Principles in International Fisheries Law
- 6 Mixing Regional Fisheries Management and Private Certification
- 7 RFMO-MSC Smart Regulatory Mixes for Transboundary Tuna Fisheries
- 8 Smart Mixes in Forest Governance1
- 9 Governing Forest Supply Chains
- 10 Public Sector Engagement with Private Governance Programmes
- Part III Climate Change and Oil
- Part IV Concluding Remarks
- References
8 - Smart Mixes in Forest Governance
from Part II - Fisheries and Forestry
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2019
By
Book contents
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Cambridge Studies on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Governance
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Part I Conceptual Approaches to Smart Mixes
- Part II Fisheries and Forestry
- 5 The Pursuit of Good Regulatory Design Principles in International Fisheries Law
- 6 Mixing Regional Fisheries Management and Private Certification
- 7 RFMO-MSC Smart Regulatory Mixes for Transboundary Tuna Fisheries
- 8 Smart Mixes in Forest Governance1
- 9 Governing Forest Supply Chains
- 10 Public Sector Engagement with Private Governance Programmes
- Part III Climate Change and Oil
- Part IV Concluding Remarks
- References
Summary
The certification of timber, fish, agricultural products, and other commodities has become a prominent form of nonstate governance. Although research has recognized that states enable or constrain nonstate regulatory efforts, we still know too little about the interactions between private and public authority in the governance of environmental problems. Through a careful examination of the role and influence of states in forest and fisheries certification programmes, this chapter demonstrates the close interconnections between private and public forms of regulation. The analysis shows how forest and fisheries certification programmes were influenced by the particular policy domains in which they emerged, via government efforts to regulate, support, or compete with these programmes, and through public procurement policies. From the empirical examination, the chapter identifies pathways and mechanisms of public–private governance interaction and generates hypotheses that can be examined across a larger number of cases.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm , pp. 170 - 194Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Alchian, A. & Woodward, S. L. 1988. ‘The Firm is Dead; Long Live the Firm: A Review of Oliver E. Williamson’s “The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting”’. Journal of Economic Literature 26(1), 65–79.Google Scholar
Allen, D. W. 2000. ‘Transaction Costs’. In Bouckaert, B. & De Geest, G. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 893–926.Google Scholar
Allen, D. W. 1991. ‘What are Transaction Costs?’. Research in Law and Economics 14, 1–18.Google Scholar
Anderson, T. L. & Leal, D. R. 1991. Free Market Environmentalism. London, Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Arnold, L. L. 2008. ‘Deforestation in Decentralised Indonesia: What’s Law Got to Do with It?’. Law, Environment & Development Journal 4(2), 75–101.Google Scholar
Barr, C. M. et al. 2006. Decentralization of Forest Administration in Indonesia: Implications for Forest Sustainability, Economic Development and Community Livelihoods. Jakarta, CIFOR.Google Scholar
Bartley, T. 2011. ‘Transnational Governance as the Layering of Rules: Intersections of Public and Private Standards’. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 12(2), 517–542.Google Scholar
Barzel, Y. 1989. Economic Analysis of Property Rights. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barzel, Y. 1985. ‘Transaction Costs: Are They Just Costs?’. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 141(1), 4–16.Google Scholar
Benneker, C. 2008. Dealing with the State, the Market and NGOs. The Impact of Institutions on the Constitution and Performance of Community Forest Enterprises in the Lowlands of Bolivia, Doctoral thesis, Wageningen University.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. 2009. ‘Evolution of Co-Management: Role of Knowledge Generation, Bridging Organizations and Social Learning’. Journal of Environmental Management 90(5), 1692–1702.Google Scholar
Boscolo, M. & Vargas Rios, M. T. 2007. ‘Forest Law Enforcement and Rural Livelihoods in Bolivia’. In Tacconi, L. (ed.), Illegal Logging: Law Enforcement, Livelihoods and the Timber Trade. London, Earthscan, 191–217.Google Scholar
Cano Chacón, M. 2013. The Role of Information of the Marine Stewardship Council Certification Process in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Two MSC Fisheries Certified in Mexico. Dissertation, Dalhousie University.Google Scholar
Carraway, B. et al. 2002. Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas. Texas Forest Service. Available at: http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/uploadedFiles/Sustainable/bmp/round5.pdf.Google Scholar
Cole, D. H. 2002. Pollution and Property: Comparing Ownership Institutions for Environmental Protection. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cole, D. H. 2010. ‘New Forms of Private Property: Property Rights in Environmental Goods’. In Bouckaert, B. (ed.), Property Law and Economics. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar. 225–269.Google Scholar
Denman, D. R. 1978. The Place of Property: A New Recognition of the Function and Form of Property Rights in Land, Berkhamsted, Geographical Publications.Google Scholar
Espinoza, O. & Dockry, M. J. 2014. ‘Forest Certification in Bolivia: A Status Report and Analysis of Stakeholder Perspectives’. Forest Products Journal 64(3–4), 80–89.Google Scholar
Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. & Acheson, J. M. 1990. ‘The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-Two Years Later’. Human Ecology 18(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Gold, M. E. & Zuckerman, R. B. 2014. ‘Indonesian Land Rights and Development’. Columbia Journal of Asian Law 28(1), 41–70.Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H. 2010. Transnational Environmental Governance: The Emergence and Effects of the Certification of Forest and Fisheries. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H. & Auld, G. 2016. ‘Contested Accountability Logics in Evolving Nonstate Certification for Fisheries Sustainability’. Global Environmental Politics 16(2), 42–60.Google Scholar
Gupta, J., Van der Grijp, N. & Kuik, O. 2012. Climate Change, Forests and REDD: Lessons for Institutional Design. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
Harada, K. & Wiyono, . 2014. ‘Certification of a Community-Based Forest Enterprise for Improving Institutional Management and Household Income: A Case from Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia’. Small-scale Forestry 13(1), 47–64.Google Scholar
Hardin, G. 1968. ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’. Science 162(3859), 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hinrichs, A., Muhtaman, D. R. & Irianto, N. 2008. Forest Certification on Community Land in Indonesia. Eschborn, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit.Google Scholar
Hosonuma, N., Herold, M., De Sy, V., et al. 2012. ‘An Assessment of Deforestation and Forest Degradation Drivers in Developing Countries’. Environmental Research Letters 7(4), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hysing, E. 2009. ‘From Government to Governance? A Comparison of Environmental Governing in Swedish Forestry and Transport’. Governance 22(4), 647–672.Google Scholar
Hysing, E. & Olsson, J. 2005. ‘Sustainability through Good Advice? Assessing the Governance of Swedish Forest Biodiversity’. Environmental Politics 14(4), 510–526.Google Scholar
Indrarto, G. B., Murharjanti, P., Khatarina, J., et al. 2012. The Context of REDD+ in Indonesia: Drivers, Agents and Institutions. CIFOR Working Paper No. 92.Google Scholar
Johansson, J. 2014. ‘Towards Democratic and Effective Forest Governance? The Discursive Legitimation of Forest Certification in Northern Sweden’. Local Environment 19(7), 803–819.Google Scholar
Johansson, J. & Keskitalo, E. C. H. 2014. ‘Coordinating and Implementing Multiple Systems for Forest Management: Implications of the Regulatory Framework for Sustainable Forestry in Sweden’. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 6(3), 117–133.Google Scholar
Johansson, T., Hjältén, J., De Jong, J. & von Stedingk, H. 2013. ‘Environmental Considerations from Legislation and Certification in Managed Forest Stands: A Review of Their Importance for Biodiversity’. Forest Ecology and Management 303, 98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keskitalo, E. C. H., Sandstrom, C., Tysiachniouk, M. S. & Johansson, J. 2009. ‘Local Consequences of Applying International Norms: Differences in the Application of Forest Certification in Northern Sweden, Northern Finland, and Northwest Russia’. Ecology and Society 14(2), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klassen, A., Romero, C. & Putz, F. E. (eds.). 2014. Forest Stewardship Council Certification of Natural Forest Management in Indonesia: Required Improvements, Costs, Incentives, and Barriers. Vienna, IUFRO.Google Scholar
Lister, J. 2012. Corporate Social Responsibility and the State: International Approaches to Forest Co-regulation. Vancouver, UBC Press.Google Scholar
Liu, J., Faure, M. & Mascini, P. 2018. Environmental Governance of Common Pool Resources: A Comparison of Fishery and Forestry. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J., Barr, C., Resosudarmo, I. & Dermawan, A. 2006. ‘Origins and Scope of Indonesia’s Decentralization Laws’. In Barr, C., Resosudarno, I., Dermawan, A., McCarthy, J. F., Moeliniono, M. & Setiono, B., (eds.), Decentralization of Forest Administration in Indonesia: Implications for Forest Sustainability, Economic Development and Community Livelihoods. Bogor, CIFOR, 31–57.Google Scholar
McDermott, C., Cashore, B. & Kanowski, P. 2010. Global Environmental Forest Policies: An International Comparison. London, Earthscan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, C., Noah, C. & Cashore, B. 2008. ‘Differences that “Matter”? A Framework for Comparing Environmental Certification Standards and Government Policies’. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 10(1), 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystem and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC, Island Press.Google Scholar
Müller, R., Pacheco, P. & Montero, J. C. 2014. The Context of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Bolivia: Drivers, Agents and Institutions. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 108.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. 2010. ‘Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems’. American Economic Review 100(3), 641–672.Google Scholar
Overdevest, C. 2010. ‘Comparing Forest Certification Schemes: The Case of Ratcheting Standards in the Forest Sector’. Socio-Economic Review 8(1), 47–76.Google Scholar
Pacheco, P. 2004. ‘What Lies behind Decentralisation? Forest, Powers and Actors in Lowland Bolivia’. The European Journal of Development Research 16(1), 90–109.Google Scholar
Pacheco, P. 2011. ‘Land Tenure, Forest and Political Reforms: A Look at their Implications for Common-Property Forests in Lowland Bolivia’. Conference Paper: Sustaining Commons: Sustaining Our Future, the Thirteenth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons.Google Scholar
Pacheco, P., Barry, D., Cronkleton, P. & Larson, A. M. 2008. The Role of Informal Institutions in the Use of Forest Resources in Latin-America. Bogor, Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
Paillet, Y., Bergès, L., Hjältén, J., et al. 2010. ‘Biodiversity Differences between Managed and Unmanaged Forests: Meta-Analysis of Species Richness in Europe’. Conservation Biology 24(1), 101–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Real, B. 2002. ‘Legal Reforms in Bolivia in the 1990s: Challenges and Opportunities for Decentralization, Indigenous Rights and Forest Management’. Doctoral thesis, University of Florida.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. S., Naiman, R. J. & Bisson, P. A. 2012. ‘How Did Fixed-width Buffers Become Standard Practice for Protecting Freshwaters and Their Riparian Areas from Forest Harvest Practices?’. Freshwater Science 31(1), 232–238.Google Scholar
Safiti, M. 2010. ‘Forest Tenure in Indonesia: The Socio-legal Challenges of Securing Communities’ Rights’. Doctoral thesis, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Sahlin, M. 2013. Credibility at Stake: How FSC Sweden Fails to Safeguard Forest Biodiversity. Stockholm, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.Google Scholar
Sahlin, M. 2011. Under the Cover of the Swedish Forestry Model. Stockholm, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.Google Scholar
Sari, I. M. 2013. ‘Community Forests at a Crossroads: Lessons Learned from Lubuk Beringin Village Forest and Guguk Customary Forests in Jambi Province, Sumatra, Indonesia’. Doctoral thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Schlager, E. & Ostrom, E. 1999. ‘Property Rights Regimes and Coastal Fisheries: An Empirical Analysis’. In McGinnis, M. D. (ed.), Polycentric Governance and Development: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan Press. 87–113.Google Scholar
Singer, B. 2009. ‘Indonesian Forest-Related Policies: A Multisectoral Overview of Public Policies in Indonesia’s Forests since 1965’. Doctoral thesis, Institut d’Etudes Politiques and CIRAD, France. Available at: http://b-singer.fr/pdf/Forest_policies_in_Indonesia.pdf.Google Scholar
Steering Committee of the State-of-Knowledge Assessment of Standards and Certification. 2012. Toward Sustainability: The Roles and Limitations of Certification, Washington, DC, RESOLVE Inc. Available at: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/sites/default/files/2016-08/toward-sustainability.pdf.Google Scholar
Stora Enso. 2014. ‘Global Responsibility Performance’. Part of Stora Enso’s Annual Report 2014. Available at: http://assets.storaenso.com/se/com/DownloadCenter-Documents/Global_responsibility_Performance_2014.pdf.Google Scholar
Stroup, R. L. & Baden, J. A. 1983. Natural Resources: Bureaucratic Myths and Environmental Management. Cambridge, Ballinger Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Sunderlin, W. D., Hatcher, J. & Liddle, M. 2008. From Exclusion to Ownership? Challenges and Opportunities in Advancing Forest Tenure Reform. Washington, DC, Rights and Resources Initiative.Google Scholar
Sweeney, B. W., Bott, T. L., Jackson, J. K., et al. 2004. ‘Riparian Deforestation, Stream Narrowing, and Loss of Stream Ecosystem Services’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101(39), 14132–14137.Google Scholar
Uggla, Y., Forsberg, M. & Larsson, S. 2016. ‘Dissimilar Framings of Forest Biodiversity Preservation: Uncertainty and Legal Ambiguity as Contributing Factors’. Forest Policy and Economics 62, 36–42.Google Scholar
Verry, E. S. & Dolloff, C. A. 2000. ‘The Challenge of Managing for Healthy Riparian Areas’. In Verry, E. S., Hornbeck, J. W. & Dolloff, C. A. (eds.), Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press LLC. 1–22.Google Scholar
Wood, P. J. 2009. ‘Public Forests, Private Governance: The Role of Provincial Governments in FSC Forest Certification’. Doctoral thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar