Experiences of policy reforms of the forest sector in transition and other countries

Nilsson, S.

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2004.04.001

Cited by 33 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For governing, a range of different tools or policy instruments has been used to encourage compliance with forestry and environmental policies. These include formal rule systems (including both property rights and public regulations), property regimes, taxes and revenue systems, subsides, extension services, non-legally-binding international agreements, manuals and plans, political rhetoric and awareness campaigns (Appelstrand, 2007;Nilsson, 2005).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Swedish forest commons — A matter of governance?

Holmgren

Keskitalo

Lidestav

2010

Forest Policy and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Swedish forest commons — A matter of governance?

Holmgren

Keskitalo

Lidestav

2010

Forest Policy and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Generally, public policy instruments are differentiated into three major categories: (1) legal and regulatory instruments; (2) economic and financial instruments; (3) "soft" instruments; in other words, what could be conceived of as the "sticks", the "carrots" and the "sermons" of public policy [21,24]. Some also add a fourth type of instrument to the list above, highlighting the role of institutional instruments that set the ground rules for interaction: for instance, property regimes [25][26][27]. In addition, soft instruments are often supported by non-government centered, market-based or other forms of regulation e.g., through development of standards or codes of conduct.…”

Section: Emerging Areas Choice Of Policy Instruments and Compliancementioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing Local Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Actions: The Role of Various Policy Instruments in a Multi-Level Governance Context

Keskitalo¹,

Juhola²,

Baron³

et al. 2017

Sustainable Cities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Recently, considerable focus, e.g., in the fifth IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Assessment Report (2014) has been trained on why adaptation and mitigation have not been developed more than at present, with relatively few local government actions taken compared with, for example, more discursive policy agreement on the importance of the issue of climate change. Going beyond a focus on general limits and barriers, this comment suggests that one important issue is that climate change has not yet been sufficiently integrated into the state regulative structure of legislation and policy-making. A comparison between three cases suggests that local developments that are not supported in particular by binding regulation are unlikely to achieve the same general level of implementation as issues for which such regulative demands (and thereby also requirements for prioritization) exist. This constitutes an important consideration for the development of adaptation and mitigation as policy areas, including on the local level.Keywords: climate change; adaptation; mitigation; local government; municipality; Finland; Norway; Denmark Challenges of Climate PolicyWhile increasing focus is placed on policy development in relation to climate change, it is yet unclear as to how successful or efficient these efforts developed so far are in terms of tackling climate change, both mitigation and adaptation. In reviewing the progress of adaptation, the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that implementation has so far been relatively limited [1] and discusses multiple potential limitations and barriers to this. With regard to mitigation, the need for further development within international commitments, as well as national and sub-national development, is highlighted. To a large extent, then, the social complexity of implementation and gaining political will for the development in the face of multiple stressors may be regarded as limiting progress towards managing climate change [2][3][4]. This limitation means that there is a need to problematize the structure of implementation further.

show abstract

“…Lithuania so far lacks an NFP when judged against the internationally acknowledged principles of broad stakeholder participation, holistic coordination, decentralization and iterative planning [44]. If conducted properly, such a genuine NFP could institutionalize a fairer and more transparent representation of different interests and be instrumental for creating a more holistic vision of the sector [45].…”

Section: Implications For Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic Forest Sustainability: Comparison between Lithuania and Sweden

Brukas

Mizaras

Mizaraitė

2014

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The study conceptualizes economic forest sustainability as "the forest-related income and economic well-being sustained over time" and then compares Lithuania and Sweden at different scales. Sweden adopts a holistic perspective of the forest sector, where forestry and forest industries are perceived as a well-integrated economic branch. Forestry is expected to deliver raw material to forest industries, at the same time creating good preconditions for profitable forest management. Forest owners are given large freedom to act according to market signals and their own household needs, while the resulting intensive forest management cumulatively leads to a significant contribution to the country's welfare. Lithuania, in contrast, lacks an integrated sector perspective, forestry and forest industries being regarded as two separate realms. Private forest property rights are severely constrained by numerous legislative stipulations, leading to a significant reduction of economic value in production forests. On top of that, thirty percent of private owners face additional restrictions through forestland zoning, leading to further substantial loss of economic value. We suggest several measures for improving the economic forest sustainability in Lithuania, where a genuine national forest program could serve as a suitable bearing medium. OPEN ACCESSForests 2015, 6 48

show abstract

Experiences of policy reforms of the forest sector in transition and other countries

Cited by 33 publications

References 7 publications

Swedish forest commons — A matter of governance?

Swedish forest commons — A matter of governance?

Implementing Local Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Actions: The Role of Various Policy Instruments in a Multi-Level Governance Context

Economic Forest Sustainability: Comparison between Lithuania and Sweden

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About