Comparing the practice of two certification schemes in Swedish forestry, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and a forest owner-dominated competitor, the author explores the capacity of forest certification to ameliorate environmental degradation in forestry while attending to different stakeholder interests. Although the inclusiveness and stringency of the FSC might impede its ability to attend to industry needs, it has a greater capacity than the forest owner-dominated scheme to enhance environmental protection in forestry. Second, although competition for support and rule-making authority has resulted in convergence of the two schemes, the forest owner-dominated program has not adopted decision-making rules and structures to reduce the influence of forest owners in standard development and operation. Third, effective implementation of non-state forest governance schemes requires national forest law enforcement and well-functioning government administrations. This helps explain why forest certification initiatives have been more successful in Sweden and other developed countries than in developing countries.
Aulén, G., & Bleckert, S. (2001). Skogsduvan [The Stockdove]. Report commissioned by the World Wide Fund for Nature-Sweden, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Swedish Federation of Forest Owners, and Swedish Forest Industries Federation.
2.
Boström, M. (2003). How state-dependent is a non-state-driven rule-making project? The case of forest certification in Sweden. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 5(2), 165-180.
3.
Boström, M. (in press). Regulatory credibility and authority through inclusiveness: Standardization organizations in cases of eco-labeling. Organization.
4.
Cashore, B. (2002). Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non-state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance, 15(4), 503-529.
5.
Cashore, B., Auld, G., & Newsom, D. (2004). Governing through markets: Forest certification and the emergence of non-state authority. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6.
Clapp, J. (1998). The privatisation of global environmental governance: ISO 14000 and the developing world. Global Governance, 4(3), 295-316.
7.
Coglianese, C., & Nash, J. (2002). Policy options for improving environmental management in the private sector. Environment, 44(9), 10-23.
8.
Cutler, A. C., Haufler, V., & Porter, T. (Eds.). (1999). Private authority and international affairs. Albany: State University of New York Press.
9.
Dahl, L. (2001). FSC i praktiken [FSC in practice]. Stockholm: Swedish Society for Nature Conservation and the World Wide Fund for Nature.
10.
Dahl, L. (2002). Bakom kulisserna. En analys av PEFC i Sverige 2002 [Behind the scenes: An analysis of the PEFC in Sweden 2002]. Stockholm: World Wide Fund for Nature.
11.
Dauvergne, P. (2001). Loggers and degradation in the Asia-Pacific: Corporations and environmental management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Eckerberg, K. (1990). Environmental protection in Swedish forestry. Aldershot, UK: Avebury.
13.
Eckerberg, K. (1995). Multiple-use forestry administration, legislation and interest groups. In M. Hytönen (Ed.), Multiple-use forestry in the Nordic countries (pp. 357-390). Vantaa: The Finnish Forest Research Institute.
14.
Elliott, C. (1999). Forest certification: Analysis from a policy network perspective. Thèse no. 1965. Lausanne: Ecole Polytechnique de Lausanne.
15.
Elliott, C., & Schlaepfer, R. (2001). The advocacy coalition framework: Application to the policy process for the development of forest certification in Sweden. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), 642-661.
16.
Environmental Data Services. (2004, August). FSC rethink aims to boost labelled timber volumes (ENDS Report 355). London: Author.
17.
Forest Stewardship Council. (2000). FSC policy on percentage based claims. Oaxaca, Mexico: FSC International Center.
18.
Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2004). Overlapping public and private governance: Can forest certification fill the gaps in the global forest regime?Global Environmental Politics, 4(2), 75-99.
19.
Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2005). Mark of sustainability? Challenges for fishery and forestry eco-labeling. Environment, 47(5), 8-23.
20.
Gulbrandsen, L. H. (in press). The effectiveness of non-state governance schemes: A comparative study of forest certification in Norway and Sweden. International Environmental Agreements.
21.
Hall, R. B., & Biersteker, T. J. (Eds.). (2002). The emergence of private authority in global governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Hallmann, S., & Hallmann, J. (2004, October 19). Uppdrag granskning. Stockholm: Swedish Television 1 (SVT1).
23.
Haufler, V. (2001). A public role for the private sector. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
24.
Hellström, E. (2001). Conflict cultures—Qualitative comparative analysis of environmental conflicts in forestry. Silva Fennica Monographs2. Helsinki: Finnish Society of Forest Science.
25.
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W., & Zito, A. R. (2003). “New” environmental policy instruments: An evolution or a revolution in environmental policy?Environmental Politics, 12(1), 201-224.
26.
Miles, E. L., Underdal, A., Andresen, S., Wettestad, J., Skjærseth, J. B., & Carlin, E. M. (2002). Environmental regime effectiveness. Confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
Ozinga, S. (2004). Footprints in the forest. Current practice and future challenges in forest certification. Gloucestershire: Fern.
28.
Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. (2005). PEFC Council Information Register: Statistic figures on PEFC certification. Retrieved July 18, 2005, from www.pefc.cz/register/statistics.asp
29.
Sabatier, P. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 98-130.
30.
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Sweden’s environmental objectives. Are we getting there? De facto 2004. Stockholm: Author.
31.
Swedish Forest Stewardship Council. (1998). Swedish FSC standard for forest certification. Uppsala: Author.
32.
Underdal, A. (2002). One question, two answers. In E. L. Mileset al. (Eds.), Environmental regime effectiveness: Confronting theory with evidence (pp. 3-45). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33.
UN Food and Agricultural Organization. (2001). Global forest resources assessment: Main report. Rome: Author.
34.
UN Millennium Project. (2005). Environment and human well-being: A practical strategy. Report of the task force on environmental sustainability. London: Earthscan.
35.
Vallejo, N., & Hauselmann, P. (2001). PEFC. An analysis (WWF discussion paper). Zurich: World Wide Fund for Nature European Forest Team.
36.
van Tatenhove, J., Arts, B., & Leroy, P. (Eds.). (2000). Political modernisation and the environment: The renewal of environmental policy arrangement. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
37.
Young, O. R., & Levy, M. A. (1999). The effectiveness of international environmental regimes. In O. R. Young (Ed.), The effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Causal connections and behavioral mechanisms (pp. 1-32). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
