Publication:
Differences in effectiveness of forest certification between the global North and South, a problem of inclusiveness ?

dc.contributor.authorRavenhorst, A.
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-23T18:57:50Z
dc.date.available2022-01-23T18:57:50Z
dc.identifier.urihttps://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/990
dc.titleDifferences in effectiveness of forest certification between the global North and South, a problem of inclusiveness ?en
dcterms.abstractEven though forest certification was initially created in order to protect tropical forests, research has shown that these systems have not been effective at certifying tropical forests in the global South compared to boreal and temperate forests in the global North. Tropical forests are vital for our planet's health and it is thus important to study this difference and analyse the possible causes. This thesis intends to find new insights by investigating whether the difference in effectiveness can be explained by differences in inclusiveness. In order to answer the research question, this thesis will compare two cases that have both been described as successful examples of forest certification: the FSC in Sweden and the FSC in Bolivia. By comparing a tropical to a non-tropical country, which has hardly been done before, this thesis will contribute to broader area of literature concerned with the emergence, evolution and effectiveness of forest certification within the field of environmental governance. These two cases are especially interesting because both are described as successful, yet still have a huge difference in effectiveness in terms of percentage of total forest area being certified. Studying this difference and analysing the underlying causes is imperative to better understand why forest certification has been more effective in the global North than in the global South.en
dcterms.accessRightsPublic
dcterms.accessRightsOpen access
dcterms.bibliographicCitationRavenhorst, A. 2019. Differences in effectiveness of forest certification between the global North and South, a problem of inclusiveness? Masters Thesis. Leiden University.en
dcterms.issued2019
dcterms.languageen
dcterms.licenseOtheren
dcterms.publisherUniversiteit Leiden
dcterms.typeThesis
dspace.entity.typePublication
fsc.evidenceCategoryFSC impact-related
fsc.focus.sustainDimensionEconomic
fsc.focus.sustainDimensionPolitical, legal, systemic
fsc.subjectForests
fsc.subjectCertification
is.availability.fullTextFull text available
is.contributor.funderTypePrivate funds (NGOs, companies, VSS self-funded etc)
is.contributor.memberForest Stewardship Council
is.evaluation.collectionCompany/certified entities /co-op data records
is.evaluation.dataSourceData by scheme / tool under evaluation
is.evaluation.dataSourceIntergovernmental data (World Bank, UN, FAO data)
is.evidenceSubTypeEmpirical study - qualitative
is.evidenceTypeEmpirical study
is.focus.productsForestry products
is.focus.sdgSDG 17 - Partnerships for the Goals
is.focus.sectorsAgriculture
is.focus.sectorsForestry
is.focus.sustainDimensionEnvironmental
is.focus.sustainDimensionEconomic
is.focus.sustainIssueRights of indigenous peoples and local communities
is.focus.sustainLensTransnational governance
is.focus.sustainOutcomeGovernance mechanisms
is.focus.systemElementMandE outcomes and impacts
is.focus.systemElementMandE performance monitoring
is.identifier.codeImpacts
is.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international767
is.identifier.schemeNameForest Stewardship Council
is.identifier.schemeTypeVoluntary Sustainability Standards
is.link.urlhttps://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/77537/Final%20Version%20MA%20Thesis%20Anne%20van%20Ravenhorst.pdf?sequence=1
Download