Publication: State actors and international forest certification policy: Coalitions behind FSC and PEFC in federal Argentina
State actors and international forest certification policy: Coalitions behind FSC and PEFC in federal Argentina
| dc.contributor.author | Burns, S.L. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yapura, P.F. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Giessen, L. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:55:31Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:55:31Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/595 | |
| dc.title | State actors and international forest certification policy: Coalitions behind FSC and PEFC in federal Argentina | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Limited access | |
| dcterms.issued | 2016 | |
| dcterms.language | en | |
| dcterms.type | Journal Article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Political, legal, systemic | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| fsc.topic.political | Accountability | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.coverage.country | Argentina | |
| is.coverage.countryAlpha2 | AR | |
| is.coverage.region | South America | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Case studies | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | No | |
| is.evaluation.notes | Interesting case study of how national standard development process took place in Argentina, comparing FSC and PEFC, and which issues played a role. Interesting also to see the different coalitions and power structures at work. Contains many potential lessons for FSC. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "This important role of specific state actors is reflected in theoretical innovations, leading away from forest governance but pointing towards a forest governmentality approach for political certification studies (Art, 2014). Recent empirical findings support this governmentality perspective and even suggest a crucial role for state agencies in forest certification and related politics (Cashore et al., 2004; Gale and Haward, 2011; Bartley, 2014; Gulbrandsen,2014)." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "This case of strong federalism with strong links between the national and provincial level provides a good case to analyze the role of national and subnational level as coalition partners in the development of forest certification schemes." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "However, despite what is often claimed (Cashore, 2002;Pattberg, 2005; Auld et al., 2008), state bureaucracies play a decisive and active role in forest certification processes. Forest certification through FSC was first put into the political agenda by the Secretariat of Agriculture through organizing a workshop about the potential implementation of FSC in the country. This is in line with our proposition that bureaucracies can support certification schemes by informational means. During the development of FSC national standards, both, the Secretariat of Environment and Sustainable Development and Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries participated as members of the environmental chamber.This shows that national forest bureaucracies supported FSC in Argentina, at least in the beginning, through both informational instruments and the provision of staff. By involvement in the negotiation of standards, national bureaucracies could try to influence the final standards according to their interests. However, national standards for FSC were never achieved, showing the great competition faced by this system. Faggi et al. (2014) found that the main motivation for forest companies to achieve FSC certification was legal." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "As a response to the development of a conservation-oriented forest certification scheme of high standards like FSC, production-oriented private sectors created more industry-friendly systems that could compete with, and later even replace conservation-oriented systems. By forming coalitions with national state production-oriented bureaucracies, these competing schemes gained strength. In Argentina, the formulation of national standards for PEFC endorsement, an initiative carried out by the forestry associations in coalition with the Ministry of Agriculture and the National Standardization bureaucracy, presented strong competition to FSC. In this case, the Ministry of Agriculture, by becoming allies with the forestry associations through the provision of informational instruments and technical expertise in standard development, and later by incentive instruments, such as paying fort he PEFC endorsement procedure, supported the creation of a more industry-friendly scheme that could compete with, and preferably even replace FSC in the country. A similar situation was observed in Indonesia, where the Ministry of Forestry supported forest certification by funding a national initiative (LEI) competing with FSC (Bartley, 2010; Wibowo et al. unpublished)." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "bureaucracies Competing national bureaucracies seek coalitions with domestic as well as international actors (the EU, WB, FSC international,PEFC international) to enhance their power in standard development of forest certification schemes, which private conservation and production-oriented actors try to obstruct." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "In Argentina, environmental and social rights NGOs are mainly local in scope. The bigger national environmental NGOs like Greenpeace are more focused on urban problems, and although they are supporters of FSC, arguing that it is the only means of assuring environmental and social standards (Burns and Giessen, 2014), they do not consider forest management a priority (Espach, 2005). This situation makes coalitions between national NGOs difficult. Coalitions with international environmental NGOs like WWF allowed the development of the national initiative; however, these coalitions were not strong enough to overcome local resistance from the strong private sector, especially at the regional level." | |
| is.evidenceType | Empirical study | |
| is.extent.pages | 23-29 | |
| is.extent.volume | 52 | |
| is.focus.sectors | Agriculture | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
| is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
| is.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.005 | |
| is.identifier.fscdoi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international792 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.item.reviewStatus | Peer reviewed | |
| is.journalName | Land Use Policy |