Conflicting interests in the standard setting process of the PEFC forest certification scheme in Finland

IF 4.6 2区 农林科学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Forest Policy and Economics Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-03 DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103641
Tiina Piiroinen, Minna Pappila, Anna Ott
{"title":"Conflicting interests in the standard setting process of the PEFC forest certification scheme in Finland","authors":"Tiina Piiroinen,&nbsp;Minna Pappila,&nbsp;Anna Ott","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study investigates the revision of the PEFC forest certification standard, a multi-stakeholder process, using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). It addresses changes in the standard's ecological criteria and the factors affecting them. Ten members of the standard working group were interviewed, supported by a document review. Three advocacy coalitions—forestry, environmental, and social— were identified, contrasting with prior studies on Finnish forest policy. The forestry coalition outnumbered the other two coalitions in their policy-relevant resources. Decision-making authority and opportunities for equal participation were perceived as weak by the others. It had sufficient resources to invest in strong participation, access to information and skilful leadership. The historical dominance of the forestry coalition when it comes to Finnish forest policy persisted, and the revision process indicated a lack of trust and a divide between coalitions. Dissatisfaction with the ecological criteria led to the withdrawal of the environmental coalition representatives from the standard working group. Changes in the ecological criteria between 2014 and 2022 were minor, despite the urgent need to reverse impairments from previous updates of the standard. The influence of ecological science on the revision was weak. Attempts to weaken criteria on old-growth forests were observed, raising questions about the forestry coalition's commitment to biodiversity protection. The level of environmental, social, and economic sustainability in PEFC standards were largely determined by the forestry coalition.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12451,"journal":{"name":"Forest Policy and Economics","volume":"181 ","pages":"Article 103641"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125002205","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study investigates the revision of the PEFC forest certification standard, a multi-stakeholder process, using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). It addresses changes in the standard's ecological criteria and the factors affecting them. Ten members of the standard working group were interviewed, supported by a document review. Three advocacy coalitions—forestry, environmental, and social— were identified, contrasting with prior studies on Finnish forest policy. The forestry coalition outnumbered the other two coalitions in their policy-relevant resources. Decision-making authority and opportunities for equal participation were perceived as weak by the others. It had sufficient resources to invest in strong participation, access to information and skilful leadership. The historical dominance of the forestry coalition when it comes to Finnish forest policy persisted, and the revision process indicated a lack of trust and a divide between coalitions. Dissatisfaction with the ecological criteria led to the withdrawal of the environmental coalition representatives from the standard working group. Changes in the ecological criteria between 2014 and 2022 were minor, despite the urgent need to reverse impairments from previous updates of the standard. The influence of ecological science on the revision was weak. Attempts to weaken criteria on old-growth forests were observed, raising questions about the forestry coalition's commitment to biodiversity protection. The level of environmental, social, and economic sustainability in PEFC standards were largely determined by the forestry coalition.
在芬兰PEFC森林认证计划的标准制定过程中的利益冲突
本研究调查了PEFC森林认证标准的修订,这是一个多方利益相关者的过程,使用倡导联盟框架(ACF)。它讨论了标准生态标准的变化以及影响它们的因素。对标准工作组的10名成员进行了采访,并进行了文件审查。与先前对芬兰森林政策的研究相比,确定了三个倡导联盟——林业、环境和社会。林业联盟在与政策有关的资源方面超过了其他两个联盟。其他国家认为决策权力和平等参与的机会很弱。它有足够的资源投资于强有力的参与、获取信息的机会和熟练的领导。林业联盟在芬兰森林政策方面的历史主导地位持续存在,修订过程表明联盟之间缺乏信任和分歧。对生态标准的不满导致环境联盟代表退出标准工作组。2014年至2022年间,生态标准的变化很小,尽管迫切需要扭转先前标准更新带来的损害。生态科学对修正的影响较弱。人们观察到有人试图削弱对原始森林的标准,这引发了人们对林业联盟对生物多样性保护的承诺的质疑。PEFC标准中的环境、社会和经济可持续性水平在很大程度上是由林业联盟决定的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Forest Policy and Economics
Forest Policy and Economics 农林科学-林学
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
7.50%
发文量
148
审稿时长
21.9 weeks
期刊介绍: Forest Policy and Economics is a leading scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed policy and economics research relating to forests, forested landscapes, forest-related industries, and other forest-relevant land uses. It also welcomes contributions from other social sciences and humanities perspectives that make clear theoretical, conceptual and methodological contributions to the existing state-of-the-art literature on forests and related land use systems. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, human geography, history, jurisprudence, planning, development studies, and psychology research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics is global in scope and publishes multiple article types of high scientific standard. Acceptance for publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书