Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T08:08:06.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - Wicked Problems and Policies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2020

Edited by
William Nikolakis  and
John L. Innes
William Nikolakis
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Vancouver
John L. Innes
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
A Multidisciplinary Approach to Sustainability in Forest Landscapes
 , pp. 31 - 258
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Abranches, S. 2014. The political economy of deforestation in Brazil and payment-for-performance finance. Center for Global Development, Climate and Forest Papers 10: 5–6.Google Scholar
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2018. Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Available at: www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ (accessed 31 July, 2018).Google Scholar
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., et al. 2014. Environmental income and rural livelihoods: a global-comparative analysis. World Development 64:S12–S28.Google Scholar
Barber, C. V. and Canby, K.. 2018. Assessing the Timber Legality Strategy in Tackling Deforestation: Accomplishments and Remaining Challenges in Addressing Illegal Logging and Associated Trade. Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute [One of a series of papers prepared for the Oslo Tropical Forest Forum, Oslo, 27–28 June 2018].Google Scholar
Barbier, E., Hacker, S. D., Kennedy, C., et al. 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs 81(2):169–193.Google Scholar
BBC. 2012. China’s Three Gorges Dam Reaches Operating Peak. BBC News. 5 July 2012.Google Scholar
Bianchi, F. J., Booij, C. J. and Tscharntke, T.. 2006. Sustainable pest regulation in agriculture landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 273(1595):1715–1727.Google Scholar
BirdLife International, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, World Wildlife Foundation, Conservation International, and The Nature Conservancy. 2016. Convention on Biological Diversity: Progress Report Towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Available at: www.birdlife.org/sites/default/files/score_card_booklet_final.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bovolo, C. I., Wagner, T., Parkin, G., et al. 2018. The Guiana Shield rainforests – overlooked guardians of South American climate. Environmental Research Letters 13(7):074029.Google Scholar
Castello, L., McGrath, D. G., Hess, L. L., et al. 2013. The vulnerability of Amazon freshwater ecosystems. Conservation Letters 6(4):217–229.Google Scholar
Cochard, R., Ranamukhaarachchi, S. L., Shivakoti, G. P., et al. 2008. The 2004 tsunami in Aceh and Southern Thailand: a review on coastal ecosystems, wave hazards and vulnerability. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 10(1):3040.Google Scholar
Contente, F. 2011. Differing perspectives of forest value by men and women. Box text in P. Shanley et al. Brazil’s social movement, women and forests: A case study from the National Council of Rubber Tappers. International Forestry Review 13(2):239.Google Scholar
Das, P. 2005. Hugh Cleghorn and forest conservancy in India. Environment and History 11(1):55–82.Google Scholar
Dennehy, K. 2016. Lovejoy, ‘Godfather’ of biodiversity, reflects on 50 Years in the Amazon. Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/thomas-lovejoy-on-biodiversity-habitat-fragmentation-and-50-years-in-the-amazon/Google Scholar
Dobrovolski, R. and Rattis, L.. 2015. Water collapse in Brazil: the danger of relying on what you neglect. Natureza & Conservacao 13:80–83.Google Scholar
Duchelle, A E , Seymour, F., Brockhaus, M., et al. 2018. REDD+: Lessons from National and Subnational Implementation: Ending Tropical Deforestation: A Stock-Take of Progress and Challenges. Working paper – World Resources Institute, June 2018. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Ellison, D., Morris, C. E., Locatelli, B., et al. 2017. Trees, forests and water: cool insights for a hot world. Global Environmental Change 43:51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K.. 1998. International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization 52(4):887–917.Google Scholar
Global Forest Watch (GFW). 2018. Global Forest Watch Tree Cover Loss. Online database. Washington DC: Global Forest Watch.Google Scholar
Global Witness. 2018. At What Cost? Irresponsible Business and the Murder of Land and Environmental Defenders in 2017. Available at: www.globalwitness.org/en-gb/campaigns/environmental-activists/defenders-annual-report/Google Scholar
Goetz, S., Hansen, M., Houghton, R. A., et al. 2015. Measurement and monitoring needs, capabilities and potential for addressing reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation under REDD+. Environmental Research Letters 10(12):1–24. Article Number 123001.Google Scholar
Goodman, R. and Herold, M.. 2014. Why maintaining tropical forests is essential and urgent for a stable climate. Center for Global Development Working Paper No. 385.Google Scholar
Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., et al. 2017. Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(44):11645–11650.Google Scholar
Guo, Z., Li, Y., Xiao, X., Zhang, L. and Gan, Y.. 2007. Hydroelectricity production and forest conservation in watersheds. Ecological Applications 17(6):1557–1562.Google Scholar
Harris, N. and Wolosin, M.. 2018. Tropical Forests and Climate Change: The Latest Science. Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Harris, N., Davis, C., Dow Goldman, E., Petersen, R. and Gibbes, S.. 2018. Comparing Global and National Approaches to Estimating Deforestation Rates in REDD+ Countries. Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Harrop, S. R. and Pritchard, D. J.. 2011. A hard instrument goes soft: the implications of the Convention on Biological Diversity's current trajectory. Global Environmental Change 21(2):474–480.Google Scholar
Hein, L. and Gatzweiler, F.. 2006. The economic value of coffee (Coffea arabica) genetic resources. Ecological Economics 60(1):176–185.Google Scholar
Henders, S., Persson, U. M. and Kastner, T.. 2015. Trading forests: land-use change and carbon emissions embodied in production and exports of forest-risk commodities. Environmental Research Letters 10(12):125012.Google Scholar
Humphreys, D. 2009. Discourse as ideology: neoliberalism and the limits of international forest policy. Forest Policy and Economics 11(5–6): 319–325.Google Scholar
Jodoin, S. 2017. Forest Preservation in a Changing Climate: REDD+ and Indigenous and Community Rights in Indonesia and Tanzania. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Karp, D., Mendenhall, C. D., Sandi, R. F., et al. 2013. Forest bolsters bird abundance, pest control and coffee yield. Ecology Letters 16(11):1339–1347.Google Scholar
Lassman, A. 2016. Flying Rivers of the Amazon Rainforest: A Critical Rain Generator for the Planet. Pachamama Alliance, 4 October 2016. https://blog.pachamama.org/flying-rivers-of-the-amazon-rainforest-a-critical-rain-generator-for-the-planetGoogle Scholar
La Vina, A. and de Leon, A.. 2014. Two global challenges, one solution: international cooperation to combat climate change and tropical deforestation. Center for Global Development Working Paper No. 388.Google Scholar
Lawrence, D. and Vandecar, K.. 2015. Effects of tropical deforestation on climate and agriculture. Natural Climate Change 5:27–36.Google Scholar
Lawson, S. 2014. Consumer Goods and Deforestation: An Analysis of the Extent and Nature of Illegality in Forest Conversion for Agriculture and Timber Plantations. Washington, DC: Forest Trends.Google Scholar
Lee, D. and Pistorius, T.. 2015. The Impacts of International REDD+ Finance. San Francisco, CA: Climate and Land Use Alliance.Google Scholar
Lewis, S. L., Lopez-Gonzalez, G., Sonké, B. et al. 2009. Increasing carbon storage in intact African tropical forests. Nature 457:1003–U3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovejoy, T. and Nobre, C.. 2018. Amazon tipping point. Science Advances 4(2): Article Number: eaat2340.Google Scholar
Maas, B., Clough, Y. and Tscharntke, T.. 2013. Bats and birds increase crop yield in tropical agroforestry landscapes. Ecology Letters 16(12):1480–1487.Google Scholar
Makarieve, A. M. and Gorshkov, V. G.. 2006. Biotic pump of atmospheric moisture as driver of the hydrology cycle on land. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions 3(4):2621–2673.Google Scholar
Marten, G. 2005. Environmental tipping points: a new paradigm for restoring ecological security. Journal of Policy Studies (Japan) 20:75–87.Google Scholar
Matthews, E. 2001. Understanding the FRA 2000. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
McIvor, A., Spalding, M., Tonneijck, F., Tol, S. and van Eijk, P.. 2013. Mangroves as a Sustainable Coastal Defense. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Asian and Pacific Coasts, Nature Conservancy, University of Cambridge and Wetlands International, Bali, Indonesia.Google Scholar
McKean, M. and Ostrom, E.. 1995. Common property regimes in the forest: just a relic from the past. Unasylva 46(180):3–15.Google Scholar
Michon, G. 2005. Domesticating Forests: How Farmers Manage Forest Resources. Paris: Institut de recherche pour le developpment.Google Scholar
Moudi, M., Go, R., Yong Seok Yien, C. and Nazre, M.. 2013. Vinca alkaloids. International Journal of Preventative Medicine 4(11):1231–1235.Google Scholar
Mullan, K. 2015. The Value of Forest Ecosystem Services to Developing Economies. CGD Working Paper. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.Google Scholar
Mulligan, M. and Saenz, L.. 2013. The role of cloud affected forests (CAFs) on water inputs to dams. Ecosystem Services 5:69–77.Google Scholar
Nelson, A. and Chomitz, K. M.. 2011. Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLoS ONE 6(8): Article Number e22722.Google Scholar
Nobre, C., Marengo, J. A., Seluchi, M. E., Cuartas, L. A. and Alves, L. M.. 2016. Some characteristics and impacts of the drought and water crisis in Southeastern Brazil during 2014 and 2015. Journal of Water Resource and Protection 8:252–262.Google Scholar
Otto, F., Haustein, K. and Uhe, P.. 2015. Factors other than climate change, main drivers of 2014/2015 water shortage in Southeast Brazil. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 96(12):S5–S9.Google Scholar
Pachauri, R. K. and Reisinger, A.. 2007. Contribution of working groups I. II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104.Google Scholar
Paulino, E.T. 2014. The agricultural, environmental and socio-political repercussions of Brazil’s land governance system. Land Use Policy 36:134–144.Google Scholar
Petersen, R., Davis, C., Herold, M. and De Sy, V.. 2018. Tropical Forest Monitoring: Exploring the Gaps Between What Is Required and What Is Possible for REDD+ and Other Initiatives. Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Phillips, O., Lewis, S., Baker, T., Chao, K. J. and Higuchi, N.. 2008. The changing Amazon forest. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 363:1819–1827.Google Scholar
Porter, G., Brown, J. W. and Chasek, P. S,. 1991. Global Environmental Politics: Dilemmas in World Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Raven, P. H. 1988. Our diminishing tropical forests. Pages 119–122 in Wilson, E. O. and Peter, F., editors. Biodiversity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Ross, M. 2001. Timber Booms and Institutional Breakdown in Southeast Asia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Savedoff, W. D. 2018. Competing or Complementary Strategies? Protecting Indigenous Rights and Paying to Conserve Forests. Center for Global Development Working Paper No. 490.Google Scholar
Schmithusen, F. 2013. Three hundred years of applied sustainability in forestry. Unasylva 240(64):506.Google Scholar
Seymour, F. 2009. Forests, climate change, and human rights: managing risks and trade-offs. Pages 207–237 in Humphreys, S., editor. Human Rights and Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seymour, F. and Busch, J.. 2016. Why Forests? Why Now? The Science, Economics, and Politics of Tropical Forests and Climate Change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Shackleton, C., Paumgarten, F., Kassa, H., Husselman, M. and Zida, M.. 2011. Opportunities for enhancing poor women’s socioeconomic empowerment in the value chains of three African non-timber forest products. International Forestry Review 13(2):136–151.Google Scholar
Sheil, D., Liswanti, N., van Heist, M., et al. 2003. Local priorities and biodiversity. ITTO Newsletter 13(1):1–8.Google Scholar
Sheil, D., Puri, R. K., Basuki, I., et al. 2002. Exploring Biological Diversity, Environment and Local People’s Perspective in Forest Landscapes. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
Soares-Filho, B., Moutinho, P., Nepstad, D., et al. 2010. Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 107(24):10821–10826.Google Scholar
Stern, N. 2006. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. and Streck, C.. 2018. The Elusive Impact of the Deforestation-Free Supply Chain Movement. Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Thatcher, M. 1989. Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, United Nations, New York, 8 November, 1989. Available at: www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817.Google Scholar
Tissot, W. and Kohler, Y.. 2013. Integration of Nature Protection in Forest Policy in France. INTEGRATE Country Report. Freiburg: EFICENT-OEF.Google Scholar
Vit, J. 2015. Indonesia losing billions from illegal logging. Mongabay, 9 November, 2015. https://news.mongabay.com/2015/11/indonesia-losing-billions-from-illegal-logging/Google Scholar
Von Carlowitz, H. C. 2013. Sylvicultura Oeconomica: Hausswirthliche Nachricht und Naturmaige Anweisung zur Wilden Baum-Zucht (Leipzig: Faksimile der Erstauflage, 1713), 2013 reprint with an introduction by J. Huss and F. von Gadow, cited in Pistorius and Kiff, ‘The Politics of German Finance for REDD+’.Google Scholar
Watts, J. 2017. The Amazon effect: how deforestation is starving Sao Paulo of water. The Guardian, 28 November, 2017. Available at: www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/28/sao-paulo-water-amazon-deforestationGoogle Scholar
Weisse, M. and Goldman, E.. 2018. 2017 Was the Second-Worse Year on Record for Tropical Tree Cover Loss. Online blog. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available at: www.wri.org/blog/2018/06/2017-was-second-worst-year-record-tropical-tree-cover-lossGoogle Scholar
Wildlife Conservation Society. 2012. Amazing photos chronicle staggering diversity of Bolivia’s Madidi National Park. Science Daily, 12 September, 2012.Google Scholar
World Bank. 1994. Transmigration in Indonesia. World Bank Group. http://lnweb90.worldbank.org/oed/oeddoclib.nsf/DocUNIDViewForJavaSearch/4B8B0E01445D8351852567F5005D87B8Google Scholar
World Bank. 2015. Indonesia Economic Quarterly: Reforming and Uncertainty. World Bank Group. http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/pubdocs/publicdoc/2015/12/844171450085661051/IEQ-EC2015-ENG.pdfGoogle Scholar
World Bank. 2016. The Cost of Fire: An Economic Analysis of Indonesia’s 2015 Fire Crisis. World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/776101467990969768/pdf/103668-BRI-Cost-of-Fires-Knowledge-Note-PUBLIC-ADD-NEW-SERIES-Indonesia-Sustainable-Landscapes-Knowledge-Note.pdfGoogle Scholar
Yanagisawa, H., Koshimura, S., Miyagi, T. and Imamura, F.. 2010. Tsunami damage reduction performance of a mangrove forest in Banda Aceh, Indonesia inferred from field data and a numerical model. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 115(C6): Article C06032.Google Scholar

References

AF&PA. 2016. AF&PA White Paper: Sustainable Forestry and Certification Programs in the United States. Washington, DC: American Forest and Paper Association. Available at: www.afandpa.org/docs/default-source/one-pagers/sustainable-forestry-and-certification-programs-in-the-united-states.pdf (accessed 30 October, 2016).Google Scholar
Araujo, M., Kant, S. and Couto, L.. 2009. Why Brazilian companies are certifying their forests? Forest Policy and Economics 11:579–585.Google Scholar
Auld, G., Gulbrandsen, L. H. and McDermott, C. L.. 2008. Certification schemes and the impacts on forest and forestry. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33:187–211.Google Scholar
Barbosa de Lima, A., Novaes Keppe, A. L., Maule, F. E., et al. 2009. Does Certification Make a Difference? Impact Assessment Study on FSC/SAN Certification in Brazil. Available at: www.imaflora.org/arquivos/Does certification make_a_difference.pdfGoogle Scholar
Blackman, A. and Rivera, J.. 2011. Producer‐level benefits of sustainability certification. Conservation Biology 25(6):1176–1185.Google Scholar
Blackman, A., Raimondi, A. and Cubbage, F.. 2014. Does Forest Certification in Developing Countries Have Environmental Benefits? Discussion Paper RFF DP 14-06. Resources for the Future.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackman, A., Goff, L. T. and Rivera-Planter, M. 2015. Does Eco-certification Stem Tropical Deforestation? Forest Stewardship Council Certification in Mexico. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper, pp. 15–36.Google Scholar
Blackman, A., Raimondi, A. and Cubbage, F.. 2017. Does forest certification in developing countries have environmental benefits? Insights from Mexican corrective action requests. International Forestry Review 19(3):247–264.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, M. J. 2012. Is forest certification a hegemonic force? The FSC and its challengers. Journal of Environment & Development 21(4):391–413.Google Scholar
Bouslah, K., M’Zali, B., Turcotte, M.-F. and Kooli, M.. 2010. The impact of forest certification on firm financial performance in Canada and the U.S. Journal of Business Ethics 96(4):551–572.Google Scholar
Burns, S. L., Yapura, P. F. and Giessen, L.. 2016. State actors and international forest certification policy: coalitions behind FSC and PEFC in federal Argentina. Land Use Policy 52:23–29.Google Scholar
Carle, J. and Holmgren, P.. 2008. Wood from planted forests: a global outlook 2005-2030. Forest Products Journal 58(12):6–18.Google Scholar
Carlson, A. and Palmer, C.. 2016. A qualitative meta-synthesis of the benefits of eco-labeling in developing countries. Ecological Economics 127:129–145.Google Scholar
Cashore, B., Auld, G. and Newsom, D.. 2004. Governing Through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-State Authority. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cashore, B., Auld, G., Bernstein, S. and McDermott, C.. 2007. Can non‐state governance ‘ratchet up’ global environmental standards? Lessons from the forest sector. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 16(2):158–172.Google Scholar
Caulfield, J. P., Chambers, R. K. and Fields, C. T.. 2001. Green certification and the future of family forests. Forest Landowner 60(6):16–20.Google Scholar
Cerutti, P. O, Lescuyer, G., Tsanga, R., et al. 2014. Social Impacts of the Forest Stewardship Council Certification: An Assessment in the Congo Basin. Occasional Paper 103. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Chen, J., Innes, J. L. and Tikina, A.. 2010. Private cost-benefits of voluntary forest product certification. International Forestry Review 12(1):1–12.Google Scholar
Clark, M. R. and Kozar, J. S.. 2016. Comparing sustainable forest management certification standards: a meta-analysis. Ecology and Society 16(1): Article 3.Google Scholar
Climate for Ideas (United Kingdom), Forests of the World (Denmark), Dogwood Alliance (United States), Hnutí DUHA (Friends of the Earth Czech Republic), Les Amis de la Terre (Friends of the Earth France), Greenpeace, Sierra Club of British Columbia, Suomen Luonnonsuojeluliitto (Finnish Association for Nature Conservation), Netherlands Centre for Indigenous Peoples. 2011. On the ground 2011: The controversies of PEFC and SFI. Available at: https://www.dogwoodalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/On-The-Ground-17_10_11.pdf (accessed 15 March, 2018).Google Scholar
Coniff, R. 2018. Greenwashed Timber: How Sustainable Forest Certification Has Failed. Yale Environment 360. Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. 20 February, 2018. Available at: https://e360.yale.edu/features/greenwashed-timber-how-sustainable-forest-certification-has-failed (accessed 15 March 2018).Google Scholar
Coria, J. and Sterner, T.. 2011. Natural resource management: challenges and policy options. Annual Review of Resource Economics 3:203–230.Google Scholar
Cubbage, F., Moore, S., Henderson, T. and Araujo, M.. 2009. Costs and benefits of forest certification in the Americas. Pages 155–183 in Paulding, J. B., editor. Natural Resources: Management, Economic Development and Protection. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Publishers.Google Scholar
Cubbage, F., Diaz, D., Yapura, P. and Dube, F.. 2010. Impacts of forest management certification in Argentina and Chile. Forest Policy and Economics 12:497–504.Google Scholar
Cubbage, F., O’Laughlin, J. and Peterson, N.. 2017. Natural Resource Policy. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Dare, M. (Lain), Schirmer, J. and Vanclay, F.. 2011. Does forest certification enhance community engagement in Australian plantation management? Forest Policy and Economics 13:328–337.Google Scholar
Ebeling, J. and Yasue, M.. 2009. The effectiveness of market-based conservation in the tropics: forest certification in Ecuador and Bolivia. Journal of Environmental Management 90(2):1145–1153.Google Scholar
Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P., Andersson, K., Nordberg, M. and Pautov, Y.. 2011. How does forest certification contribute to boreal biodiversity conservation? Forest Ecology and Management 262:1983–1995.Google Scholar
Ethical Consumer. 2018. Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). Available at: www.ethicalconsumer.org/researchhub/ethicalaccreditation/programmefortheendorsementofforestcertification.aspx (accessed 15 March, 2018).Google Scholar
Euler, D. 2014. A comparison of avian habitat in forest management plans produced under three different certification systems in Ontario, Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38(1):142–147.Google Scholar
FAO. 2015. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: How Are the World’s Forests Changing? Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Fernholz, K., Bowyer, J., Stai, S., Bratkovich, S. and Howe, J.. 2011. Differences between the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) Certification Standards for Forest Management. Minneapolis, MN: Dovetail Partners. Available at: www.dovetailinc.org (accessed 28 July, 2016).Google Scholar
Fernholz, K., Bowyer, J., Bratkovich, S., et al. 2015. Forest Certification Update: Changes to the SFI and FSC Standards in 2015. Minneapolis, MN: Dovetail Partners. Available at: www.dovetailinc.org (accessed 28 July, 2016).Google Scholar
Ferraro, P. J. 2009. Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. New Directions in Evaluation 2009:75–84.Google Scholar
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). 2014. Costs and Benefits of Forest Certification. Available at: http://us.fsc.org/download.costs-and-benefits-of-forest-certification.198.htm (accessed 15 April, 2014).Google Scholar
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) 2015. International Generic Indicators, FSC-STD-60-004 V1–0 EN. Available at: file:///G:/Paper/Certification_Wicked/FSC-STD-60-004%20V1–0%20EN%20International%20Generic%20Indicators.pdf (accessed 25 March, 2018).Google Scholar
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). 2018a. Facts and Figures. Available at: https://ic.fsc.org/en/facts-and-figures (accessed 25 March, 2018).Google Scholar
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). 2018b. Family Forests. Available at: https://us.fsc.org/en-us/certification/forest-management-certification/family-forests (accessed 25 March, 2018).Google Scholar
FSC Watch. 2018. The 10 Worst Things about the Forest Stewardship Council. Available at: https://fsc-watch.com/2014/06/01/the-10-worst-things-about-the-forest-stewardship-council/ (accessed 15 March, 2018).Google Scholar
Foster, M., Peterson, M. N., Cubbage, F. and McMahon, G.. 2019. Evaluation of natural resource planning in longleaf pine systems. Forest Policy and Economics 100:142–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Montiel, E., Cubbage, F., Rojo-Alboreca, A., et al. 2017. An analysis of non-state and state approaches for forest certification in Mexico. Forests 8: Article 290.Google Scholar
Greenpeace International. 2014. Weaker Certification Schemes. Available at: http://m.greenpeace.org/international/en/mid/campaigns/forests/solutions/alternatives-to-forest-destruc/Weaker-Certification-Schemes/ (accessed 15 March, 2018).Google Scholar
On The Ground 2011. www.dogwoodalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/On-The-Ground-17_10_11.pdf (accessed 15 March, 2018).Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H. 2005. The effectiveness of non-state governance schemes: a comparative study of forest certification in Norway and Sweden. International Environmental Agreements 5:125–149.Google Scholar
Hagan, J., Irland, L. and Whitman, A. 2005. Changing Timberland Ownership in the Northern Forest and Implications for Biodiversity. Report MCCS-FCP-2005-1. Brunswick, ME: Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences.Google Scholar
Humphreys, D. 2006. LogJam: Deforestation and the Crisis of Global Governance. Earthscan Forestry Library. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
Johansson, J. and Lidestav, G.. 2011. Can voluntary standards regulate forestry? Assessing the environmental impacts of forest certification in Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics 13:191–198.Google Scholar
Kalonga, S. K. and Kulindwa, K. A.. 2017. Does forest certification enhance livelihood conditions? Empirical evidence from forest management in Kilwa District, Tanzania. Forest Policy and Economics 74:49–61.Google Scholar
Kalonga, S. K., Midtgaard, F. and Eid, T.. 2015. Does forest certification enhance forest structure? Empirical evidence from certified community-based forest management in Kilwa District, Tanzania. International Forestry Review 17(2):182–194.Google Scholar
Kalonga, S. K., Midtgaard, F. and Klanderud, K.. 2016. Forest certification as a policy option in conserving biodiversity: an empirical study of forest management in Tanzania. Forest Ecology and Management 361:1–12.Google Scholar
Korhonen, J., Toppinen, A., Kuuluvainen, J., Prestemon, J. and Cubbage, F.. 2016. Recycling, certification, and international trade of paper and paperboard: demand in Germany and the United States. Forest Science 63(5):449–458.Google Scholar
Kukkonen, M., Rita, H., Hohnwald, S. and Nygren, A.. 2008. Treefall gaps of certified, conventionally managed and natural forests as regeneration sites for Neotropical timber trees in northern Honduras. Forest Ecology and Management 255(7):2163–2176.Google Scholar
Lachapelle, P. R., McCool, S. F. and Patterson, M. E.. 2003. Barriers to effective natural resource planning in a "messy" world. Society & Natural Resources 16(6):473–490.Google Scholar
Lang, C. 2016. Certified Nonsense. Available at: https://newint.org/features/2016/04/01/sustainable-forestry (accessed 15 March, 2018).Google Scholar
Lee, M. 2009. Can we trust the FSC? Ecologist. Available at: https://theecologist.org/2009/sep/22/can-we-trust-fsc (accessed 15 March, 2018).Google Scholar
Li, N. and Toppinen, A.. 2011. Corporate responsibility and sustainable competitive advantage in the forest-based industry: complementary or conflicting goals? Forest Policy and Economics 13(1):113–123.Google Scholar
Lidestav, G. and Berg Lejon, S.. 2011. Forest certification as an instrument for improved forest management within small-scale forestry. Small-Scale Forestry 10(4):401–418.Google Scholar
Lister, J. 2011. Corporate Social Responsibility and the State: International Approaches to Forest Co-regulation. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Maraseni, T. N., Son, H. L., Cockfield, G., Duy, H. V. and Dai Nghia, T.. 2017. Comparing the financial returns from acacia plantations with different plantation densities and rotation ages in Vietnam. Forest Policy and Economics 83:80–87.Google Scholar
Masters, M., Tikina, A. and Larson, B.. 2010. Forest certification audit results as potential changes in forest management in Canada. The Forestry Chronicle 86(4):455–460.Google Scholar
McDermott, C. L. 2012. Trust, legitimacy and power in forest certification: a case study of the FSC in British Columbia. Geoforum 43:634–644.Google Scholar
McDermott, C. L., Irland, L. C. and Pacheco, P.. 2015. Forest certification and legality initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon: lessons for effective and equitable forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics 50:134–142.Google Scholar
Medjibe, V., Putz, F. E. and Romero, C.. 2013. Certified and uncertified logging concessions compared in Gabon: changes in stand structure, tree species, and biomass. Environmental Management 51:524–540.Google Scholar
Mendell, B., Lang, A. H., Caldwell, W. and Garrett, D. L.. 2015. Chemical use and forest certification: productivity and economic implications. Journal of Forestry 113(4):367–371.Google Scholar
Meridian Institute. 2001. Comparative Analysis of the Forest Stewardship Council© and Sustainable Forestry Initiative® Certification Programs. Available at: http://www2.merid.org/comparison/ (accessed 14 July, 2003).Google Scholar
Miteva, D.A., Loucks, C. J. and Pattanayak, S. K.. 2015. Social and environmental impacts of forest management certification in Indonesia. PloS One 10: Article e0129675.Google Scholar
Moore, S., Cubbage, F. and Eicheldinger, C.. 2012. Impacts of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) forest certification in North America. Journal of Forestry 110(2):79–88.Google Scholar
Nebel, G., Quevedo, L., Bredahl, J., Jacobsen, J. and Helles, F.. 2005. Development and economic significance of forest certification: the case of FSC in Bolivia. Forest Policy and Economics 7(2):175–186.Google Scholar
Newsom, D and Hewitt, D.. 2005. The Global Impacts of SmartWood Certification. New York: Rainforest Alliance.Google Scholar
Newsom, D., Bahn, V. and Cashore, B.. 2006. Does forest certification matter? An analysis of operation-level changes required during the SmartWood certification process in the United States. Forest Policy and Economics 9:197–208.Google Scholar
Nordén, A., Coria, J. and Villalobos, L.. 2016. Evaluation of the Impact of Forest Certification on Environmental Outcomes in Sweden. Available at: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/44417/1/gupea_2077_44417_1.pdf (accessed 30 March, 2018).Google Scholar
Nussbaum, R. and Simula, M.. 2005. The Forest Certification Handbook, 2nd edn. London: Earth Scan Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
Oddendal, H. 2018. Future Demands on Timber – What Does the Public Want? Presented at the International Forest Business Conference, Gdansk, Poland, 6–8 June, 2018.Google Scholar
Overdevest, C. 2010. Comparing forest certification schemes: the case of ratcheting standards in the forest sector. Socio-Economic Review 8:47–76.Google Scholar
Panlasigui, S., Rico-Staffron, J., Swenson, J., Loucks, C. J. and Pfaff, A.. 2015. Early Days in the Certification of Logging Concessions: Estimating FSC’s Deforestation Impact in Peru & Cameroon. Nicholas Institute, Duke University, NC (Working Paper Draft).Google Scholar
Payn, T., Carnus, J.-M., Freer-Smith, P., et al. 2015. Changes in planted forests and future global implications. Forest Ecology and Management 352:57–67.Google Scholar
Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). 2017. PEFC Global Statistics: SFM & CoC Certification. Available at: www.pefc.org/ (accessed 14 January, 2018).Google Scholar
Pena-Claros, M., Blommerde, S. and Bongers, F.. 2009. Assessing the Progress Made: An Evaluation of Forest Management Certification in the Tropics. Tropical Resource Management Papers 95, Wageningen University, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Rametsteiner, E. and Simula, M.. 2003. Forest certification: an instrument to promote sustainable forest management? Journal of Environmental Management 67:87–98.Google Scholar
Rana, P. and Sills, E. O.. 2018. Does certification change the trajectory of tree cover in working forests in the tropics? An application of the synthetic control method of impact evaluation. Forests 9(3): Article 98.Google Scholar
Rickenbach, M. and Overdevest, C.. 2006. More than markets: assessing Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification as a policy tool. Journal of Forestry 104(3):143–147.Google Scholar
Roberge, A., Bouthiller, L. and Boiral, O.. 2011. The influence of forest certification on environmental performance: an analysis of certified companies in the province of Quebec (Canada). Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41:661–668.Google Scholar
Romero, C., Sills, E. O., Guariguata, M. R., et al. 2017. Evaluation of the impacts of FSC certification of natural forest management in the tropics: a rigorous approach to assessment of a complex conservation intervention. International Forestry Review 19(4):36–49.Google Scholar
Rotherham, T. 2016. Forest certification: trends and turbulence. CFI January/February 2016:20–23.Google Scholar
Schlyter, P., Stjernquist, I. and Backstrand, K.. 2009. Not seeing the forest for the trees? The environmental effectiveness of forest certification in Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics 11:375–382.Google Scholar
Schreiber, J. 2012. A Cost Benefit Analysis of Forest Certification at the Forestland Group. Available at: http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/6026 (accessed 15 April, 2015).Google Scholar
Schulze, M., Grogan, J., and Vidal, E.. 2008. Forest certification in Amazonia: standards matter. Oryx 42(2):229–239.Google Scholar
Sequeira, V. and Louman, B.. 2004. Retos y oportunidades para una mejor aplicación de los estandares de certificación del manejo forestal en América Latina. Recursos Naturales y Ambiente 42:60–68.Google Scholar
Simpson, H., Donnellan, J. and Harrington, S.. 2005. Voluntary Implementation of Best Management Practices in East Texas: Results from Round 6 of BMP Implementation Monitoring. College Station, TX: Texas Forest Service. Available at: http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/shared/article.asp?DocumentID=950&mc=forestGoogle Scholar
Simpson, H., Donellan, J., Duncan, C. and Harrington, S.. 2007. Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas: Results from Round 7 of BMP Implementation Monitoring 2007–2008. College Station, TX: Texas Forest Service Station.Google Scholar
Sundstrom, L. M. and Henry, L. A.. 2017. Private forest governance, public policy impacts: the Forest Stewardship Council in Russia and Brazil. Forests 8(11): Article 445.Google Scholar
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). 2016. SFI Standard 2015–2019. Available at: www.sfiprogram.org/sfi-standard/ (accessed 31 October, 2016).Google Scholar
Tuppura, A., Toppinen, A. and Puumalainen, K.. 2016. Forest certification and ISO 14001: current state and motivation in forest companies. Business Strategy and the Environment 25:355–368.Google Scholar
Van Deusen, P., Bentley Wigley, T. and Lucier, A. A.. 2010. Some indirect costs of forest certification. Forestry 83(4):389–394.Google Scholar
Vardaman, J. 2001. The Effect of These Voluntary Restrictions on Those Who Want to Make Money Growing Trees. Formerly available online at: www.vardaman.com/greensheets/sfi.htm (accessed 1 September, 2003).Google Scholar
Villalobos, L., Coria, J. and Nordén, A.. 2018. Has forest certification reduced forest degradation in Sweden? Land Economics 93(3):390–412.Google Scholar
Vogel, D. 2007. Private global business regulation. Annual Review of Political Science 11:261–282.Google Scholar
World Rainforest Movement (WRM). 2018. Available at: http://wrm.org.uy/ (accessed 15 March, 2018).Google Scholar
World Wildlife Federation–European Forest Programme (WWF-EFP). 2005. The Effects of FSC Certification in Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Russia, Sweden and the UK: An Analysis of Corrective Action Requests Summary Report. Washington, DC: World Wildlife Federation.Google Scholar

References

Angelsen, A. and McNeill, D.. 2012. The evolution of REDD+. Pages 42–49 in Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W. D. and Verchot, L. V., editors. Analyzing REDD+. Challenges and Choices. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Debroux, L., Topa, G., Kaimowitz, D., et al. 2007. Forests in Post-Conflict Democratic Republic of Congo: Analysis of a Priority Agenda. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Eliasch, J. 2008 . Climate Change: Financing Global Forests. The Eliasch Review. London, UK: Earthscan Publishers.Google Scholar
FAO. 2009. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 Brazil. Country Report. Available at: www.fao.org/forestry/20288-0f6ee8584eea8bff0d20ad5cebcb071cf.pdfGoogle Scholar
FAO. 2010. Global Forest Resources. Assessment 2010: Main Report. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
FAO. 2016. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 Rome. How are the World’s Forests Changing? 2nd edition. Available at: www.fao.org/3/a-i4793e.pdfGoogle Scholar
FAS. 2012. Planificação Participative para REDD+: A Experiência de Aplicação do Programa Bolsa Floresta para Moçambique. Manaus: Fundação Amazonas Sustentável.Google Scholar
FAS. 2013. Apresentaçao Investimentos RDS Rio Negro. Manaus: Fundação Amazonas Sustentável.Google Scholar
GDRC (Government of DRC). 2002. Forest Code. Law No. 1 1/2002 29 August, 2002.Google Scholar
GDRC. 2012. National REDD+ Framework Strategy of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Ministry of Environment Conservation of Nature and Tourism. Kinshasa: Democratic Republic of Congo UNREDD Programme.Google Scholar
GDRC. 2016. Ministerial Order 025 Regarding Specific Provisions for the Management and Exploitation of Local Community Forest Concessions. Kinshasa: GDRC.Google Scholar
Governo do Estado do Amazonas. 2007. Lei Ordinária 3135 de 05 de Junho 2007, Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza e dá Outras Providências. Manaus: Governo do Estado do Amazonas.Google Scholar
Iliffe, J. 1979. A Modern History of Tanganyika. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
INPE. 2016. PRODES Estimates for Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Available at: www.inpe.br/noticias/noticia.php?Cod_Noticia=4344Google Scholar
IPCC. 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
KDC (Kilosa District Council). 2010. Kilosa District Profile. Kilosa: KDC (Kilosa District Council).Google Scholar
Kilihama, F. B. 2014. Evolution and status of participatory forest management in Tanzania and future direction. Tanzania Journal of Forestry and Nature Conservation 83(1):5–26.Google Scholar
Lund, J. F., Sungusia, E., Mabele, M. B. and Scheba, A.. 2017. Promising change, delivering continuity: REDD+ as conservation fad. World Development 89:124–139.Google Scholar
May, P. H., Millikan, B. and Gebara, M. F.. 2011. The Context of REDD+ in Brazil: Drivers, Agents and Institutions. Occasional Paper 55. 2nd edition. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Available at: www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-55.pdfGoogle Scholar
MECNT. 2010. DRC Readiness Plan for REDD (2010-2012), R-PP Final Version. Kinshasa: Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Tourism.Google Scholar
MJUMITA. 2014. MJUMITA Community Forest Project (Lindi). Project Design Document (PDD) for the full Validation Using the Climate, Community, Biodiversity (CCB) Project Design Standard. Available at: www.climate-standards.org/2014/05/08/mjumita-community-forest-project-lindi/Google Scholar
Mohammad, A.J. and Inoue, M.. 2017. REDD+: global multilevel forest governance for building a climate resilient society. Pages 231–249 in Ninan, K. N. and Inoue, M., editors. Building a Climate Resilient Economy and Society. Challenges and Opportunities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Movik, S., Birikorang, G., Enright, A., et al. 2012. Socio-Economic Conditions in REDD+ Pilot Areas: A Synthesis of Five Baseline Surveys. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).Google Scholar
Naugthon-Treves, L. and Wendland, K.. 2014. Land tenure and tropical forest management. World Development 55:1–6.Google Scholar
Rantala, S. and Di Gregorio, M.. 2014. Multistakeholder environmental governance in action: REDD+ discourse coalitions in Tanzania. Ecology and Society 19(2): Article 66.Google Scholar
RF-UK. 2016. Community Forests in the Democratic Republic of Congo: Towards Equitable and Sustainable Forest Management. Policy brief. London: Rainforest Foundation UK.Google Scholar
Samndong, R. A. 2015. Institutional choice and fragmented citizenship in forestry and development interventions in Bikoro Territory of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Forum for Development Studies 43(2):1–29.Google Scholar
Samndong, R. and Vatn, A.. 2018. Competing tenures: Implications for REDD+ in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Forests 9(11): Article 662.Google Scholar
Samndong, R. A., Bush, G., Vatn, A. and Chapman, M.. 2018. Institutional analysis of causes of deforestation in REDD+ pilot sites in the Equateur province: Implication for REDD+ in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Land Use Policy 76:664–674.Google Scholar
SDS. 2009. Amazonas Initiative on Climate Change, Forest Conservation and Sustainable Development. Manaus, Brazil: Government of the State of Amazonas, Secretariat for Environment and Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
Stern, N., with Peters, S., Bakhshi, V., Bowen, A., et al. 2006. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
Sunderlin, W. D. and Atmadja, S.. 2009. Is REDD+ an idea whose time has come, or gone? Pages 45–53 in Angelsen, A., with Brockhaus, M., Kanninen, M., Sills, E., Sunderlin, W. D. and Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., editors. Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Sunderlin, D., Larson, A. M., Duchelle, A. E., et al. 2014. How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam. World Development 55: 37–52.Google Scholar
TFCG. 2009. Making REDD and the Carbon Market Work for Communities and Forest Conservation in Tanzania. Project proposal presented to the Royal Norwegian Embassy, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.Google Scholar
TFCG and MJUMITA. 2012. Building a Village Company to Improve Community Based Forest Management in the Context of REDD. Available at: www.tfcg.org/makingReddWork.htmlGoogle Scholar
UNFCCC. 2011. The Cancun agreements: outcome of the work of the ad hoc working group on long-term cooperation under the Convention. Decision 1/CP.16. In Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. FCC/CP/2010/7 Add.1. Bonn, Germany: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.Google Scholar
URT (United Republic of Tanzania). 1999. The Land Act No. 4. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development.Google Scholar
URT. 2002. Forest Act. Dar es Salaam: Forestry and Beekeeping Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.Google Scholar
URT. 2010. National Strategy for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.Google Scholar
URT. 2013. National Strategy for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). Dar es Salaam: Vice President’s Office.Google Scholar
Vatn, A. 2015. Environmental Governance, Institutions, Policies and Actions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Vatn, A., Kajembe, G. C., Leiva-Montoya, R., et al. 2013. Instituting REDD+. An Analysis of the Processes and Outcomes of Instituting REDD+ in Two Pilot Areas – RDS Rio Negro (Brazil) and Kilosa (Tanzania). London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).Google Scholar
Vatn, A., Kajembe, G., Mosi, E., Nantongo, M. and Silayo, D. S. 2017. What does it take to institute REDD+? An analysis of the Kilosa REDD+ pilot, Tanzania. Forest Policy and Economics 83:1–9.Google Scholar
Viana, V. M. 2010. Sustainable Development in Practice. Lessons Learned from Amazonas. London: IIED. Available at: http://fas-amazonas.org/versao/2012/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Viana_Lessons-learned-from-Amazonas.pdfGoogle Scholar

References

Aguilar-Støen, M. 2015. Exploring participation in new forms of environmental governance: a case study of payments for environmental services in Nicaragua. Environment, Development and Sustainability 17(4):941–958.Google Scholar
Aguilar-Støen, M. 2017. Better safe than sorry? Indigenous peoples, carbon cowboys and the governance of REDD in the Amazon. Forum for Development Studies 44(1):91–108.Google Scholar
Asbjornsen, H., Manson, R. H., Scullion, J. J. et al. 2017. Interactions between payments for hydrologic services, landowner decisions, and ecohydrological consequences: synergies and disconnection in the cloud forest zone of central Veracruz, Mexico. Ecology and Society 22(2): article 25.Google Scholar
Börner, J., Baylis, K., Corbera, E., et al. 2017. The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Development 6:359–374.Google Scholar
Branca, G., Lipper, L., Neves, B., Lopa, D. and Mwanyoka, I.. 2011. Payments for watershed services supporting sustainable agricultural development in Tanzania. The Journal of Environment & Development 20(3):278–302.Google Scholar
Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., Chadwick, O. A. and Harden, C. P.. 2016. Changes in carbon storage with land management promoted by payment for ecosystem services. Environmental Conservation 43(4):397–406.Google Scholar
Calvet-Mir, L., Corbera, E., Martin, A., Fisher, J. and Gross-Camp, N.. 2015. Payments for ecosystem services in the tropics: a closer look at effectiveness and equity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:150–162.Google Scholar
Clements, T., Rainey, H., An, D., et al. 2013. An evaluation of the effectiveness of a direct payment for biodiversity conservation: The Bird Nest Protection Program in the Northern Plains of Cambodia. Biological Conservation 157:50–59.Google Scholar
Corbera, E and Pascual, U.. 2012. Ecosystem services: heed social goals. Science 335(6069):655–656.Google Scholar
Corbera, E., Brown, K. and Adger, N. W.. 2007a. The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Development and Change 38(4):587–613.Google Scholar
Corbera, E., Kosoy, N. and Tuna, M. M.. 2007b. Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: case studies from Meso-America. Global Environmental Change 17:365–380.Google Scholar
Corbera, E., Soberanis, C. G. and Brown, K.. 2009. Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: an analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecological Economics 68(3):743–761.Google Scholar
DeFries, R. and Nagendra, H.. 2017. Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science 356(6335):265–270.Google Scholar
Duckett, D., Feliciano, D., Martin-Ortega, J. and Muñoz-Rojas, J.. 2016. Tackling wicked environmental problems: the discourse and its influence on praxis in Scotland. Landscape and Urban Planning 154:44–56.Google Scholar
Ezzine-De-Blas, D., Wunder, S., Ruiz-Pérez, M. and Del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, R.. 2016. Global patterns in the implementation of payments for environmental services. PLoS ONE 11(3): Article e0149847.Google Scholar
Farley, K. A. and Bremer, L. L.. 2017. “Water is life”: Local perceptions of Páramo grasslands and land management strategies associated with payment for ecosystem services. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 107(2):371–381.Google Scholar
Farley, K.A., Anderson, W. G., Bremer, L. L. and Harden, C. P.. 2011. Compensation for ecosystem services: an evaluation of efforts to achieve conservation and development in Ecuadorian Páramo grasslands. Environmental Conservation 38(4):393–405.Google Scholar
Gauvin, C., Uchida, E., Rozelle, S., Xu, J. and Zhan, J.. 2009. Cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services with dual goals of environment and poverty alleviation. Environmental Management 45:488–501.Google Scholar
Gross-Camp, N., Martin, A., McGuire, S., Kebede, B. and Munyarukaza, J.. 2012. Payments for ecosystem services in an African protected area: exploring issues of legitimacy, fairness, equity and effectiveness. Oryx 46(1):24–43.Google Scholar
He, J. 2014. Governing forest restoration: local case studies of sloping land conversion program in Southwest China. Forest Policy and Economics 46 :30–38.Google Scholar
He, J. and Sikor, T.. 2015. Notions of justice in payments for ecosystem services: insights from China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program in Yunnan Province. Land Use Policy 43:207–216.Google Scholar
Jones, K.W., Holland, M. B., Naughton-Treves, L., et al. 2017. Forest conservation incentives and deforestation in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Environmental Conservation 44(1):56–65.Google Scholar
Kosoy, N., Corbera, E. and Brown, K.. 2008. Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 39(6):2073–2083.Google Scholar
Kosoy, N., Martinez-Tuna, M., Muradian, R., Martínez-Alier, J. and Costa, H.. 2006. Payments for environmental services in watersheds: insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America. Ecological Economics 61(2–3):446–455.Google Scholar
Lansing, D. M. 2014. Unequal access to payments for ecosystem services: the case of Costa Rica. Development and Change 45(6):1310–1331.Google Scholar
Legrand, T., Froger, G. and Le Coq, J.-F.. 2013. Institutional performance of Payments for Environmental Services: an analysis of the Costa Rican Program. Forest Policy and Economics 37:115–123.Google Scholar
Lopa, D., Mwanyoka, I., Jambiya, G., et al. 2012. Towards operational payments for water ecosystem services in Tanzania: a case study from the Uluguru Mountains. Oryx 46(1):34–44.Google Scholar
Martin, A., Gross-Camp, N., Kebede, B., Mcguire, S. and Munyarukaza, J.. 2014. Whose environmental justice? Exploring local and global perspectives in a payments for ecosystem services scheme in Rwanda. Geoforum 54 :167–177.Google Scholar
McElwee, P., Nghiem, T., Le, H., Vu, H. and Tran, N.. 2014. Payments for environmental services and contested neoliberalisation in developing countries: a case study from Vietnam. Journal of Rural Studies 36:423–440.Google Scholar
MEA. 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Molina-Murillo, S.A.M., Pérez Castillo, J. P., Elena, M. and Ugalde, H.. 2014. Assessment of environmental payments on indigenous territories: tThe case of Cabecar-Talamanca, Costa Rica Program of payments for environmental services. Ecosystem Services 8:35–43.Google Scholar
Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N. and May, P. H.. 2010. Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69(6):1202–1208.Google Scholar
Nelson, F., Foley, C., Foley, L. S., et al. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as a framework for community-based conservation in northern Tanzania. Conservation Biology 24(1):78–85.Google Scholar
Nieratka, L., Bray, D. and Mozumder, P.. 2015. Can payments for environmental services strengthen social capital, encourage distributional equity, and reduce poverty? Conservation and Society 13(4): Article 345.Google Scholar
Osano, P. M., Said, M. Y., de Leeuw, J. et al. 2013. Why keep lions instead of livestock? Assessing wildlife tourism-based payment for ecosystem services involving herders in the Maasai Mara, Kenya. Natural Resources Forum 37(4):242–256.Google Scholar
Pan, X., Xu, L., Yang, Z. and Yu, B.. 2017. Payments for ecosystem services in China: policy, practice and progress. Journal of Cleaner Production 158:1–30.Google Scholar
Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Rodríguez, L. C. and Duraiappah, A.. 2010. Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a conceptual approach. Ecological Economics 69(6):1237–1244.Google Scholar
Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., et al. 2014. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience 64(11):1027–1036.Google Scholar
Pham, T. T., Loft, L., Bennett, K., et al. 2015. Monitoring and evaluation of Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam: from myth to reality. Ecosystem Services 16:220–229.Google Scholar
Rico García-Amado, L., Pérez, M. R., Escutia, F. R., García, S. B. and Mejía, E. C.. 2011. Efficiency of payments for environmental services: equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecological Economics 70(12):2361–2368.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-de-Francisco, J. C. and Budds, J.. 2015. Payments for environmental services and control over conservation of natural resources: the role of public and private sectors in the conservation of the Nima watershed, Colombia. Ecological Economics 117:295–302.Google Scholar
Sommerville, M., Jones, J. P. G., Rahajaharison, M. and Milner-Gulland, E. J.. 2009. The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: a case study from Menabe, Madagascar. Ecological Economics 69:1262–1271.Google Scholar
Suhardiman, D., Wichelns, D., Lestrelin, G. and Hoanh, C. T.. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services in Vietnam: market-based incentives or state control of resources? Ecosystem Services 5:94–101.Google Scholar
Turpie, J. K., Marais, C. and Blignaut, J. N.. 2008. The working for water programme: evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa. Ecological Economics 65(4):788–798.Google Scholar
Tran, H., Thu, T., Zeller, M. and Suhardiman, D.. 2016. Payments for ecosystem services in Hoa Binh province, Vietnam: an institutional analysis. Ecosystem Services 22:83–93.Google Scholar
Wunder, S. 2005. Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts. Occasional Paper No. 42. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Wunder, S., Engel, S. and Pagiola, S.. 2008. Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics 65(4):834–852.Google Scholar
Xuan To, P., Dressler, W. H., Mahanty, S., Thuy Pham, T. and Zingerli, C.. 2012. The prospects for Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Vietnam: a look at three payment schemes. Human Ecology 40(2):237–249.Google Scholar

References

Agarwal, B. 2001. Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development 29(10):1623–1648.Google Scholar
Agarwal, B. 2002. The hidden side of group behaviour: a gender analysis of community forestry groups. Pages 185–208 in Heyer, J., Stewart, F., and Thorp, E., editors. Group Behaviour and Development: Is the Market Destroying Cooperation? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Agarwal, B. 2009. Gender and forest conservation: the impact of women’s participation in community forest governance. Ecological Economics 68(11):2785–2799.Google Scholar
Agarwal, B. 2010. Gender and Green Governance: The Political Economy of Women’s Presence within and beyond Community Forestry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Agarwal, B. 2015. The power of numbers in gender dynamics: illustrations from community forest groups. The Journal of Peasant Studies 42(1):1–20.Google Scholar
Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C. C.. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27:629–649.Google Scholar
Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A. and Hardin, R.. 2008. Changing governance of the world’s forests. Science, New Series 320(5882):1460–1462.Google Scholar
Alford, J. and Head, B. W.. 2017. Wicked and less wicked problems: a typology and a contingency framework. Policy and Society 36:397–413.Google Scholar
Andersson, K. and Agrawal, A.. 2011. Inequalities, institutions, and forest commons. Global Environmental Change 21(3):866–875.Google Scholar
Ansell, C. and Gash, A.. 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4):543–571.Google Scholar
Arwida, S. D., Maharami, C. D., Sijapati Basnett, B. and Yang, A. L.. 2017. Gender-Relevant Considerations for Developing REDD+ Indicators: Lessons Learned for Indonesia. CIFOR Info Brief 168. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Baland, J. M. and Platteau, J. P.. 1999. The ambiguous impact of inequality on local resource management. World Development 27(5):773–788.Google Scholar
Bee, B., Rice, J. and Trauger, A.. 2015. A feminist approach to climate change governance: everyday and intimate politics. Geography Compass 9(6):339–350.Google Scholar
Bee, B. and Sijapati Basnett, B.. 2016. Engendering social and environmental safeguards in REDD+: lessons from feminist and development research. Third World Quarterly 38(4):787–804.Google Scholar
Benerìa, L., Floro, M., Grown, C. and MacDonald, M.. 2000. Introduction: globalization and gender. Feminist Economics 6(3):vii–xviii.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90(5):1692–1702.Google Scholar
Biermayr-Jenzano, P., Kassam, S. N., and Hassan, A. W.. 2014. Understanding Gender and Poverty Dimensions of High Value Agricultural Commodity Chains in the Souss-Masaa-Draa Region of South-Western Morocco. ICARDA working paper. Amman: ICARDA.Google Scholar
Blaikie, P. 2006. Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development 34(11):1942–1957.Google Scholar
Bos, A.B., Duchelle, A. E., Angelsen, A., et al. 2017. Comparing methods for assessing the effectiveness of subnational REDD plus initiatives. Environmental Research Letters 12(7):1–12.Google Scholar
Chandhoke, N. 2003. Governance and the pluralisation of the state: implications for democratic citizenship. Economic and Political Weekly 38(28):2957–2968.Google Scholar
Chant, S. 2016. Women, girls and world poverty: empowerment, equality or essentialism? International Development Planning Review 38(1):1–24.Google Scholar
Chant, S. and Sweetman, C.. 2012. Fixing women or fixing the world? ‘Smart economics’, efficiency approaches, and gender equality in development, Gender & Development 20(3):517–529.Google Scholar
Cleaver, F. 2002. Reinventing institutions: bricolage and the social embeddedness of natural resource management. The European Journal of Development Research 14(2):11–30.Google Scholar
Coleman, E. A. and Mwangi, E.. 2013. Women’s participation in forest management: a cross-country analysis. Global Environmental Change 23:193–205.Google Scholar
Corbera, E., Kosoy, N. and Martinez Tuna, M.. 2007. Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: case studies from Meso-America. Global Environmental Change 17:365–380.Google Scholar
Dey de Pryck, J., Elias, M. and Sijapati Basnett, B.. 2019. Globalization and employment in forests and tree value chains: are women losing out? Pages 347–380 in Farcy, C., Martinez de Arano, I., and Rojas-Briales, E., editors. Forests in the Midst of Global Changes. Oxford, UK: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Dey de Pryck, J. and Termine, P.. 2014. Gender inequalities in rural labor markets. Pages 343–370 in Quisumbing, A., Meinzen-Dick, R., Raney, T., Croppenstedt, A., Behrman, J. A. and Peterman, A., editors. Gender in Agriculture. Closing the Knowledge Gap. Rome: FAO and Springer.Google Scholar
Djoudi, H. and Brockhaus, M.. 2011. Is adaptation to climate change gender neutral? Lessons from communities dependent on livestock and forests in northern Mali. International Forestry Review 13(2):123–135.Google Scholar
Doss, C., Kieran, C. and Kilic, T.. 2017. Measuring Ownership, Control, and Use of Assets. Policy Research Working Paper 8146. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Dunaway, W.A. 2014. Gendered Commodity Chains: Seeing Women’s Work and Households in Global Production. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Eilenberg, M. 2015. Shades of green and REDD: local and global contestations over the value of forest versus plantation development on the Indonesian forest frontier. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 56(1):48–61.Google Scholar
Elgert, L. 2012. Certified discourse? The politics of developing soy certification. Geoforum 43(2):295–304.Google Scholar
Elias, M. 2010. Transforming Nature’s Subsidy: Global Markets, Burkinabè Women and African Shea Butter. PhD Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Elias, M. and Arora-Jonsson, S.. 2016. Negotiating across difference: gendered exclusions and cooperation in the shea value chain. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 35(1):107–125.Google Scholar
Elmhirst, R. J., Siscawati, M., Sijapati Basnett, B. and Ekowati, D.. 2017. Gender and generation in engagements with oil palm in East Kalimantan, Indonesia: insights from feminist Political Ecology. Journal of Peasant Studies 44(6):1135–1157.Google Scholar
Esquivel, V. 2016. Power and the sustainable development goals: a feminist analysis. Gender and Development 24(1):9–23.Google Scholar
Evans, K., Larson, A. M., Mwangi, E., et al. 2014. Field Guide to Adaptive Collaborative Management and Improving Women’s Participation. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research. Available at: www.cifor.org/library/5085/field-guide-to-adaptive-collaborative-management-and-improving-womens-participationGoogle Scholar
FAO. 2015. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. How Are the World's Forests Changing? 2nd edition. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Farcy, C., De Camino, R., Martinez de Arano, I. and Rojas-Briales, E.. 2016. External drivers of changes challenging forestry: political and social issues at stake. Pages 87–105 in Larocque, G. R., editor. Ecological Forest Management Handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
Gilmour, D. 2016. Forty Years of Community-Based Forestry: A Review of Its Extent and Effectiveness. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Hardin, G. 1993. Living within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hegde, N., Elias, M., Lamers, H. A. H. and Hegde, M.. 2016. Engaging local communities in social learning for inclusive management of native fruit trees in the Central Western Ghats, India. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 1:65–83.Google Scholar
IFC. 2016. Investing in Women along Agribusiness Value Chains. Washington, DC: International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group.Google Scholar
Indrarto, G.B., Murharjanti, P., Khatarina, J., et al. 2012. The Context of REDD+ in Indonesia: Drivers, Agents and Institutions. Working Paper 92. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Julia, J. and White, B.. 2012. Gendered experiences of dispossession: oil palm expansion in a Dayak Hibun community in West Kalimantan. Journal of Peasant Studies 39:995–1016.Google Scholar
Kasente, D. 2012. Fair Trade and organic certification in value chains: lessons from a gender analysis from coffee exporting in Uganda. Gender & Development 20(1):111–127.Google Scholar
Khadka, M., Karki, S., Karky, B. S., Kotru, R. and Darjee, K. B.. 2014. Gender equality and challenges to REDD+ initiative in Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 34(3):197–207.Google Scholar
Kleinschmit, D., Sijapati Basnett, B., Martin, A., Rai, N. D. and Smith-Hall, C.. 2015. Drivers of forests and tree-based systems for food security. Pages 87–110 in Vira, B., Wildburger, C. and Mansourian, S., editors. Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition. A Global Assessment Report. IUFRO World Series 33. Vienna: IUFRO.Google Scholar
Kumar, K., Singh, N. M. and Kerr, J. M.. 2015. Decentralisation and democratic forest reforms in India: moving to a rights-based approach. Forest Policy and Economics 51:1–8.Google Scholar
Larson, A. M., Dokken, T., Duchelle, A. E., et al. 2015. The role of women in early REDD+ implementation: lessons for future engagement. International Forestry Review 17(1):43–65.Google Scholar
Larson, A. M., Solis, D., Duchelle, A. E., et al. 2018. Gender lessons for climate initiatives: a comparative study of REDD+ Impacts and subjective wellbeing. World Development 108:86–102.Google Scholar
Le Mare, A. 2008. The impact of Fair Trade on social and economic development: a review of the literature. Geography Compass 2(60):1922–1942.Google Scholar
Leisher, C., Temsah, G., Booker, F., et al. 2016. Does the gender composition of forest and fishery management group affect resource governance and conservation outcomes? A systematic map. Environmental Evidence 5(6):1–10.Google Scholar
Lewark, S., George, L. and Karmann, M.. 2011. Study of gender equality in community based forest certification programmes in Nepal. International Forestry Review 13(2):195–204.Google Scholar
Li, T. 2015. Social Impacts of Oil Palm in Indonesia: A Gendered Perspective from West Kalimantan. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. F. 2012. Certifying in contested spaces: private regulation in Indonesian forestry and palm oil. Third World Quarterly 33(10):1871–1888.Google Scholar
McDougall, C., Ojha, H., Banjade, M., et al. 2008. Forests of Learning: Experiences from Research on an Adaptive Collaborative Approach to Community Forestry in Nepal. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A., Behrman, J., et al. 2012. Engendering Agricultural Research, Development, and Extension. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
Mukasa, C., Tibazalika, A., Mwangi, E., et al. 2016. Strengthening Women’s Tenure Rights and Participation in Community Forestry. InfoBrief No. 155. Bogor: Centre for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
Mukhopadhyay, L. 2004. Inequality, differential technology for resource extraction and voluntary collective action in commons. Ecological Economics 49(2):215–230.Google Scholar
Mwangi, E. 2007. Subdividing the commons. Distributional conflict in the transition from collective to individual property rights in Kenya’s Maasailand. World Development 35(5):815–834.Google Scholar
Myers, R, Larson, A. M., Ravikumar, A., et al. 2018. Messiness of forest governance: How technical approaches suppress politics in REDD+ and conservation projects. Global Environmental Change 50:314–324.Google Scholar
Nightingale, A. J. 2002. Participating or just sitting in? The dynamics of gender and caste in community forestry. Journal of Forestry and Livelihoods 2(1):17–24.Google Scholar
North, D. C. 1991. Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(2):97–112.Google Scholar
Peach Brown, H. C. 2011. Gender, climate change and REDD+ in the Congo Basin forests of Central Africa. International Forestry Review 13(2):163–176.Google Scholar
Pérez-Cirera, V. and Lovett, J. C.. 2006. Power distribution, the external environment and common property forest governance: a local user groups model. Ecological Economics 59(3):341–352.Google Scholar
Poteete, A. and Ostrom, E.. 2004. Heterogeneity, group size, and collective action: the role of institutions in forest management. Development and Change 35(3):435–461.Google Scholar
Razavi, S. 2016. The 2030 Agenda: challenges of implementation to attain gender equality and women’s rights. Gender and Development 24(1):25–41.Google Scholar
Razavi, S. and Miller, C.. 1995. From WID to GAD: Conceptual Shifts in the Women and Development Discourse. Occasional Paper 1. Geneva: UNRISD.Google Scholar
Rice, J. 2010. Free trade, fair trade and gender inequality in less developed countries. Sustainable Development 18:42–50.Google Scholar
Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI). 2012. What rights? A comparative analysis of developing countries’ national legislation on community and indigenous peoples’ forest tenure rights. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI). 2014. What Future for Reform? Progress and Slowdown in Forest Tenure Reform since 2002. Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative.Google Scholar
Röling, N. G. and Jiggins, J.. 1998. The ecological knowledge system. Pages 281–301 in Röling, N.G. and Wagemakers, M. A. E., editors. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sarin, M. 2001. Empowerment and disempowerment of forest women in Uttarakhand, India. Gender, Technology and Development 5(3):341–364.Google Scholar
Sarker, D. and Das, N.. 2002. Women’s participation in forestry: some theoretical and empirical issues. Economic and Political Weekly 37(43):4407–4412.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2000. Social Exclusion: Concept, Application and Scrutiny. Social Development Papers No. 1. Manila: Office of Environment and Social Development, Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
Sijapati Basnett, B., Gyncy, S. and Anandi, C. A. M.. 2016. Transforming the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil for Greater Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. Information Brief 166. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Smaller, C., Sexsmith, K., Potts, J. and Huppé, G.. 2016. Promoting Gender Equality in Transnational Agricultural Investments: Lessons from Voluntary Sustainability Standards. Paper presented at the 2016 World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Smith, S. 2013. Assessing the gender impacts of Fairtrade. Social Enterprise Journal 9(1):102–122.Google Scholar
Stiem, L. and Krause, T.. 2016. Exploring the impact of social norms and perceptions on women’s participation in customary forest and land governance in the Democratic Republic of Congo: implications for REDD+. International Forestry Review 18(1):110–122.Google Scholar
Stuart, E. and Woodroffe, J.. 2016. Leaving no-one behind: can the Sustainable Development Goals succeed where the Millennium Development Goals lacked? Gender and Development 24(1):69–81.Google Scholar
Sunderland, T., Achdiawan, R., Angelsen, A., et al. 2014. Challenging perceptions about men, women, and forest product use. A global comparative study. World Development 64:56–66.Google Scholar
UN Women. 2014. World Survey on the Role of Women in Development 2014: Gender Equality and Sustainable Development. New York: UN Women Institutional Report, UN Women.Google Scholar
UN-REDD. 2011. The Business Case for Mainstreaming Gender in REDD+. Geneva: UN-REDD Programme Report, UN-REDD.Google Scholar
Upadhyay, B. 2005. Women and natural resource management: illustrations from India and Nepal. Natural Resources Forum 29(3):224–232.Google Scholar
Varughese, G. and Ostrom, E.. 2001. The contested role of heterogeneity in collective action: some evidence from community forestry in Nepal. World Development 29(5):747–765.Google Scholar
Vira, B. 2005. Deconstructing the Harda experience: limits of bureaucratic participation. Economic and Political Weekly 40(48):5068–5075.Google Scholar
Vira, B., Wildburger, C. and Mansourian, S.. 2015. Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition. A Global Assessment Report. IUFRO World Series 33. Vienna: IUFRO.Google Scholar
Westholm, L. and Arora-Jonsson, S.. 2015. Defining solutions, finding problems: deforestation, gender, and REDD+ in Burkina Faso. Conservation and Society 13(2):189–199.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2012. World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar

References

Amancio, N. L. 2018. The last trees of the Amazon. OjoPúblico. 30 September 2018. Available at: https://ojo-publico.com/especiales/dirty-timber/ (accessed 30 January 2019).Google Scholar
Blombäck, P., Poschen, P. and Lövgren, M.. 2003. Employment Trends and Prospects in the European Forest Sector. Rome: UN FAO. Available at: www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/docs/efsos/03-sept/dp-29.pdf (accessed 25 June 2018).Google Scholar
Boucher, D., May-Tobin, C., Lininger, K., et al. 2011. The Root of the Problem: What’s Driving Tropical Deforestation Today? Union of Concerned Scientists. Available at: www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/UCS_RootoftheProblem_DriversofDeforestation_FullReport.pdf (accessed 29 January 2019).Google Scholar
Cardona, A. J. P. 2017. The Deforestation Gangs of Colombia. Pacific Standard. 8 August. Available at: https://psmag.com/environment/deforestation-gangs-of-colombia( accessed 6 December 2018).Google Scholar
Congress of the United States Congressional Budget Office. 2012. Deforestation and Greenhouse Gases. Available at: www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/1-6-12-forest.pdf (accessed 29 January 2019).Google Scholar
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., et al. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 26:152–158.Google Scholar
Environmental Investigation Agency. 2015. Addressing ASEAN’s Regional Rosewood Crisis: An Urgent Call to Action. 29 April 2015. Available at: https://eia-international.org/report/addressing-aseans-regional-rosewood-crisis-an-urgent-call-to-action/ (accessed 29 January 2019).Google Scholar
FAOSTAT. 2019. Forestry Production and Trade. Available at: www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO (accessed 30 January 2019).Google Scholar
Global Forest Watch. 2018. Colombia. Available at: www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/COL?category=forest-change (accessed 6 December 2018).Google Scholar
INTERPOL. 2014. Resolution No. 3 AG-2014-RES-03. Available at: www.interpol.int/content/download/26799/362412/version/4/file/AG-2014-RES-03percent20Epercent20ENVIRONMENTALpercent20SECURITY.pdf (accessed 30 January 2019).Google Scholar
INTERPOL. 2018. Norway Steps up Fight against Illegal Deforestation with UN, INTERPOL. Available at: www.interpol.int/News-and-media/News/2018/N2018-062 (accessed 30 January 2019).Google Scholar
IPBES. 2018. Summary for Policymakers of the Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat.Google Scholar
Lizcano, M. F. 2018. Criminal Mafias take over Colombian forests. Mongabay Series: Global Forests. 7 September 2018. Available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2018/09/criminal-mafias-take-over-colombian-forests/ (accessed 6 December 2018).Google Scholar
Nellemann, C., Henriksen, R., Pravettoni, R., et al., editors. 2018. World Atlas of Illicit Flows. Norway: RHIPTO – Norwegian Centre for Global Analyses, INTERPOL and the Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime.Google Scholar
Nepstad, D., McGrath, D., Stickler, C. et al. 2014. Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science 344:1118–1123.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G. 2017. What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program. Policy and Society 36(3):385–396.Google Scholar
Schlingemann, L. (Editor in Chief); de Bortoli, I., Favilli, F., Egerer, H., et al., editors. 2017. Combating Wildlife and Forest Crime in the Danube-Carpathian Region. A UN Environment – Eurac Research – WWF Report. Available at: www.unep.org (accessed 30 June 2018).Google Scholar
Smeby, F., Henriksen, R. and Nellemann, C.. 2016. Combating Poaching and Illegal Logging in Tanzania: Voices of the Rangers – Hands-On Experiences from the Field. Norway: GRID-Arendal, RHIPTO.Google Scholar
Statista. 2016. Distribution of Paper Production Worldwide in 2016 by Region. Available at: www.statista.com/statistics/595787/paper-production-worldwide-distribution-by-region/ (accessed 25 June 2018).Google Scholar
Tollefson, J. 2015. Stopping deforestation: battle for the Amazon. Nature 520:20–23.Google Scholar
UNEP/INTERPOL. 2012. Green Carbon, Black Trade: Illegal Logging, Tax Fraud and Laundering in the World’s Tropical Forests. A UNEP Rapid Response Assessment. Nellemann, C., editor. Norway: GRID-Arendal. Available at: www.grida.no/publications/126 (accessed 29 January 2019).Google Scholar
UNEP/INTERPOL. 2016. The Rise of Environmental Crime – A Growing Threat to Natural Resources Peace, Development and Security. A UNEP- INTERPOL Rapid Response Assessment. Nellemann, C., Henriksen, R., Kreilhuber, A., Stewart, D., Kotsovou, M., Raxter, P., Mrema, E. and Barrat, S., editors. Norway: United Nations Environment Programme and RHIPTO Rapid Response–Norwegian Center for Global Analyses. Available at: www.rhipto.orgGoogle Scholar
UNEP/INTERPOL. 2014. The Environmental Crime Crisis – Threats to Sustainable Development from Illegal Exploitation and Trade in Wildlife and Forest Resources. A UNEP Rapid Response Assessment. Nellemann, C., Henriksen, R., Raxter, P., Ash, N., and Mrema, E., editors. Norway: United Nations Environment Programme and GRID-Arendal, Nairobi and Arendal. Available at: www.grida.noGoogle Scholar
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). 2019. Coca Crops in Colombia at All-Time High, UNODC Report finds. Available at: www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2018/September/coca-crops-in-colombia-at-all-time-high--unodc-report-finds.html (accessed 30 January 2019).Google Scholar
UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea. 2011. S/2011/433 Report of the Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea pursuant to Security Council resolution 1916 (2010), 18 July 2011. Available at: www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2011/433 (accessed 25 June 2018).Google Scholar
UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea. 2013. S/2013/413. Report on the Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea pursuant to Security Council resolution 2060 (2012): Somalia. 12 July 2013. Available at: www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2013/413 (accessed 30 January 2019).Google Scholar
UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea. 2016. S/2016/919. Report on Somalia of the Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea. 7 October 2016. Available at: www.undocs.org/S/2016/919 (accessed 29 January 2019).Google Scholar
UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea. 2017. S/2017/924. Report on Somalia of the Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea. 2 November 2017. Available at: www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/percent7b65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9percent7d/s_2017_924.pdf (accessed 30 January 2019).Google Scholar
UNODC. 2018. Coca Crops in Colombia at all-time high, UNODC Report finds. 19 September 2018. Available at: www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2018/September/coca-crops-in-colombia-at-all-time-high--unodc-report-finds.html (accessed 29 January 2019).Google Scholar
UNODC. 2019. Organized Crime. Available at: www.unodc.org/unodc/en/organized-crime/index.html (accessed 29 January 2019).Google Scholar
Volckhausen, T. 2017. Colombia faces soaring deforestation following FARC guerilla demobilization. Earth Island Journal. 7 August 2017. Available at: www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/colombia_faces_soaring_deforestation_farc_guerrilla_demobilization/ (accessed 6 December 2018).Google Scholar

References

Antikainen, R., Dalhammar, C., Hildén, M., et al. 2017. Renewal of Forest Based Manufacturing towards a Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy. Reports of the Finnish Environment Institute 13, 2017.Google Scholar
BBI. 2013. Strategic Innovation and Research Agenda (SIRA), Bio-Based Industries Consortium. Available at: https://biconsortium.eu/about/our-vision-strategy/sira (accessed 30 June 2019).Google Scholar
Borregaard. 2018. Borregaard Annual Report 2017. Available at: www.borregaard.comGoogle Scholar
Cai, Z., Rudie, A. W., Stark, N. M., Sabo, R. C. and Ralph, S. A.. 2014. New products and product categories in the global forest sector. Pages 129–149 in Hansen, E., Panwar, R. and Vlosky, R., editors. The Global Forest Sector: Changes, Practices, and Prospects. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
EC (European Commission). 2015. Closing the Loop: An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. European Commission, COM(2015) 614.Google Scholar
FAO. 2014. State of the World’s Forests: Enhancing the Socioeconomic Benefits from Forests. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
FAO. 2019. FAOSTAT database. Available at: www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FOGoogle Scholar
German Bioeconomy Council. 2018a. Bioeconomy Policy (Part III) Update Report of National Strategies around the World. Available at: http://gbs2018.com/fileadmin/gbs2018/Downloads/GBS_2018_Bioeconomy-Strategies-around-the_World_Part-III.pdfGoogle Scholar
German Bioeconomy Council. 2018b. Global Bioeconomy Summit Communiqué. Available at: http://gbs2018.com/fileadmin/gbs2018/Downloads/GBS_2018_Bioeconomy-Strategies-around-the_World_Part-III.pdfGoogle Scholar
Graichen, F. H., Grigsby, W. J., Hill, S. J., et al. 2017. Yes, we can make money out of lignin and other bio-based resources. Industrial Crops and Products 106:74–85.Google Scholar
Hetemäki, L., editor. 2014. Future of the European Forest-Based Sector: Structural Changes towards Bioeconomy. EFI What Science Can Tell Us, No. 6. Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
Hetemäki, L. and Hurmekoski, E.. 2016. Forest products markets under change: review and research implications. Current Forestry Reports. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-016-0042-z.Google Scholar
Hetemäki, L., Hänninen, R. and Moiseyev, A.. 2013. Markets and market forces for pulp and paper products. Pages 99–128 in Hansen, E., Panwar, R. and Vlosky, R., editors. The Global Forest Sector: Changes, Practices, and Prospects. USA: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
Hetemäki, L., Hanewinkel, M., Muys, B., et al. 2017. Leading the Way to a European Circular Bioeconomy Strategy. From Science to Policy 5. Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
Hurmekoski, E. 2016. Long-Term Outlook for Wood Construction in Europe. Dissertationes Forestales 211, Finnish Society of Forest Science.Google Scholar
Hurmekoski, E. and Hetemäki, L.. 2013. Studying the future of the forest sector: review and implications for long-term outlook studies. Forest Policy and Economics 34:17–29.Google Scholar
Hurmekoski, E., Jonsson, R., Korhonen, J., et al. 2018. Diversification of the forest industries: role of new wood-based products. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 48(12):1417–1432. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2018-0116Google Scholar
Jonsson, R., Hurmekoski, E., Hetemäki, L. and Prestemon, J.. 2017. What is the current state of forest product markets and how will they develop in the future? Pages 99–128 in G. Winkel, editor. Towards a Sustainable European Forest-Based Bioeconomy – Assessment and the Way Forward. What Science Can Tell Us, No. 8. Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
Kallio, A. M. I., Chudy, R. and Solberg, B.. 2018. Prospects for producing liquid wood-based biofuels and impacts in the wood using sectors in Europe. Biomass and Bioenergy 108:415–425.Google Scholar
Kruus, K. and Hakala, T.. 2017. The Making of Bioeconomy Transformation. Espoo, Finland: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd.Google Scholar
Natural Resources Canada. 2017. The State of Canada’s Forests: Annual Report 2017. Available at: http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/38871.pdfGoogle Scholar
Näyhä, A., Hetemäki, L. and Stern, T.. 2014. New products outlook. Pages 15–32 in L. Hetemäki, editor. Future of the European Forest-Based Sector: Structural Changes towards Bioeconomy. EFI What Science Can Tell Us, Vol. 6. Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2016. Global Forest, Paper and Packaging Industry Survey: 2016 Edition Survey of 2015 Results. Available at: www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/assets/pwc-annualfpp-industry-survey-2016-10.pdf (accessed 30 June 2019).Google Scholar
Trømborg, E., Bolkesjø, T. F. and Solberg, B.. 2013. Second-generation biofuels: impacts on bioheat production and forest products markets. International Journal of Energy Sector Management 7(3):383–402.Google Scholar
UN. 2015a. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nation General Assembly, A/RES/70/1.Google Scholar
UN. 2015b. Paris Agreement, United Nations.Google Scholar
UPM-Kymmene. 2001. Annual Report 2000, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
UPM-Kymmene. 2018. UPM Annual Report 2017, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
Wolfslehner, B., Linser, S., Pülzl, H., et al. 2016. Forest Bioeconomy – A New Scope for Sustainability Indicators. From Science to Policy, No. 4. Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2019. Global Consumption Database. Available at: http://datatopics.worldbank.org/consumption/Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×