IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v12y2010i7p489-496.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenges in determining national effects of international policy processes: Forest protection in Norway as a case

Author

Listed:
  • Lindstad, Berit H.
  • Solberg, Birger

Abstract

During recent decades, international forest policy processes have made numerous recommendations for sustainable forest management, including forest protection, but questions have been raised concerning the influences of these processes on national forest policies and management. The main objective of this article is to explore challenges in determining the national effects of three international forest policy processes, while building on earlier literature on the effects and effectiveness of international regimes. Our study focuses on one single substantive element (forest protection) in one country (Norway). We explore the challenges in verifying causal connections between national changes and the international recommendations for an element where a good deal of information is available. Quantitative data for protection status as well as qualitative data from an empirical study giving differing opinions on Norway's compliance with international recommendations are combined and discussed for two alternative concepts of effects: (i) relative improvement with the regimes compared to the situation with no regime, and (ii) the regime's contribution to solving the problem. The findings suggest that international processes can be attributed limited or comprehensive influence depending on the interpretation of the recommendations as well as on the analytical approach chosen in determining influences. Further analysis of the effects of international forest policy processes on forest management and across countries is recommended, and factors considered for such analysis to be informative and credible are proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • Lindstad, Berit H. & Solberg, Birger, 2010. "Challenges in determining national effects of international policy processes: Forest protection in Norway as a case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(7), pages 489-496, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:12:y:2010:i:7:p:489-496
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389-9341(10)00101-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lars Gulbrandsen, 2005. "The Effectiveness of Non-State Governance Schemes: A Comparative Study of Forest Certification in Norway and Sweden," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 125-149, June.
    2. Radoslav S. Dimitrov, 2005. "Hostage to Norms: States, Institutions and Global Forest Politics," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 5(4), pages 1-24, November.
    3. Carsten Helm & Detlef Sprinz, 2000. "Measuring the Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(5), pages 630-652, October.
    4. Oran R. Young, 2001. "Inferences and Indices: Evaluating the Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 1(1), pages 99-121, February.
    5. Jon Hovi & Detlef F. Sprinz & Arild Underdal, 2003. "The Oslo-Potsdam Solution to Measuring Regime Effectiveness: Critique, Response, and the Road Ahead," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 3(3), pages 74-96, August.
    6. Lars H. Gulbrandsen, 2004. "Overlapping Public and Private Governance: Can Forest Certification Fill the Gaps in the Global Forest Regime?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 4(2), pages 75-99, May.
    7. Evan J. Ringquist & Tatiana Kostadinova, 2005. "Assessing the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements: The Case of the 1985 Helsinki Protocol," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(1), pages 86-102, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Giessen, Lukas & Krott, Max & Möllmann, Torsten, 2014. "Increasing representation of states by utilitarian as compared to environmental bureaucracies in international forest and forest–environmental policy negotiations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 97-104.
    2. Rahman, Md Saifur & Miah, Sohag & Giessen, Lukas, 2018. "A new model of development coalition building: USAID achieving legitimate access and dominant information in Bangladesh’s forest policy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 248-261.
    3. Rahman, Md Saifur & Sadath, Md. Nazmus & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Foreign donors driving policy change in recipient countries: Three decades of development aid towards community-based forest policy in Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 39-53.
    4. Singer, Benjamin & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Towards a donut regime? Domestic actors, climatization, and the hollowing-out of the international forests regime in the Anthropocene," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 69-79.
    5. Logmani, Jacqueline & Krott, Max & Lecyk, Michal Tymoteusz & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Customizing elements of the International Forest Regime Complex in Poland? Non-implementation of a National Forest Programme and redefined transposition of NATURA 2000 in Bialowieza Forest," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 81-90.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tobias Böhmelt & Jürg Vollenweider, 2015. "Information flows and social capital through linkages: the effectiveness of the CLRTAP network," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 105-123, May.
    2. Jürg Vollenweider, 2013. "The effectiveness of international environmental agreements," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 343-367, September.
    3. Tamar Gutner & Alexander Thompson, 2010. "The politics of IO performance: A framework," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 227-248, September.
    4. Andreas Kokkvoll Tveit, 2018. "Can the management school explain noncompliance with international environmental agreements?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 491-512, August.
    5. Carolyn Johns & Adam Thorn & Debora VanNijnatten, 2018. "Environmental regime effectiveness and the North American Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 315-333, June.
    6. Arild Underdal, 2013. "Meeting common environmental challenges: the co-evolution of policies and practices," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 15-30, March.
    7. Maximilian S. T. Wanner, 0. "The effectiveness of soft law in international environmental regimes: participation and compliance in the Hyogo Framework for Action," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    8. Sander, Michael, 2013. "Conceptual proposals for measuring the impact of international regimes on energy security," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 449-457.
    9. Yves Steinebach, 2022. "Instrument choice, implementation structures, and the effectiveness of environmental policies: A cross‐national analysis," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 225-242, January.
    10. Frank Grundig, 2012. "Dealing with the temporal domain of regime effectiveness: A further conceptual development of the Oslo-Potsdam solution," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 111-127, May.
    11. Yoomi Kim & Katsuya Tanaka & Shunji Matsuoka, 2017. "Institutional Mechanisms and the Consequences of International Environmental Agreements," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(1), pages 77-98, February.
    12. A. Mikulková & M. Hájek & M. Štěpánková & M. Ševčík, 2015. "Forest certification as a tool to support sustainable development in forest management," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 61(8), pages 359-368.
    13. Aakvik, Arild & Tjøtta, Sigve, 2011. "Do collective actions clear common air? The effect of international environmental protocols on sulphur emissions," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 343-351, June.
    14. Johansson, Johanna & Lidestav, Gun, 2011. "Can voluntary standards regulate forestry? -- Assessing the environmental impacts of forest certification in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 191-198, March.
    15. Maamoun, Nada, 2019. "The Kyoto protocol: Empirical evidence of a hidden success," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 227-256.
    16. Ronald Mitchell, 2013. "Oran Young and international institutions," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, March.
    17. Chenaz B. Seelarbokus, 2014. "Assessing the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (IEAs)," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, February.
    18. Stephen Wyatt & Sara Teitelbaum, 2020. "Certifying a state forestry agency in Quebec: Complementarity and conflict around government responsibilities, indigenous rights, and certification of the state as forest manager," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 551-567, July.
    19. Frank Biermann, 2002. "Strengthening Green Global Governance in a Disparate World SocietyWould a World Environment Organisation Benefit the South?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 297-315, December.
    20. Arild Underdal, 2012. "Strategies in international regime negotiations: reflecting background conditions or shaping outcomes?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 129-144, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:12:y:2010:i:7:p:489-496. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.