IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v32y2013icp14-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opinions on legality principles considered in the FLEGT/VPA policy in Ghana and Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Wiersum, K. Freerk
  • Elands, Birgit H.M.

Abstract

The Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade programme (FLEGT) of the European Union aims at stimulating both legal timber production and good forest governance. The EU establishes Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) with individual tropical timber exporting countries; these VPAs should be developed through a stakeholder-inclusive governance process and define national standards for timber legality. The national policy level serves as an interface between the EU policy and the local realities of forest exploitation. This article assesses whether new assemblages of timber legality standards were developed at this interface. It presents the opinions of people actively engaged in the FLEGT/VPA process in Ghana (n=38) and Indonesia (n=40) about which principles regarding timber legality, law enforcement and social safeguards were considered during the VPA negotiations in each country. Almost half of the respondents (44%) were positive about the integrative focus of VPA discussions focusing on both forestry and livelihood issues, 40% considered it had mostly a limited focus or traditional timber sector focus, and 16% indicated a high degree of attention to social responsibility issues. There were differences in the characteristics of respondents and their opinions between Ghana and Indonesia; these reflect differences in organisation of the FLEGT/VPA process. The findings demonstrate how depending on country-specific policy processes principles from an international forest policy are adapted at national level; this may involve new assemblages of the original policy principles.

Suggested Citation

  • Wiersum, K. Freerk & Elands, Birgit H.M., 2013. "Opinions on legality principles considered in the FLEGT/VPA policy in Ghana and Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 14-22.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:32:y:2013:i:c:p:14-22
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.08.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934112001918
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.08.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Ochieng, Robert M. & Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J. & Nketiah, Kwabena S., 2013. "Interaction between the FLEGT-VPA and REDD+ in Ghana: Recommendations for interaction management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 32-39.
    2. David Humphreys, 2004. "Redefining the Issues: NGO Influence on International Forest Negotiations," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 4(2), pages 51-74, May.
    3. van Heeswijk, Laura & Turnhout, Esther, 2013. "The discursive structure of FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade): The negotiation and interpretation of legality in the EU and Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 6-13.
    4. Wunder, Sven, 2001. "Poverty Alleviation and Tropical Forests--What Scope for Synergies?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 1817-1833, November.
    5. McGinley, Kathleen & Cubbage, Frederick W., 2011. "Governmental regulation and nongovernmental certification of forests in the tropics: Policy, execution, uptake, and overlap in Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Nicaragua," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 206-220, March.
    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. Afriyie, Kwadwo & Abass, Kabila, 2020. "Profiting from illegality: A discursive analysis of the chainsaw operation in rural Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    2. Ochieng, Robert M. & Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J. & Nketiah, Kwabena S., 2013. "Interaction between the FLEGT-VPA and REDD+ in Ghana: Recommendations for interaction management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 32-39.
    3. Gençay, Gökçe & Mercimek, Anıl, 2019. "Public Consciousness and Influence of Law on Forest Crimes: Insights from Kastamonu, Turkey," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Park, Mi Sun & Lee, Hyowon, 2019. "Accountability and reciprocal interests of bilateral forest cooperation under the global forest regime," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 32-44.
    5. Susilawati, Depi & Kanowski, Peter & Setyowati, Abidah B. & Resosudarmo, Ida Aju Pradnja & Race, Digby, 2019. "Compliance of smallholder timber value chains in East Java with Indonesia's timber legality verification system," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 41-50.
    6. Brusselaers, Jan & Buysse, Jeroen, 2021. "Legality requirements for wood import in the EU: Who wins, who loses?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    7. Brusselaers, Jan & Buysse, Jeroen, 2018. "Implementation of the EU-Cameroon Voluntary Partnership Agreement policy: Trade distortion, rent-seeking and anticipative behavior," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 167-179.
    8. Tegegne, Yitagesu T. & Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & FOBISSIE, KALAME & Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J. & Lindner, Marcus & Kanninen, Markku, 2017. "Synergies among social safeguards in FLEGT and REDD+ in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 1-11.
    9. Ros-Tonen, Mirjam A.F. & Insaidoo, Thomas F.G. & Acheampong, Emmanuel, 2013. "Promising start, bleak outlook: The role of Ghana's modified taungya system as a social safeguard in timber legality processes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 57-67.
    10. de Jong, Wil & Cano, Walter & Zenteno, Mario & Soriano, Marlene, 2014. "The legally allowable versus the informally practicable in Bolivia’s domestic timber market," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 46-54.
    11. Sahide, Muhammad Alif K. & Maryudi, Ahmad & Supratman, Supratman & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Is Indonesia utilising its international partners? The driving forces behind Forest Management Units," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 11-20.
    12. Maryudi, Ahmad & Nawir, Ani A. & Permadi, Dwiko B. & Purwanto, Ris H. & Pratiwi, Dian & Syofi'i, Ahmad & Sumardamto, Purnomo, 2015. "Complex regulatory frameworks governing private smallholder tree plantations in Gunungkidul District, Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-6.

    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. Tegegne, Yitagesu T. & Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & FOBISSIE, KALAME & Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J. & Lindner, Marcus & Kanninen, Markku, 2017. "Synergies among social safeguards in FLEGT and REDD+ in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 1-11.
    2. Mili Ghosh & Bhaskar Sinha, 2016. "Impact of forest policies on timber production in India: a review," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(1-2), pages 62-76, February.
    3. Timothy Cadman & Lauren Eastwood & Federico Lopez-Casero Michaelis & Tek N. Maraseni & Jamie Pittock & Tapan Sarker, 2015. "The Political Economy of Sustainable Development," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15773.
    4. Shackleton, C.M. & Garekae, H. & Sardeshpande, M. & Sinasson Sanni, G. & Twine, W.C., 2024. "Non-timber forest products as poverty traps: Fact or fiction?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    5. Antoine Leblois, 2021. "Mitigating the impact of bad rainy seasons in poor agricultural regions to tackle deforestation," Post-Print hal-03111007, HAL.
    6. Nathan, Iben & Chen, Jie & Hansen, Christian Pilegaard & Xu, Bin & Li, Yan, 2018. "Facing the complexities of the global timber trade regime: How do Chinese wood enterprises respond to international legality verification requirements, and what are the implications for regime effecti," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 169-180.
    7. Porro, Roberto & Lopez-Feldman, Alejandro & Vela-Alvarado, Jorge W., 2015. "Forest use and agriculture in Ucayali, Peru: Livelihood strategies, poverty and wealth in an Amazon frontier," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 47-56.
    8. Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof & Shkaruba, Anton, 2018. "Governance and legitimacy of the Forest Stewardship Council certification in the national contexts – A comparative study of Belarus and Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 180-188.
    9. Démurger, Sylvie & Fournier, Martin, 2011. "Poverty and firewood consumption: A case study of rural households in northern China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 512-523.
    10. Kourula, Arno, 2010. "Corporate engagement with non-governmental organizations in different institutional contexts--A case study of a forest products company," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 395-404, October.
    11. Kemkes, Robin J., 2015. "The role of natural capital in sustaining livelihoods in remote mountainous regions: The case of Upper Svaneti, Republic of Georgia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 22-31.
    12. Wunder, Sven & Angelsen, Arild & Belcher, Brian, 2014. "Forests, Livelihoods, and Conservation: Broadening the Empirical Base," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(S1), pages 1-11.
    13. Seema Jayachandran, 2022. "The Inherent Trade-Off Between the Environmental and Anti-Poverty Goals of Payments for Ecosystem Services," NBER Working Papers 29954, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Antinori, Camille M. & Rausser, Gordon C., 2003. "Does Community Involvement Matter? How Collective Choice Affects Forests in Mexico," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt83j385n0, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    15. Andong, Sandrine & Ongolo, Symphorien, 2020. "From global forest governance to domestic politics: The European forest policy reforms in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    16. Bir Chhetri & Helle Larsen & Carsten Smith-Hall, 2015. "Environmental resources reduce income inequality and the prevalence, depth and severity of poverty in rural Nepal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 513-530, June.
    17. Illukpitiya, Prabodh & Yanagida, John F., 2010. "Farming vs forests: Trade-off between agriculture and the extraction of non-timber forest products," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 1952-1963, August.
    18. Miyamoto, Motoe, 2020. "Poverty reduction saves forests sustainably: Lessons for deforestation policies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    19. Boukary OUEDRAOGO & Sylvie FERRARI, 2012. "Incidence of forest income in reducing poverty and inequalities:\r\nEvidence from forest dependent households in managed forests’ areas in Burkina Faso," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2012-28, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    20. Dambala Gelo & Steven F. Koch & Edwin Muchapondwah, 2013. "Do the Poor Benefit from Devolution Policies? Evidences from Quantile Treatment Effect Evaluation of Joint Forest Management," Working Papers 201388, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.

    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:32:y:2013:i:c:p:14-22. 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.