IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v89y2018icp16-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The formulation of the National Forest Programme in the Czech Republic: A qualitative survey

Author

Listed:
  • Balest, Jessica
  • Hrib, Michal
  • Dobšinská, Zuzana
  • Paletto, Alessandro

Abstract

National Forest Programme (NFP) is a comprehensive social and political framework to achieve an effective sustainable forest management developing a spirit of cooperation among national and sub-national social actors. In this study, the participatory process adopted in the formulation of the second NFP in Czech Republic (NFPII) was analysed considering four aspects: (1) structure of the participatory process; (2) level of participation and social actors involved; (3) role of facilitator; (4) skills and knowledge of participants. The data were collected through in-depth interviews to a sample of stakeholders (44% of total stakeholders involved in the decision-making process). The results of this study show that the participatory process for Czech NFPII was designed considering representativeness, early involvement, independency, influence, transparency, and resource accessibility criterion. The participatory process was structured in two stages: in the first stage the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of the Environment identified 17 experts to involve in the definition of a first draft of NFPII; in the second stage the two Ministries identified and involved 18 organized groups of stakeholders in order to discuss the key issues previously identified by experts. The main weakness of participatory process in the formulation of NFPII in Czech Republic is the low level of participation of citizens and the different level of skills and knowledge among participants.

Suggested Citation

  • Balest, Jessica & Hrib, Michal & Dobšinská, Zuzana & Paletto, Alessandro, 2018. "The formulation of the National Forest Programme in the Czech Republic: A qualitative survey," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 16-21.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:89:y:2018:i:c:p:16-21
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.02.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934117301144
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.02.002?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. Buchy, M. & Hoverman, S., 2000. "Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 15-25, May.
    2. Winkel, Georg & Sotirov, Metodi, 2011. "An obituary for national forest programmes? Analyzing and learning from the strategic use of “new modes of governance” in Germany and Bulgaria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 143-154.
    3. Pulzl, Helga & Rametsteiner, Ewald, 2002. "Grounding international modes of governance into National Forest Programmes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 259-268, December.
    4. Primmer, Eeva & Kyllonen, Simo, 2006. "Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 838-853, November.
    5. Elsasser, Peter, 2007. "Do "stakeholders" represent citizen interests? An empirical inquiry into assessments of policy aims in the National Forest Programme for Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1018-1030, May.
    6. Hogl, Karl, 2002. "Patterns of multi-level co-ordination for NFP-processes: learning from problems and success stories of European policy-making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 301-312, December.
    7. Voitleithner, Johannes, 2002. "The National Forest Programme in the light of Austria's law and political culture," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 313-322, December.
    8. Schanz, Heiner, 2002. "National forest programmes as discursive institutions," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 269-279, December.
    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. Lenka Halušková, 2022. "The Slovak forest policy arrangement: Post-1989 residues and changes," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(10), pages 395-412.
    2. Valentina-Miriam Cittati & Jessica Balest & Dagmar Exner, 2022. "What Is the Relationship between Collective Memory and the Commoning Process in Historical Building Renovation Projects? The Case of the Mas di Sabe, Northern Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-20, September.

    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. Winkel, Georg & Sotirov, Metodi, 2011. "An obituary for national forest programmes? Analyzing and learning from the strategic use of “new modes of governance” in Germany and Bulgaria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 143-154.
    2. Elsasser, Peter, 2007. "Do "stakeholders" represent citizen interests? An empirical inquiry into assessments of policy aims in the National Forest Programme for Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1018-1030, May.
    3. Riedl, Marcel & Hrib, Michal & Jarský, Vilém & Jarkovská, Martina, 2018. "Media analysis in a case study of Šumava National Park: A permanent dispute among interest groups," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 71-79.
    4. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Pülzl, Helga & Secco, Laura & Sergent, Arnaud & Wallin, Ida, 2018. "Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 4-15.
    5. Juerges, Nataly & Newig, Jens, 2015. "How interest groups adapt to the changing forest governance landscape in the EU: A case study from Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 228-235.
    6. Bethmann, Stephanie & Simminger, Eva & Baldy, Jana & Schraml, Ulrich, 2018. "Forestry in interaction. Shedding light on dynamics of public opinion with a praxeological methodology," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 93-101.
    7. Wallin, Ida & Carlsson, Julia & Hansen, Hans Peter, 2016. "Envisioning future forested landscapes in Sweden – Revealing local-national discrepancies through participatory action research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 25-40.
    8. Johansson, Johanna, 2016. "Participation and deliberation in Swedish forest governance: The process of initiating a National Forest Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 137-146.
    9. Primmer, Eeva & Kyllonen, Simo, 2006. "Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 838-853, November.
    10. Kangas, A. & Saarinen, N. & Saarikoski, H. & Leskinen, L.A. & Hujala, T. & Tikkanen, J., 2010. "Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 213-222, March.
    11. Kangas, Annika & Heikkilä, Juuso & Malmivaara-Lämsä, Minna & Löfström, Irja, 2014. "Case Puijo—Evaluation of a participatory urban forest planning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 13-23.
    12. Tikkanen, Jukka, 2018. "Participatory turn - and down-turn - in Finland's regional forest programme process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 87-97.
    13. 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.
    14. Böhling, Kathrin & Arzberger, Monika B., 2014. "New modes of governance in Bavaria's alpine forests: The ‘Mountain Forest Initiative’ at work," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 43-50.
    15. Valkeapää, Annukka & Karppinen, Heimo, 2013. "Citizens' view of legitimacy in the context of Finnish forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 52-59.
    16. Weber, Norbert, 2018. "Participation or involvement? Development of forest strategies on national and sub-national level in Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 98-106.
    17. Kozová, Mária & Dobšinská, Zuzana & Pauditšová, Eva & Tomčíková, Ivana & Rakytová, Iveta, 2018. "Network and participatory governance in urban forestry: An assessment of examples from selected Slovakian cities," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 31-41.
    18. Sugimura, Ken & Howard, Theodore E., 2008. "Incorporating social factors to improve the Japanese forest zoning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 161-173, January.
    19. Schulz, Tobias & Lieberherr, Eva & Zabel, Astrid, 2018. "Network governance in national Swiss forest policy: Balancing effectiveness and legitimacy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 42-53.
    20. Secco, Laura & Pisani, Elena & Da Re, Riccardo & Rogelja, Todora & Burlando, Catie & Vicentini, Kamini & Pettenella, Davide & Masiero, Mauro & Miller, David & Nijnjk, Maria, 2019. "Towards a method of evaluating social innovation in forest-dependent rural communities: First suggestions from a science-stakeholder collaboration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 9-22.

    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:89:y:2018:i:c:p:16-21. 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.