Classification and description of the most well-known environmental approaches used for the maintenance and improvement of forest management

Authors

  • Bogdan BULIGA Faculty of Environmental Science and Engineering, Babeș-Bolyai University, 30 Fântânele Street, 400294, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. bogdan@buliga.info https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3981-4613

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24193/subbambientum.2022.01

Keywords:

Responsible forest management, voluntary system, reglemented system.

Abstract

The importance of forests in our society is extremely significant, with multiple benefits for both the environment and people. Considering the high importance of forests and the need for responsible and sustainable utilization, various approaches have been developed to promote sustainable forestry in different ways. This paper focuses on identifying, classifying, and analysing these approaches in Romania and at the European level. Firstly, the legislative system, through its crucial role in establishing rules for different sectors, plays an important role in ensuring sustainable forestry. The entirety of laws that impact forests form the regulated tool of the state. On the other hand, organizations that benefit from goods and services provided by forests aim to assure customers that their activities do not have a negative impact on forests. Taking these factors into account, non-governmental organizations have developed different standards and policies to maintain and improve forest practices. These systems are not regulated by the state; rather, they are voluntary instruments. Their use depends on the willingness and interest of the forest owner or manager. Both types of instruments aim to improve forest practices and promote a sustainable approach to the utilization of forest resources.

References

Albulescu A. C., Manton M., Larion D., Angelstam P., 2022, The Winding Road towards Sustainable Forest Management in Romania, 1989–2022: A Case Study of Post-Communist Social–Ecological Transition. Land, 11 (8). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081198

ASI (Assurance Services International) (n.d.), Assurance oversight. https://www.asi-assurance.org/s/oversight-and-accreditation, accessed at 12/02/2023

Bemelmans-Videc M. L., Rist R. C., Vedung E., 2010, Carrots, sticks, and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation, Transaction Publishers, 288 p.

Bulgarian Parliament, 2011a, Forest Law. https://www.Lex.Bg/Bg/Laws/Ldoc/2135721295, accessed at 14/02/2023

Bulgarian Parliament, 2011b, Ordinance No. 8 For Felling In Forests. http://www.Iag.Bg/Data/Docs/Naredba_Za_Sechite_V_Gorite1.Doc, accessed at 12/02/2023

Bureau Veritas, (n.d.), Certification OLB. https://www.bureauveritas.fr/besoin/certification-olb, accessed at 12/08/2022

Convention on Biological Diversity, (n.d.), The Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/convention/, accessed at 12/05/2022

Duduman G., 2019, Brief history of forest management in Romania. Bucovina Forestiera, 19(2), pp. 139–158. https://doi.org/10.4316/bf.2019.019

EIA (Environmental Investigation Agency), 2017, PEFC: A fig leaf for stolen timber. https://us.eia.org/blog/pefc-fig-leaf-for-stolen-timber/, accessed at 12/01/2022

EC (European Commission), 2021, Study on Certification and Verification Schemes in the Forest Sector and for Wood-based Products Environment. htps://www.Eu-Flegt-Vpa-Programme.Com/En/, accessed at 10/04/2022

European Parliament, 2010, Regulation (Eu) No 995/2010 Of The European Parliament And Of The Council Of 20 October 2010 Laying Down The Obligations Of Operators Who Place Timber And Timber Products On The Market. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010R0995, accessed at 11/05/2022

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations). (n.d.). Sustainable forest management. Retrieved April 18, 2022, https://www.fao.org/forestry/communication-toolkit/80616/en/, accessed at 10/05/2022

Forest Stewardship Council, (n.d.-a), Become Certified. https://us.fsc.org/en-us/certification/become-certified, accessed at 12/05/2022

Forest Stewardship Council. (n.d.-b). History of FSC. https://africa.fsc.org/en-cd/about-fsc-africa/history-of-fsc, accessed at 12/02/2022

Forest Stewardship Council. (2023). FSC-STD-01-001 - FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship Standard (STD). https://connect.fsc.org/document-centre/documents/resource/392, accessed at 12/05/2022

Holopainen J., Toppinen A., Perttula S., 2015, Impact of European Union timber regulation on forest certification strategies in the Finnish wood industry value chain. Forests, 6(8), pp. 2879–2896. https://doi.org/10.3390/f6082879

ILO (International Labour Organization), 2023, Labour standards. https://www.ilo.org/, accessed at 10/05/2022

ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 2018, ISO 38200:2018 Chain of custody of wood and wood-based products. https://www.iso.org/standard/70179.html, accessed at 12/08/2022

Joffe R., Dobson K., Fine S., Marriage K., Haley G., 1990, Social problem-solving in depressed, conduct-disordered, and normal adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 18, pp. 565–575.

Kiker C. F., Putz F. E., 1997, Ecological certification of forest products: Economic challenges. Ecological Economics, 20(1), pp. 37-51.

McCormick J., Mitchell N., 1989, Human Rights And Foreign Assistance: An Update. Social Science Quarterly, 70(4), pp. 969-979.

Michal J., Březina D., Šafařík D., Kupčák V., Sujová A., Fialová J., 2019, Analysis of socioeconomic impacts of the FSC and PEFC certification systems on business entities and consumers. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154122

Nichiforel L., Keary K., Deuffic P., Weiss G., Thorsen B. J., Winkel G., Avdibegović M., Dobšinská Z., Feliciano D., Gatto P., Gorriz Mifsud E., Hoogstra-Klein M., Hrib M., Hujala T., Jager L., Jarský V., Jodłowski K., Lawrence A., Lukmine D., Bouriaud L., 2018a, How private are Europe’s private forests? A comparative property rights analysis. Land Use Policy, 76, pp. 535–552.

Nichiforel L., Keary K., Deuffic P., Weiss G., Thorsen B. J., Winkel G., Avdibegović M., Dobšinská Z., Feliciano D., Gatto P., Gorriz Mifsud E., Hoogstra-Klein M., Hrib M., Hujala T., Jager L., Jarský V., Jodłowski K., Lawrence A., Lukmine D., Bouriaud L., 2018b,0 How private are Europe’s private forests? A comparative property rights analysis. Land Use Policy, 76, pp. 535–552.

Overdevest C., Rickenbach M. G., 2006, Forest certification and institutional governance: An empirical study of forest stewardship council certificate holders in the United States. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(1), pp. 93–102.

Preferred by Nature. (n.d.). LegalSource. https://preferredbynature.org/certification/legalsource, accessed at 12/08/2022

Preferred By Nature, 2017a, Timber Legality Risk Assessment - Bulgaria. https://preferredbynature.Org/Sites/Default/Files/Library/2018-12/Nepcon-Timber-Bulgaria-Risk-Assessment-En-V1.3.Pdf, accessed at 12/08/2022

Preferred By Nature, 2017b, Timber Legality Risk Assessment Denmark. https://preferredbynature.Org/Sites/Default/Files/Library/2018-12/Nepcon-Timber-Denmark-Risk-Assessment-En-V1.3_0.Pdf, accessed at 12/08/2022

Preferred By Nature, (2017c, Timber Legality Risk Assessment Estonia. https://preferredbynature.Org/Sites/Default/Files/Library/2018-12/Nepcon-Timber-Estonia-Risk-Assessment-En-V1.2.Pdf, accessed at 12/08/2022

Preferred By Nature, 2017d, Timber Legality Risk Assessment Finland. https://preferredbynature.Org/Sites/Default/Files/Library/2018-12/Nepcon-Timber-Finland-Risk-Assessment-En-V1.2.Pdf, accessed at 12/08/2022

Preferred By Nature, 2017e, Timber Legality Risk Assessment Norway. https://preferredbynature.Org/Sites/Default/Files/Library/2017-11/Nepcon-Timber-Norway-Risk-Assessment-En-V1.2.Pdf, accessed at 12/08/2022

Preferred By Nature, 2017f, Timber Legality Risk Assessment Poland. https://preferredbynature.Org/Sites/Default/Files/Library/2017-08/Nepcon-Timber-Poland-Risk-Assessment-En-V1.Pdf, accessed at 12/08/2022

Preferred By Nature, 2017g, Timber Legality Risk Assessment Romania. https://preferredbynature.Org/Sites/Default/Files/Library/2018-12/Nepcon-Timber-Romania-Risk-Assessment-En-V1.3.Pdf, accessed at 12/08/2022

Preferred by Nature, 2017, Timber Legality Risk Assessment Sweden. https://preferredbynature.org/sites/default/files/library/2018-12/NEPCon-TIMBER-Sweden-Risk-Assessment-EN-V1.2.pdf, accessed at 12/08/2022

Preferred By Nature, 2018, Timber Legality Risk Assessment Italy. https://preferredbynature.Org/Sites/Default/Files/Nepcon-Timber-Italy-Risk-Assessment-En-V1.2.Pdf, accessed at 12/08/2022

Preferred By Nature, 2019a, Timber Legality Risk Assessment Ireland. https://preferredbynature.Org/Sites/Default/Files/2019-11/Nepcon-Timber-Ireland-Risk-Assessment-En-V1.3.Pdf, accessed at 12/08/2022

Preferred By Nature, 2019b, Timber Legality Risk Assessment Latvia. https://preferredbynature.Org/Sites/Default/Files/Full-Risk-Assessment/Nepcon-Timber-Latvia-Risk-Assessment-En-V1.5_Eng.Pdf, accessed at 12/08/2022

Prestemon J. P, 2015, The impacts of the Lacey Act Amendment of 2008 on U.S. hardwood lumber and hardwood plywood imports. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, pp. 31–44.

Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. (n.d.-a). PEFC Members. https://pefc.org/discover-pefc/our-pefc-members, accessed at 12/03/2021

Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. (n.d.-b). PEFC’s story, the early years. https://pefc.org/news/pefcs-story-the-early-years, accessed at 12/03/2021

Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. (n.d.-c). Standards and guides. https://pefc.org/standards-implementation, accessed at 12/04/2022

Romanian Parliament, 2008. Law - no. 46 of March 19, 2008. The forestry code.

Sedjo R. A., Swallow S. K., 2002, Voluntary eco-labeling and the price premium. Land Economics, 78(2), pp. 272–284.

Shabecoff P., 1993, The Enemy Is Us. Nature, 366, pp. 385–386.

Sustainable Biomass Program. (n.d.). Certifications. from https://sbp-cert.org/certifications/, accessed at 12/03/2022

The Fund For Peace, 2022, Fragile States Index. https://fragilestatesindex.org/

Transparency International, 2021, Corruption Perceptions Index. https://www.Transparency.Org/En/Cpi/2021

United Nations. (n.d.-a). Climate Action. https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/climate-action, accessed at 12/04/2022

United Nations. (n.d.-b). The Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement, accessed at 18/04/2022

Wiersum, K. F. (1995). 200 Years of Sustainability in Forestry: Lessons from History. Environmental Management, 19, pp. 321–329.

World Bank, 2015, Worldwide Governance Indicators. http://info.worldbank.Org/Governance/Wgi/#Reports

Zimmermann M., Schopf D., Lütteken N., Liu Z., Storost K., Baumann M., Happee R., Bengler K. J., 2018, Carrot and stick: A game-theoretic approach to motivate cooperative driving through social interaction. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 88, pp. 159–175.

Downloads

Published

2023-12-05

How to Cite

BULIGA, B. (2023). Classification and description of the most well-known environmental approaches used for the maintenance and improvement of forest management. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Ambientum, 67(1-2), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.24193/subbambientum.2022.01