Book contents
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Cambridge Studies on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Governance
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Part I Conceptual Approaches to Smart Mixes
- Part II Fisheries and Forestry
- 5 The Pursuit of Good Regulatory Design Principles in International Fisheries Law
- 6 Mixing Regional Fisheries Management and Private Certification
- 7 RFMO-MSC Smart Regulatory Mixes for Transboundary Tuna Fisheries
- 8 Smart Mixes in Forest Governance1
- 9 Governing Forest Supply Chains
- 10 Public Sector Engagement with Private Governance Programmes
- Part III Climate Change and Oil
- Part IV Concluding Remarks
- References
10 - Public Sector Engagement with Private Governance Programmes
Interactions and Evolutionary Effects in Forest and Fisheries Certification
from Part II - Fisheries and Forestry
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2019
Book contents
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Cambridge Studies on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Governance
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Part I Conceptual Approaches to Smart Mixes
- Part II Fisheries and Forestry
- 5 The Pursuit of Good Regulatory Design Principles in International Fisheries Law
- 6 Mixing Regional Fisheries Management and Private Certification
- 7 RFMO-MSC Smart Regulatory Mixes for Transboundary Tuna Fisheries
- 8 Smart Mixes in Forest Governance1
- 9 Governing Forest Supply Chains
- 10 Public Sector Engagement with Private Governance Programmes
- Part III Climate Change and Oil
- Part IV Concluding Remarks
- References
Summary
The certification of timber, fish, agricultural products, and other commodities has become a prominent form of nonstate governance. Although research has recognized that states enable or constrain nonstate regulatory efforts, we still know too little about the interactions between private and public authority in the governance of environmental problems. Through a careful examination of the role and influence of states in forest and fisheries certification programmes, this chapter demonstrates the close interconnections between private and public forms of regulation. The analysis shows how forest and fisheries certification programmes were influenced by the particular policy domains in which they emerged, via government efforts to regulate, support, or compete with these programmes, and through public procurement policies. From the empirical examination, the chapter identifies pathways and mechanisms of public–private governance interaction and generates hypotheses that can be examined across a larger number of cases.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm , pp. 211 - 236Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Abbott, K. W. & Snidal, D. 2009. ‘The Governance Triangle: Regulatory Standards Institutions and the Shadow of the State’. In Mattli, W. & Woods, N. (eds.), The Politics of Global Regulation. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 44–88.Google Scholar
Auld, G., Cashore, B., Balboa, C., Bozzi, L. & Renckens, S. 2010. ‘Can Technological Innovations Improve Private Regulation in the Global Economy?’. Business and Politics 12(3), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auld, G., Gulbrandsen, L. H. & McDermott, C. L. 2008. ‘Certification Schemes and the Impacts on Forests and Forestry’. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33, 187–211.Google Scholar
Auld, G. & Gulbrandsen, L. H. 2014. ‘Learning through Disclosure: The Evolving Importance of Transparency in the Practice of Nonstate Certification’. In Gupta, A. & Mason, M. (eds.), Transparency in Global Environmental Governance: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 271–296.Google Scholar
Bartley, T. 2007. ‘Institutional Emergence in an Era of Globalization: The Rise of Transnational Private Regulation of Labor and Environmental Conditions’. American Journal of Sociology 113(2), 297–351.Google Scholar
Bartley, T. 2003. ‘Certifying Forests and Factories: States, Social Movements, and the Rise of Private Regulation in the Apparel and Forest Products Fields’. Politics and Society 31(3), 433–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boström, M. 2003. ‘How State Dependent is a Non-State-Driven Rule-Making Project? The Case of Forest Certification in Sweden’. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 5(2), 165–180.Google Scholar
Brack, D. 2014. Promoting Legal and Sustainable Timber: Using Public Procurement Policy. London, Chatham House.Google Scholar
Brack, D. 2008. Social Issues in Timber Procurement Policies (third draft). London, Chatham House.Google Scholar
Brack, D. 2005. Public Procurement of Timber: EU Member State Initiatives for Sourcing Legal and Sustainable Timber. London, Chatham House.Google Scholar
Brack, D. & Buckrell, J. 2011. Controlling Illegal Logging: Consumer-Country Measures. London, Chatham House.Google Scholar
Brown, S., Agnew, D. J. & Martin, W. 2016. ‘On the Road to Fisheries Certification: The Value of the Objections Procedure in Achieving the MSC Sustainability Standard’. Fisheries Research 182, 136–148.Google Scholar
Cashore, B. 2002. ‘Legitimacy and the Privatization of Environmental Governance: How Non-State Market-Driven (NSMD) Governance Systems Gain Rule-Making Authority’. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 15(4), 503–529.Google Scholar
Cashore, B., Auld, G. & Newsom, D. 2004. Governing Through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-State Authority. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
CPET. 2010. UK Government Timber Procurement Policy: Definition of Legal and Sustainable for Timber Procurements (fourth edition). Oxford, CPET.Google Scholar
CPET. 2006. Evaluation of Category A Evidence: Review of Forest Certification Schemes: Results, December. Oxford, CPET.Google Scholar
CPET. 2005. Evaluation of Category A Evidence: Assessment Results Sustainable Forestry Initiative, September. Oxford, CPET.Google Scholar
CPET. 2004. UK Government Timber Procurement Policy: Assessment of Five Forest Certification Schemes. CPET Phase 1 Final Report, November. Oxford, CPET.Google Scholar
Danish Ministry of the Environment. 2007. Draft Criteria for Legal and Sustainable Timber and Assessment of Certification Schemes. Copenhagen, Danish Ministry of the Environment.Google Scholar
Danish Ministry of the Environment. 2003. Purchasing Tropical Timber. Environmental Guidelines. Copenhagen, Danish Ministry of the Environment.Google Scholar
Eberlein, B., Abbott, K.W., Black, J., Meidinger, E. & Wood, S. 2014. ‘Transnational Business Governance Interactions: Conceptualization and Framework for Analysis’. Regulation and Governance 8(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
ENDS (Environmental Data Services). 2005. ‘DEFRA’s Approval of Industry-Certified Timber Blasted by Green Groups’. ENDS Report 368 (September).Google Scholar
ENDS (Environmental Data Services). 2004. ‘PEFC Timber Scheme “Inadequate” Says DEFRA’. ENDS Report 358 (July).Google Scholar
European Commission. 2008. Public Procurement for a Better Environment. EU document COM (2008) 400/2. Brussels, European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2003. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT), Proposal for an EU Action Plan. EU document COM (2003) 251 final, 21 May. Brussels, European Commission.Google Scholar
FAO. 2005. The FAO Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fisheries Products from Marine Capture Fisheries. Rome, FAO.Google Scholar
FERN. 2009. Buying a Sustainable Future? Timber Procurement Policies in Europe and Japan. Moreton-in-Marsh (UK), FERN.Google Scholar
Foley, P. 2013. ‘National Government Responses to Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Fisheries Certification: Insights from Atlantic Canada’. New Political Economy 18(2), 284–307.Google Scholar
Gale, F. & Haward, M. 2011. Global Commodity Governance: State Responses to Sustainable Forest and Fisheries Certification. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gehring, T. & Oberthür, S. 2009. ‘The Causal Mechanisms of Interaction between International Institutions’. European Journal of International Relations 15(1), 125–156.Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H. 2014. ‘Dynamic Governance Interactions: Evolutionary Effects of State Responses to Non-State Certification Programmes’. Regulation & Governance 8(1), 74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H. 2010. Transnational Environmental Governance: The Emergence and Effects of the Certification of Forests and Fisheries. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H. 2009. ‘The Emergence and Effectiveness of the Marine Stewardship Council’. Marine Policy 33(4), 654–660.Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H. 2004. ‘Overlapping Public and Private Governance: Can Forest Certification Fill the Gaps in the Global Forest Regime?’. Global Environmental Politics 4(2), 75–99.Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H. & Auld, G. 2016. ‘Contested Accountability Logics in Evolving Nonstate Certification for Fisheries Sustainability’. Global Environmental Politics 16(2), 42–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H. & Fauchald, O. K. 2015. ‘Assessing the New York Declaration on Forests from a Trade Perspective’. BIORES: Analysis and News on Trade and Environment 9(4), 4–7.Google Scholar
ITTO. 2010. The Pros and Cons of Procurement. Development and Progress in Timber-Procurement Policies as Tools for Promoting the Sustainable Management of Tropical Forests. Yokohama, ITTO.Google Scholar
Leadbitter, D. & Ward, T. 2003. ‘Dispute Resolution and the MSC’. In Phillips, B., Ward, T. & Chaffee, C. (eds.), Eco-Labelling in Fisheries: What Is It All About?. Oxford, UK, Blackwell, 80–85.Google Scholar
Lister, J. 2011. Corporate Social Responsibility and the State: International Approaches to Forest Co-Regulation. Vancouver, BC, University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Meidinger, E. 2006. ‘The Administrative Law of Global Private-Public Regulation: The Case of Forestry’. The European Journal of International Law 17(1), 47–87.Google Scholar
MSC. 2017. Global Impacts Report 2017. 2017. London, UK, Marine Stewardship Council. Available at: www.msc.org/documents/environmental-benefits/global-impacts/msc-global-impacts-report-2017 (accessed 27 October 2017).Google Scholar
MSC. 2010. TAB Directive 023: Revised Fisheries Certification Methodology Objections Procedure. London, UK, Marine Stewardship Council.Google Scholar
MSC. 2006. Leader in Fishery Certification and Eco-labelling Announces 100% Consistency with UN Guidelines. Press release, 26 September. London, UK, Marine Stewardship Council.Google Scholar
MSC. 2005. MSC Welcomes FAO Guidelines on Marine Eco-labelling. Press release, 31 March. London, UK, Marine Stewardship Council.Google Scholar
MSC. 2002. MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. London, UK, Marine Stewardship Council.Google Scholar
Norwegian Ministry of the Environment. 2007. Miljø- og samfunnsansvar i offentlige anskaffelser. Handlingsplan 2007–2010. Oslo, Norwegian Ministry of Environment. Available at: www.regjeringen.no/Upload/MD/Vedlegg/Planer/T-1467.pdf (accessed 27 October 2017).Google Scholar
Oliver, R. 2009. EU Market Conditions for ‘Verified Legal’ and ‘Verified Legal and Sustainable’ Wood Products. Prepared for the Timber Trade Federation and the Department for International Development by Forest Industries Intelligence Ltd, Settle (UK).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
Overdevest, C. & Zeitlin, J. 2014. ‘Assembling an Experimentalist Regime: Transnational Governance Interactions in the Forest Sector’. Regulation and Governance 8(1), 22–48.Google Scholar
PEFC. 2010. PEFC International Standard: Requirements for Certification Schemes, PEFC ST 1003: 2010. Geneva, PEFC Council.Google Scholar
PEFC. 2005. Assessment of PEFC Scheme against DEFRA/CPET Criteria. Luxembourg, PEFC Council.Google Scholar
Ponte, S. 2012. ‘The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the Making of a Market for “Sustainable Fish”’. Journal of Agrarian Change 12(2–3), 300–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proforest. 2010a. Market Requirements for Legal and Sustainable Timber, and the Implications for Chinese Suppliers. Oxford, Proforest.Google Scholar
Proforest. 2010b. FLEGT Licensed Timber and EU Member State Procurement Policies. Oxford, Proforest.Google Scholar
Rosenau, J. N. & Czempiel, E. -O. (eds.). 1992. Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tollefson, C., Gale, F. & Haley, D. 2008. Setting the Standard: Certification, Governance, and the Forest Stewardship Council. Vancouver, BC, UBC Press.Google Scholar
UNECE/FAO. 2017. Forest Products Annual Market Review, 2016–2017. Geneva, UN Economic Commission for Europe. Available at: www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/publications/FPAMR2017AdvanceDraft.pdf (accessed 28 October 2018).Google Scholar
Vogel, D. 2010. ‘The Private Regulation of Global Corporate Conduct: Achievements and Limitations’. Business and Society 49(1), 68–87.Google Scholar
Vogel, D. 1995. Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global Economy. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar