Working Paper number 18, 2002, from the University of Gävle, Sweden

A EUROPEAN VIEW OF FOREST CERTIFICATION

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

Tage Klingberg
University of Gävle
Sweden
 

ABSTRACT

Certification of forestry is a tool that may influence the image of forestry in the eyes of the consumers. Several certification schemes have been developed.

The organization of family forest owners in Europe turned away from FSC, (the Forest Stewardship Council) and instead established the PEFC, the Pan-European Forest Certification to better accommodate the ownership pattern with many small holdings.

So far certification has not, in a global perspective, managed to penetrate those parts of the world where abusive forest practices are most common and where vast forest areas are lost every year.

Some problems in connection with certification are identified, e.g. increasing complexity of rules and the governance of the systems.

To judge the potential for forest certification the attitudes of consumers to forestry and certification is discussed. Different scenarios of the role of certification are identified.

The use of labelling as an extension of certification is mentioned.

In the third world certification of forestry may play different roles as compared to in Europe or North America.

Key words:

Forest certification, labelling, sustainable forest management, governance of certification.

Author: Tage Klingberg, Associate professor

Department of Business and Economics           
University of Gävle

S – 801 76 Gävle,  Sweden

Telephone: + 46 26 13 32 80

Telefax: + 46 26 13 20 31

e-mail:  tkg@hig.se

FOREWORD

The role of forest certification is developing. The effects are still diffuse.

My ambition is to raise some issues for discussion and further study.

This Working Paper is a revision of my manuscript from presentations at

seminars for faculty and graduate students at

          - the University of Gävle,

          - the Department of Forestry at North Carolina State University,

          - Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, NC,
          - and at the School of Forestry & Environmental Studies at Yale University in Connecticut.

I am thankful for all the comments and questions I have received. They help remind me that any conclusion is at best a well-grounded hypothesis, not yet falsified. Forest certification is still under development. It is a controversial issue. Therefore it warrants further study and analysis. Any comments are welcome.

I am not impartial or objective – even though I try to be open for different viewpoints. I consider myself an environmentalist. At the same time I am a forest owner. In a Swedish context it is not a contradiction to favor both our environment and the production of wood. That is, in my mind, the great charm about forestry.

Gävle, Sweden

March 2002

Tage Klingberg

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Marketing of wood means selling the idea of acceptability                         page  4

Certification enters the scene                                                                    page  4

Certification is off target                                                                           page  5

The development in Sweden                                                                    page   6

“The Dove”                                                                                             page  7

Three different views of certification                                                         page  8

What do the consumers in Europe want?  A matter of acceptance            page  8

The explanation may be the following                                                       page  8

The origin …..                                                                                         page  8

The Swedish policy evaluation – a more relevant focus?                           page  9

Where is the time and money taken?                                                        page   9

A trend toward more complicated rules?                                                  page   9

Issues of governance                                                                               page 10

Is certification a temporary phenomenon?                                                page 10

A parallel:  “Organic Food”, a temporary phenomenon?                          page 10

How will the “certification drive” develop?                                              page 11

A diversified market scenario in Europe and North America                    page 11

Labelling or not?                                                                                    page 12

A reservation:  Will organizations overtake the market?                           page 12

A completely different role in the third world                                           page 12

A final remark                                                                                        page 13

REFERENCES                                                                                     page 13

A EUROPEAN VIEW OF FOREST CERTIFICATION

            ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

Forestry in Europe has gone from overexploitation a century ago to abundant supply. The annual increment in wood growth greatly exceeds harvest. Forest owners, sawmills and wood-working industries in Europe are subject to tough competition from “new” timber exporting countries and from other materials.

This is met by greater efficiency and increased production – which hardly solves the problem of oversupply and falling prices. Also, it is met with product development and better marketing.     

Marketing of wood means selling the idea of acceptability

However, since the heated debate over tropical forestry decades ago, there is a resistance towards the use of wood. Not that people don´t like the material wood. But many are concerned over the future of the global forest cover and over biodiversity.

This fear of depletion of forests has been strongly pushed by environmental organizations, bringing the issue up to the headlines (see further Miller, 2002). This perception or interpretation of reality and the awareness, boosted by the debate and by scientific studies, persuaded the forest sector to revise and improve its forest management. In Sweden, the state forests and the large corporations made the greatest improvements, simply because they had the most to improve due to their previous harsh practices. 

But this was not enough. The public perception of forestry had to be improved.

How get the material wood accepted? How to transform forestry from having an image of “destruction of wilderness” to an image of “sustainable management of a renewable resource”? Thus achieving public acceptance of forestry and the use of wood and paper.

A prevailing feeling among forest owners in Sweden as well as in Denmark, Finland and Norway is that

the problem is not what we do in the forest - our problem is that people do not know about it or do not understand it. Therefore, certification as a communication instrument is of need.

Certification enters the scene

The idea of certification is great. An independent “third party” checks forest operations and, if OK, issues a certificate. I wish we in forestry had taken the initiative to certification ourselves in the 1980s. That might have avoided today´s confused and contentious situation with a “competition” between certification schemes, that is not always constructive.

Now the idea was launched by ENGOs (Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations) in the 1990s. Primarily, so they said, as a tool to influence rough forestry practices in the tropics.

However, it was not successful there. So they moved the pressure for certification to Europe and North America. Primarily pulp and paper, which scared the large forest corporations.

But since each pulp mill in Scandinavia may have over 10 000 wood suppliers it was difficult to handle. So they turned to solid wood and saw mills. The prime target was still the large corporations since their structure and thinking more suited the large ENGOs. The FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) got a breakthrough for their certification system after a deal with the large Swedish forest corporations (AssiDomän, Korsnäs, MoDo, SCA and Stora).

Certification is off target

If we look at the overall certification today, FAO in Rome (the Food and Agriculture Organization of UN) concludes that:

“….   The area of certified forests continues to increase and is now estimated to be roughly 90 million ha. Nonetheless, this represents only about 2 percent of the world´s forest area and, notably, most certified forests are located in a limited number of temperate countries, not in tropical countries for which concern about unsustainable timber harvesting practices is greatest.”        (FAO, page xii)

Data on the number of certified hectares in different parts of the world show a concentration to Europe and North America. Losses of forest cover are concentrated to other parts of the world (see pictures 3 & 4 in the end). You might say that certification so far has missed the prime target.

The development in Sweden

A FSC-process was launched in Sweden in 1995 with all stake-holders. At that time I was president of the Swedish Federation of Non-Industrial Private Forest Owners. We took an active part in the process for a year and a half.

We found, however, a lack of understanding for our ownership pattern, for our small scale forestry practice and culture, for our complicated network of supply lines to saw mills and pulp mills. Also, on some principal issues, primarily concerning forestry in the mountain region where relations to the reindeer herders are complicated, we were completely overruled. We had to leave the FSC process.

Shortly afterwards the organizations of private forest owners in several West European countries initiated the PEFC, the Pan-European Forest Certification scheme. After two years, in 1999, it was launched. It has developed well, area-wise. Today, 42,7 million hectares are certified under the PEFC scheme, (PEFCC, 2002, page 1).

In PEFC national differences are respected. That in itself is an element of diversity.

The Swedish PEFC-scheme is independent, based on local involvement. This is a grass roots, bottom-up approach respected by all involved and not a top-down approach, which might be seen as distant, detached and directorial.

Small scale local ownership is respected. That is crucial, considering that the average holdings are of the following sizes:

                                            In Sweden                           50 hectares

                                            In Norway                           39 hectares

                                            In Finland                             29 hectares

                                            In Germany                          8 hectares

                                            In Spain                                4 hectares

                                            In France                              3 hectares

This compares with the ownership of the large corporations, each owning 0,5 to over 2 million hectares.

The standards in PEFC are set to maintain the diversity in each region. Local and Rural dependence and development linked to forestry is acknowledged. This is in accord with the thinking of the Rio 1992 Agenda 21 declaration (see pictures 5 – 7 for some key characteristics).

However, the ENGOs have, despite invitations, boycotted PEFC from the start. There is a split situation. This is troubling the mills run by  “the forest industries”. Actually, it is troubling us all, since it conveys an image of forestry as still being “an area of conflict”, which may hamper the use of wood.

“The Dove”      (more correctly: “The Stock Dove”)

Talks were initiated between PEFC Sweden and FSC Sweden already 3 years ago.

A “bridging” document was presented last December (Aulén & Bleckert, 2001).

The document suggests sharper rules on 4 points for FSC and on 17 points for PEFC in order to equalize the systems, e.g.

stronger requirements for set-asides,

no harvests in “key biotopes”,

restrictions on fertilization,

no GMO-plants,

at least 10 trees left per hectare after harvest.

And the forest manager shall show the “green plan” to whoever asks to see it.

For me as a private forest landowner, already PEFC certified, application of  “The Dove” would mean some infringements on my forestry. The arguments for the changes as I can read from the “bridging document” seem primarily to be of a tactical or political nature rather than scientific. The justifications seem questionable from an biological point of view.

There have been few and cautious reactions so far. Maybe because this has not been an open process. A few people have done this without consulting even the formal Swedish PEFC-organization. There has been no transparency. Now the document is to be “sold”. It can be noted that

- accreditation is not solved.

- chain-of-custody is not solved

- use of logo is not solved

- the relations to the reindeer-herding issue is not solved

The Dove does not mean that a saw mill buying from both FSC-certified and PEFC-certified sources can say that all is OK with FSC or PEFC. All they can say is that both sources are certified – somehow. My conclusion is that this is not Mutual Recognition between FSC and PEFC.  This may in reality be mostly a “political” document, despite its technical nature.

FSC suggests that the two are tested in “parallel certification” on private land (FSC, 2002).  PEFC has said no to a field test, as being unnecessary.

It is yet to be seen how the “Dove” will fly when let out in the forest – and on the market.

The role of certification in the future

Thus, the development of FSC and PEFC is still unclear.

I will now go on to discuss the development and importance of certification in the future.

First, I will sketch three different ways of understanding certification.

Three different views of certification

What is – in the real world – certification and the process around it?

We can see it from different perspectives.

1. The innocent view: Certification is a tool for communication with the consumer

a) either giving some sellers a competitive edge

                b) or jointly improving the image of forestry in the eyes of the public.

2. A more progressive (or offensive) view:  Certification is a tool to make forest owners and managers improve forestry. Also to stop illegal logging and abusive labor relations etc. The “mildest” form of influence is by increasing awareness and knowledge. A stronger influence may be exerted by putting pressure (economic or social) on those who are not certified.

3. A political view:  Certification is a power game, a vehicle for some organizations (outside the democratic system) to replace governments and the scientific community as bodies setting standards and supervising the management of natural resources.

     A way for certain actors to get a power position - and maybe even money.

Number 1 above is primarily what the forest sector wants.

Number 2 is probably what many other actors want

Number 3 is perhaps a realistic description of what it really is.

What do people – the consumers – in Europe want?  A matter of acceptance.

Certification is said to be “market-driven”, in the name of the consumers. However, I find it more correct to describe it as “organization-driven”, that is driven by ENGOs, forest owners´ organizations, forest corporations, professional consulting firms and retailers.

What do the consumers want and think? Let us go to the market and look at their attitudes and behavior. Several studies indicate that the environmental argument after all comes in third or fourth place for the customer – after product, price and quality (see e.g. Forsén, 2002).

Forsberg & Olsson (2001) found that British consumers (at B & Q and Wickes) as well as Swedish customers primarily look at product, price and quality. But, they also want the material to be produced in a sustainable way. They have a notion of Scandinavian forestry as being OK. They think certification and/or labelling is good and important. But most consumers do not know about FSC or PEFC and they are not interested in the details of it. Many say they just want to know where the wood is coming from.

A recent study by Ryhn (2002) on the Swedish market found that:

-         Price, quality and appearance are most important. For males price comes first.

-         The awareness of brands or marks is low, but it increases with the level of processing. It is low for construction wood, but higher for cupboards and wooden floor materials.

-         Consumers care little about brands. They are interested in the origin.

-         Consumers largely trust the dealers concerning product quality. 

These reports support observations from other studies. What conclusion may this indicate concerning the role for certification? People do not look for certificates or labels. They look for product quality, appearance and price. But they want forestry to be environmentally OK.

The explanation may be the following:

People do really want our society to be sustainable. They will buy wood if they get the feeling that it comes from sustainable sources. But they don´t want to go into details. If using wood is acceptable – then it is fine. Then they look at price, quality etc.

The key thing may thus be that there is a public image of wood being acceptable.

Acceptance may be what it is all about.

Once wood is accepted – or some kinds or origins of wood are accepted – then the "green” arguments do not help selling any more.

This may explain the observations of market effects of certification. It hardly gives a price premium (at least not in the long run). The absence of a price premium may be seen as supporting the point that end consumers are hardly willing to pay for certification. However, certification may be needed anyway. (Kärnä, 2001, pp 164-165). Or some kind of product declaration.

It may be a matter of getting over the threshold of public acceptance.

Once over the threshold, traditional product arguments and marketing strategies dominate.

This raises, of course, the question of “how high is the threshold?”

The origin …..

Some studies indicate that people ask from where the wood comes.

This makes sense – if people have a hunch that some countries “are already over the threshold”.  This might lead to a mark of origin. In my childhood “made in Sweden” or “made in U.S.A.” were signs of quality. Maybe we in the future will see labels on wood saying “Proudly produced in U.S.A.” or “Grown on private land in Sweden”. Something similar to what you may find on beef in Europe today. Consumers tend to ask for the origin of other products also, (see e.g. Ericsson, 2002).

The Swedish policy evaluation – a more relevant focus?

Talking of the threshold – what the government and what the scientific community say may have a decisive influence in the long run on how the public perceives forestry and the “threshold of acceptability”.

The Swedish Forestry Act of 1994 set up two goals: Environment & Production.

The recent official evaluation showed that the environmental goals are met, but we have to resume work to improve production, mainly improve replanting (too much natural regeneration so far) and non-commercial thinning, (Skogsstyrelsen, 2002).

The evaluation has been commended by all actors for its quality. What impact will this government study have on public attitudes? Maybe this is a more powerful “certificate” than the detailed checks at the ownership level performed by FSC and PEFC Sweden. After all – to get a grip of diversity, an overview like the government evaluation may be more relevant, addressing the “landscape level”.

The Swedish government evaluation may be compared to the Finnish PEFC certification system, which works on a regional level. The Finnish system has been criticized for its lack of detail. Is that rather an advantage worth taking after?

Where is the time and money taken?

A down side of certification work is that…. 

“FSC has consumed a large proportion of the working time of many forest NGOs who previously had given their attention to a wide range of ways to resolve forest conflicts….”

(WRM Bulletin Dec 20, 2001, page 9)

I can testify that much time and money have been spent on all discussions, negotiations and analyses of different schemes. One may ask if these resources spent have benefited the environment. Maybe the conflicts perceived have turned consumers to using plastics, steel and aluminium instead of using recyclable wood. Has the environment gained from this?  On the other hand, a positive effect of the processes may be an increased awareness and a dissemination of knowledge.

A trend toward more complicated rules?

Certification schemes – after their “honey-moons” - have to develop.

In the beginning they are by necessity schematic and blunt. Problems, questionable outfalls, appeals and conflicts will lead to modifications, revisions, amendments etc. One example is that rules for set-asides (“reserves”) may be modified. In southern Sweden scientists ask for promotion of not denser but more open forests. So they were in many places earlier, (see Nilsson et al, 2001). Also in middle Sweden new evidence shows that due to an old history of cattle herding open, grazed forests were common, (Ericsson, T.S. 2001).

Such necessary modifications lead to successively more diversified and elaborate rules.

We can see signs of this. FSC is now restructuring its national standards. They have become “too national”. The Swedish FSC-standard has to be put back in line with the general principles and rules. For FSC this causes tensions. According to inside sources this may make the national standards more complicated and difficult to understand. (NIS newsletter nr 3,  2002, page3)

This development toward more elaborate rules is parallel to what is facing most government regulations. They become so detailed that they may finally be difficult to manage.

Issues of governance

The larger the role for certification and the stronger the concentration to a few systems, i.e. the closer to a monopoly situation, the more urgent it is to penetrate matters of governance:

-  Where does the power get its legitimacy?

-  Is the authority acquired a problem from a democratic point of view?

-  Do the forest owners have legal protection and assurance of equal and fair treatment?

Another issue is the accreditation of certifiers. Who is accountable to whom? (See further Klingberg, May 2001). How do the consumers know whether the certification criteria are based on sound science or on assumptions and myths?

Also, the restructuring of FSC rules to make national criteria more in compliance with the international rules illustrates a problem of decision levels in the sense that local processes loose influence (according to NIS Newsletter nr 3, 2002, p.3). This goes against the claim that local actors shall have an important role.

Is certification a temporary phenomenon?

When we in the year 2020 look back, we may see certification as a temporary intervention.

The more it penetrates, the more hectares certified, the less special it will be. And its direct effects may diminish.

Maybe the most important impact will have been the increased interest and awareness created by the discussions we experience at present. Let us call it the indirect effects of certification. They may be substantial – but maybe temporary. They may help push the standard upward. Once above the acceptable level the job is done.

Will this mean that certification will loose its role completely? Or will it mean that certification will be a necessary baseline requirement, which every producer will have to have? If so, will it be “voluntary” or de facto compulsory? These questions are still open.

A parallel:  “Organic Food”, a temporary phenomenon?

So called organic food is in Sweden pushed by an organization for producers and strongly backed by ENGOs and the government. Today such food has a limited part of the market, but is in increasing demand.

There is a debate as to whether “organic food” actually is a sustainable solution. According to the Centre for Sustainable Farming at the University of Agriculture “organic food” is questioned and studied. The director believes that the role for the special “organic food” will vanish, as all farming will become more and more “sustainable” and “organic farming” will be adapted to new scientific knowledge. However, he says, the awareness created by the drive for “organic food” and the ensuing discussion has pushed all farming in a more sustainable direction. Once there, “organic food” will no longer have a separate market. (Andersson, R, 2002)

How will the “certification drive” develop?

One possible outcome is that certification achieves a limited penetration of the market. Let us say 2 – 15 % of the traded volumes. Today it is at around 2 %. Alternatively, a certificate may be required for most wooden products.

Another aspect is the number of certification schemes. We may have one dominating scheme (as is the ambition of FSC) or a number of different schemes, such as PEFC, SFI, CSA and so on. We can sketch four alternative scenarios for the role of certification on the wood market.

                        Penetration of certification

                        Limited           Considerable

Number of          Several       Today      Likely in future. Decreasing importance?

certification                                           Or will certification be  “compulsory”?

systems

                        Just one      1990s   “Monopoly” for one system

The development today shows slowly increasing market penetration. Maybe this is subject to the paradox:  The more “successful” the certification – the less its importance

The number of certification schemes is a scene of conflict. One or several systems?

One possible outcome is that as certification grows, tensions and interest will decrease. Consequently it would play a more marginal role in the future: “Decreasing importance”.

The consumers will get “over the threshold” of viewing wood as “acceptable”.

And then the consumer will – as usual – go for product, price and quality.

A diversified market scenario in Europe and North America

We may elaborate on these scenarios. The large dealers (B & Q and Sainsbury in UK, Home Depot and Lowe in US) today pushing certification as a competitive tool may continue so. They only want very large suppliers, such as AssiDomän, Finnforest etc. They might stick to certification.

The final customers seldom ask for labels. But the big dealers figure on developing this as a market argument – to strengthen their image. This scenario is supported by a study from Worcester University (Wallberg, 2001).

At the same time many small dealers and woodworkers do not ask for certification, because their customers don´t. And thus many sawmills don´t need certification, which is what Swedish saw mills claim today, according to our studies. We may come to see the following diversified outfall:

     Use of certification and labels

     Little             very much

Forest owners,       Large           Bulk               Assi Domän

sawmills, cabinet                                                            producers    

makers etc.

                          Small            Most small      Some niche

                                               Private            manufacturers

Labelling or not?

Once certified, forest owners, whether family foresters, corporations, municipalities, churches or state agencies, may publicly announce their status. This improves their image and it may help improve the image of forestry in general.

Another thing is to have a label on each piece of wood, on each plank, on each package of moulding and on each chair. The right to such labelling requires the dealer to prove that the pieces of wood in the product actually come from certified forests. The wood has to be traced through the sawmill and the subsequent steps of processing. The wood has to be separated from non-certified wood. This “chain-of-custody” control requires considerable administration.

Whether the consumers will demand labelling and thus justify the cost of “chain-of-custody” is not yet known. If the public view of forestry in a country or in a larger area, such as the Nordic countries or all of Europe, is favourable then a declaration of origin may be adequate.

The general outfall of the current debate, of certification processes, of government activities, evaluations, scientific research on sustainability and biodiversity etc. will determine the potential importance of labelling. Practices in the forests are influenced – and so is the public perception thereof. 

A reservation:  Will organizations overtake the market?

The reasoning above rests mainly on indications of lacking interest in certification from the end consumer. However, organizations may intervene. Political bodies, e.g. many municipalities, have decided to demand certified wood in their procurements. The motivation may be a concern over forestry – or it may be a political will to appear environmentalist in the eyes of the voters. Such organizational interventions may underpin a stronger position for certification than my consumer-based indications suggest.

Another factor may be the activities of so called “buyers´groups”, i.e. cartels of dealers acting collectively demanding a certain kind of certification as a condition for purchase of wood. If such groups come to represent a significant part of a market, those selling wood may be forced to commit themselves to a certain certification scheme.

A completely different role in the third world

In the third world certification may be a powerful tool to influence management and counteract e.g. illegal logging. Maybe it is indispensable there – in the absence of effective government tools and maybe lacking a tradition of sustainable forest management.

The role of certification is – and should be - different in different countries, due to their diverse institutions, traditions and cultures. Studies indicate that certification does already play different roles in different countries, for instance:

-         A communication and marketing tool (Europe and US)

-         A tool to spread knowledge and awareness to foresters (the Baltic countries)

-         In Poland a tool used by government officials to stop privatisation and to regain a reputation for responsible forestry tarnished by practices in later decades. (IIED, 2000).

-         An instrument to force foresters, companies and governments to practice sustainable forestry (Thailand? Indonesia?).

-         A vehicle to promote local community self-reliance (e.g. in Africa).

-          In Brazil certification is being used by large corporations, while local communities so far have been denied certification (personal communication).

A final remark

Certification is a strong tool. Its role and use in the future is not an issue only for a few organizations and market actors to determine. It is a broader issue for different authorities (national and super-national) to watch. It has to do with legal protection, equal treatment, transparency, avoiding unfair practices etc. And it is an issue for the final consumer.

The somewhat critical issues and questions I have raised may be taken as if I am against certification. I am not. But I see that a sound development of certification does require that  issues raised are addressed openly.

REFERENCES

Andersson, Rune, Director of the Centre for Sustainable Farming at the University of Agriculture in the radio program P 1 Konsument  (“Program One, the Consumer”) on Radio Sweden, February 6, 2002.

Aulén, Gustaf, & Bleckert, Stefan, Skogsduvan. Överbyggnadsdokument mellan svenska PEFC och FSC standarder. (”The Forest Dove. Bridging document between Swedish PEFC and FSC standards). Stockholm, 2001. 

Ericsson, Daniel, En studie av varumärkens och egenskapsmärkningens funktioner, (”A study of  the functions of brand names and quality labelling”), Business department, University of Gävle, Work in progress, 2002.

Ericsson, T. Staffan, Culture within Nature. Key areas for interpreting forest history in boreal Sweden, Doctoral Thesis, SLU, Umeå, 2001

FAO, State of the World´s Forests 2001, Rome, 2001.

FSC, Forest Stewardship Council, FSC-rådet föreslår fälttest av Skogsduvan, (“FSC Council suggests field test of the Forest Dove”) Pressrelease, Uppsala, January 21, 2002.

Forsberg, E. & Olsson, C., Konsumenters attityder till och kunskaper om trä, skogsbruk samt miljöcertifiering - en jämförelse mellan Sverige och England, (“Consumer attitudes to and knowledge about wood, forestry and environmental certification - a comparison between Sweden and England”), Business Department, thesis nr 100-01, University of Gävle, Sweden 2001.

Forsén, Martin, The purchasers view of certification of wood, Thesis work in progress, Faculty of Forestry, Swedish Agricultural University, Uppsala, Sweden 2002.

IIED, Certification´s impacts on forestry, stakeholders and supply chains, Draft, London, November 11, 2000.

Klingberg, Tage, A European Approach to Certification of Forestry: To Foster a Tradition of Responsibility, Presentation at University of British Columbia, May 8 – 12, 2001 (in press).

Kärnä, Jari et al, Green marketing of Sawn Timber and Wood Based Panels in Finland and Sweden, in the Journal of Forest Economics, Umeå, Sweden, number 2, 2001, pages 145 – 168

Miller, Norman, Environmental politics. Interest Groups, the Media and the Making of Policy, Lewis Publishers, 2002.

Nilsson, Sven et al, Gles skog och fler gamla lövträd, (”Sparse forests and more old deciduous trees”), in Skog och Forskning, Stockholm, nr 3, 2001, pages 20 – 25.

NIS Newsletter number 3, 2002, from nis@forestry.se.

PEFCC Newsletter,March 2002, www.pefc.org.

Ryhn, Anders, A study of consumer attitudes toward branding of wood, Thesis work in progress for a bachelor´s degree, Business Department, University of Gävle, Sweden 2002.

Skogsstyrelsen, Skogsvårdsorganisationens utvärdering av skogspolitikens effekter, SUS 2001, (”The Forest Policy Evaluation made by the Forest Authorities  2001”), Jönköping, 2001.

Wallberg, P., Konsumenter efterfrågar inte certifierat trä, (“Consumers don´t ask for certified wood”), NTT Trä, nr 9, 2001, page 9.

03/14/02