- Download PDF - 

SEEFOR 2 (1): 1-11
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15177/seefor.11-01   

Original scientific paper

 

Forest Owners’ Organizations in North and Central Portugal – Assessment of Success


Diana Feliciano 1*, Americo Carvalho Mendes 2


1 Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability, The University of Aberdeen & The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH, Scotland, UK
2 Faculty of Economics and Management, Portuguese Catholic University, Rua Diogo Botelho, 4150 Porto, Portugal

* Corresponding author: e-mail: diana.feliciano@hutton.ac.uk  

Citation:
FELICIANO D, MENDES AC 2011 Forest Owners’ Organizations in North and Central Portugal – Assessment of Success. South-east Eur for 2 (1): 3-11. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15177/seefor.11-01  


Cited by:        CrossRef        Google Scholar 


Abstract

Background and Purpose: The emergence of forest owners’ organizations (FOOs) in Portugal occurred in the 1990s. Fifteen years later there were 173 FOOs providing services to the private forest owners and also to the whole of society. This study aims to evaluate the success of FOOs in increasing their membership and the quantity of services provided. 
Material and Methods: Eight FOOs from the North and Central Portugal were chosen as case studies. Quantitative data on membership numbers and number of services provided by the eight case studies were collected from the archives of FORESTIS or directly at the FOOs headquarters. Qualitative data from newsletters, annual reports, local newspapers and letters were also collected to be further analysed. Secondary data collected cover a period of ten years (1994-2005). In addition, eight interviews to members of staff or FOOs directors were conducted in 2005. It was hypothesised that the number of members and the quantity of services provided may be interrelated and that the turnover of staff and their productivity influence the success of FOOs in increasing their membership and providing technical advice services. 
Results and Conclusion: The study showed that although most FOOs were successful in making their membership grow, there were big differences in the number of members, in the forest area covered by them and in the quantity of services provided. It was concluded that human capital, financial capital and path dependence were the factors that most constrained the success FOOs in North and Central Portugal.

Keywords: Forest owners’ organizations, private forestry, success, membership


 

REFERENCES

  1. MENDES AMSC, FELICIANO D, TAVARES M, DIAS R 2004  The Portuguese Forests. Research Report prepared for the EFFE Project – Evaluating Financing of Forestry in Europe. Porto: Faculty of Economics and Management – Portuguese Catholic University. Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/p/cap/wpaper/132007.html. (Accessed: 21 May 2007)
  2. MENDES AMSC 2006 Implementation Analysis of Forest Programmes: some theoretical notes and an example. Forest Policy Econ 8 (5): 512-528. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2005.07.003
  3. KITTREDGE DB 2005 The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than one individual property: international examples and potential application in the United States. Forest Policy Econ 7 (4): 671-688. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2003.12.004
  4. RICKENBACH MG, GURIES RP, SCHMOLDT D 2006 Membership matters: comparing members and non-members of NIPF owner organizations in southwest Wisconsin, USA. Forest Policy Econ 8: 93-113. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2004.05.006
  5. MENDES AMSC, STEFANEK B, FELICIANO D, MIZARAITE D, NONIC D, KITCHOUKOV E, NYBAKK E, DUDUMAN G, WEISS G, NICHIFOREL L, STOYANOVA M, MAKINEN P, ALVES R, MILIJIC V, SARVASOVA Z 2011 Institutional Innovation in European Private Forestry: the Emergence of Forest Owners’ Organizations. In: Weiss G et al. (eds) Innovation in Forestry: Territorial and Value Chain Relationships. Wallingford, Oxon (UK): CAB International, p 68-86
  6. SARVASOVA Z, TUTKA J 2005 Change in the Ownership and Management of Forests in Slovakia. Small scale forestry in a Changing Environment, International Symposium Proceedings, Vilnus, p 200-207
  7. MENDES AMSC 2008 The Role of Institutions in Forest Development: The Case of Forest Services and Forest Owners’ Associations in Portugal. In: Cesaro L, Gatto P, Pettenella D (eds) The Multifunctional Role of Forests – Policies, Methods and Case-Studies EFI Proceedings No. 55, 2008. Joensuu: European Forest Institute, p 105-116
  8. MENDES MS, STEFANEK B, FELICIANO D, MIZARAITE D, NONIC D, KITCHOUKOV E, NYBAKK E, DUDUMAN G, WEISS G, NICHIFOREL L, STOYANOVA M, MAKINEN P, ALVES R, MILIJIC V, SARVASOVA Z 2011 The contribution of Leader+ to the implementation of innovative forest-related products. In: Weiss G, Pettenella P, Ollonqvist P,  Slee B (eds) Innovation in Forestry Territorial and Value Chain Approaches  CABI Publications, Wallingford, Chapter 6, p 87-100.
  9. RADICH MC, MONTEIRO ALVES AA 2000 Dois séculos da floresta em Portugal. Lisbon: CELPA – Associação da Indústria Papeleira
  10. MENDES AMSC, FERNANDES LC 2007 Políticas e instituições florestais em Portugal - desde o final do Antigo Regime até à actualidade. In: Sande Silva (ed) Árvores e Florestas de Portugal(7) - Floresta e Sociedade: uma história em comum. Lisbon: Fundação Luso-Americana para o Desenvolvimento, Público - Comunicação Social SA & Liga para a Protecção da Natureza, p 77-125
  11. MORAIS DE ALMEIDA CA 1997 Landowner’s Organization and Forestry Development in Portugal. A definition of an action strategy for the Pinhal Sul region based upon the local actor’s views. Non-published PhD thesis
  12. TORRIJOS YA, MARTIN JP, GUTIERREZ DEL OLMO E V 2003 Small non-industrial forest owner’s cooperation examples in Galicia (NW Spain). F.A.O. Workshop on Forest Operation Improvements in Farm Forests. Logarska Dolina (Slovenia) 9-14 September 2003
  13. OLSON M 1965 The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard  University Press
  14. LUSTHAUS C, ADRIEN MH, ANDERSON G, CARDEN F, MONTALVAN GP 2002 Organizational Assessment: A framework for Improving Performance. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Available at: http://web.idrc.ca/openebooks/998-4/  (Accessed 21 May 2007)
  15. STIGLITZ J E 1987 Principal and agent. The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics 3, p 966-71
  16. LAURSEN K, MAHNKE V, VEJRUP-HANSEN P 2004 Do differences make difference? The impact of human capital diversity, experience and compensation on firm performance in engineering consulting. Paper presented at the DRUID summer conference 2004 on Industrial Dynamics, Innovation and Development. Elsinore. Available at: http://www.druid.dk/ (Accessed: 8 May 2007)
  17. COLEMAN J 1988 Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol 94: 95-120. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/228943
  18. PUTNAM R 2006 Bowling alone: le déclin du capital social aux États-Unis. In:  Bevort A, Lallement M (eds) Le capital social: performance, équité et réciprocité. Paris: Éditons la Découverte/M.A.U.S.S.
  19. RASMUSEN E 1989. Games and information: an introduction to game theory. Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press
  20. DAVID PA 1985 Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Am Econ Rev 75 (2): 332-337
  21. YIN RK 1994 Case study research. Design and methods. (2nd ed). Applied Social Research Methods Series. 5. SAGE Publications

 

© 2015 by the Croatian Forest Research Institute. This is an Open Access paper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).