Table 10.
Categorisation of governance systems according to the nature of their adaptive features
| Method and involved agents | Low level of adaptivity | High level of adaptivity |
|---|---|---|
| Systems without adaptive feature except law making processes with slow dynamics (standard change typically taking place over periods longer than 5 years) | Systems with adaptive features and fast dynamics (standard change typically taking place within a 1–5 year period) | |
| Mandated public law | Law amendments, generallya | Law amendments, special casesb |
| Mandated hierarchical public systems | General mandated objectives or requirementsc | State guidelines with site specific guidancec |
| Mandated surveillance reporting by public authorities | International conventions and agreementsd | Public reporting to monitor changes that might potentially require changes to laws in a longer terme |
| Co-regulation with mandated public law and voluntary private systems to show compliance | General mandated public objectives or requirements, which may be contingent on subsidiesf | Private certification systems with third party auditing as a basis for periodic assessment, to show compliance with public requirementsg |
| Voluntary surveillance reporting by private actors | No examples available | Agreements between private partners with reporting of progress with third party audits as a basis for periodic assessment h |
| Voluntary private systems | No examples available |
Private certification systems with third party auditing as a basis for periodic assessmenti Landscape governance initiatives, most often without auditingj |
aFor example, Swedish forest law [287] and forest law for Crown land in Ontario [53, 313]
bFor example, the German Renewable Energy Act (REA) [92]
cFor example, the Policy Framework for Sustainable Forests in Ontario [53]
dFor example, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
eFor example, EU RED I [18], and EU Recommendations on sustainability criteria for solid biomass [57]
fFor example, EU RED I [18], EU RED II [19], SDE+ in the Netherlands and UK CPET [62]
gFor example, systems approved under EU RED I: ISCC, Bonsucro, RTRS, RSB, 2BSvs, Red Tractor, SQC, r8. Red Cert, Better Biomass, RSPO, KZR INIG, Trade Assurance Scheme for Combinable Crops, Universal Feed Assurance Scheme, and SSAP [314]
hFor example, the Danish Industry Agreement on sustainable wood chips and wood pellets [61]
iA proliferation of private certification systems, such as FSC, PEFC endorsed system, including SFI, and SBP, GGL, etc
jExamples from especially developing countries in Diaz-Chavez and van Dam [138].