Skip to main content

Table 10 Categorisation of governance systems according to the nature of their adaptive features

From: Conceptual framework for increasing legitimacy and trust of sustainability governance

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
  1. aFor example, Swedish forest law [287] and forest law for Crown land in Ontario [53, 313]
  2. bFor example, the German Renewable Energy Act (REA) [92]
  3. cFor example, the Policy Framework for Sustainable Forests in Ontario [53]
  4. dFor example, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
  5. eFor example, EU RED I [18], and EU Recommendations on sustainability criteria for solid biomass [57]
  6. fFor example, EU RED I [18], EU RED II [19], SDE+ in the Netherlands and UK CPET [62]
  7. 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]
  8. hFor example, the Danish Industry Agreement on sustainable wood chips and wood pellets [61]
  9. iA proliferation of private certification systems, such as FSC, PEFC endorsed system, including SFI, and SBP, GGL, etc
  10. jExamples from especially developing countries in Diaz-Chavez and van Dam [138].