Table 2. Perceived importance of certification on forest use per sector (%)a
| |
| |
| |
Representatives of the forest
sectorb |
Representatives of logging
companiesc, the refinement industry |
Representatives of regional/local
administration |
Representatives of local communities,
including reindeer husbandry |
| |
Finnish case
(N = 18) |
0 % |
0 % |
0 % |
0 % |
Karelia Republic
(N = 58) |
14% |
30% |
20% |
70% |
Arkhangelsk region
(N = 53) |
17% |
20% |
40% |
56% |
Komi Republic
(N = 68) |
60% |
5% |
60% |
75% |
Swedish case
(N = 64) |
94% |
33% |
17% |
38% |
|
| |
a The table draws upon the relatively small percentages per group indicated in Table 1, and is thus indicative of opinions in the studies: they should not be assumed to represent the areas as a whole. Results in the table indicate the number of persons that either independently identified certification as an impact or saw it as having a large impact on them, reflecting the methodologies of the different studies.
b Forest owners and forest owners’ interest groups, state forestry units/forest
companies. c Subsidiaries in Russia.
|