Small-scale Forestry

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 233–255 | Cite as

Policies Affecting Forestry Entrepreneurship

  • Anssi NiskanenEmail author
  • Anders Lunnan
  • Ikuo Ota
  • Keith Blatner
  • John Herbohn
  • Lyndall Bull
  • Ian Ferguson
  • Gordon M. Hickey
Research Paper


Many demand and supply-side policies impede or foster forestry entrepreneurship. A study was conducted to consolidate existing knowledge on policies influencing forestry entrepreneurship in Finland, Norway, Japan, Australia, the Philippines and the USA, and to draw conclusions on these impeding and fostering factors. From the country studies it was difficult to find common structures on policies affecting forestry entrepreneurship. This is understandable because most policies in forestry are aimed at supporting sustainable forest management, wood production and ecological services of the forests rather than entrepreneurship as such. Despite the high variety of policies applied in the study countries, it can be concluded that strict public control on forests’ use and management potentially impedes forestry entrepreneurship. While these policies assist to correct market failure and to promote sustainability of forest management, they may also result into unnecessary and ineffective regulations that limit the opportunities for forestry entrepreneurship. A common feature promoting the demand for forestry entrepreneurship in some of the countries studied is the strong emphasis on forestry cooperatives, which were important institutions to support small-scale forestry entrepreneurship. In many study countries, different ad hoc programs are implemented to find new economic and entrepreneurial opportunities aside from the current use of wood and forests. Subsidies and tax incentives are commonly applied to reduce risks from making forestry investments or otherwise increase the economic return from timber production.


Innovation Investment opportunity Policy Regulation 


  1. Aarne M, Hänninen R, Kallio M, Kärnä J, Karppinen H, Ollonqvist P, Packalen K, Rimmler T, Toppinen A, Kajanus M, Matilainen A, Rutanen J, Kurki S, Peltoniemi J, Saarinen J (2005) Finland. In: Jager L (ed) Forest sector entrepreneurship in Europe: Country studies. Acta Silvatica and Lignaria Hungarica. Special edition 2005:171–244Google Scholar
  2. Audretsch DB (2002) Entrepreneurship: a survey of literature. Institute for development strategies, Indiana University and Centre for economic policy research, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Baardsen S (1991) Næringsoverføringene i skognæringen—en effektivitetsanalyse. (Forest policy measures—an economic analysis). Aktuelt fra Skogforsk 7Google Scholar
  4. BDA Group (2002) Evaluation of benefits from National Timber Development program. Report for the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown AJ (2002) Collaborative governance versus constitutional politics: decision rules for sustainability from Australia’s South East Queensland forest agreement. Environ Sci Policy 5(1):19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bull L, Ferguson I (2006) Factors influencing the success of wood product innovations in Australia and New Zealand. For Policy Econ 8(7):742–750Google Scholar
  7. Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC (2004) America’s family forest owners. J Forest 103(7):4–9Google Scholar
  8. Commonwealth of Australia (1992, 1995) National forest policy statement: a new focus for Australia’s Forests. Canberra., accessed 2/6/07
  9. Creighton JH, Baumgartner DM (2005) Washington state’s forest regulations: family forest owners’ understanding and opinions. West J Appl Forest 20(3):192–198Google Scholar
  10. Cubbage FW, O’Laughlin J, Bullock CS (1993) Forest resource policy. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Estoria E, Herbohn JL, Harrison SR, The Performance of Community Organisers in Promotion of Community Forestry in Leyte Province in the Philippines (2004) Small-scale For Econ Manage Policy 3(3):363–384Google Scholar
  12. Ferguson I, Fox J, Baker T, Stackpole D, Wild I (2002) Australian and regional wood availability, 2001–2044. Consultant’s report for the 2002 National Plantation Inventory, Bureau of Rural Sciences, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  13. Forestry Agency (2006) Summary of forestry statistics. MAFF. Tokyo. Forestry Agency., accessed 2/06/07
  14. Harrison SR, Emtage NF, Nasayao EE (2004) Past and present support programs in the Philippines, and lessons for the future. Small-scale For Econ Manage Policy 3(3):303–317Google Scholar
  15. Hebert RF, Link AN (1989) In search of the meaning of entrepreneurship. Small Bus Econ 17(3):213–228Google Scholar
  16. Herbohn JL, Emtage NR, Harrison SR, Gregorio N, Peque D (2004) The influence of land and tree tenure on participation in smallholder and community forestry in the Philippines. In Baumgartner DM (ed) Proceedings of human dimensions of family, farm and community forestry international symposium, March 29–April 1, 2004. Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA. Washington State University Extension MISC0526, pp 67–72Google Scholar
  17. Herbohn JL, Harrison SR (2005) Improving the livelihoods of smallholders and communities in the Philippines through increased financial returns from tree farms. In Mizaras S (ed) Proceedings of small-scale forestry in a changing environment, May 30–June 4, 2005, Vilnius, Lithuania, pp 47–57Google Scholar
  18. Hyttinen P, Niskanen A, Ottitsch A, Tykkyläinen M, Väyrynen J (2002) Forest related perspectives for regional development in Europe. EFI Research Report 13. Brill, Leiden, Boston, KölnGoogle Scholar
  19. Kanowski P (2004) Forest research and education in Australia in 2004. In: Paper prepared for IUFRO Symposium, Forest research and education in the 21st century, Seoul National University, 12 October, 2004Google Scholar
  20. Karppinen H, Hänninen H, Ripatti P (2002) Suomalainen metsänomistaja 2000. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 852Google Scholar
  21. Klemperer WD (1996) Forest resource economics and finance. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Kolström T, Harstela P (ed) (2005) Puuntuotannon ja –korjuun tulevaisuus: Metsäalan tulevaisuusfoorumi—työryhmäraportti. Metsänhoidon ja metsäteknologian yhdistetty työryhmä. Joensuun yliopisto, metsätieteellinen tiedekunta. Tiedonantoja 161Google Scholar
  23. Lahti A (2005) Company development today. The Schumpeterian entrepreneurship and the modern economic theory. In Paper presented in COST E30 meeting 15–17 June 2005, Reykjavík, IcelandGoogle Scholar
  24. Lunnan A, Nybakk E, Vennesland B (2005) Entrepreneurial attitudes and probability for start-ups—an investigation of Norwegian non-industrial private forest owners. For Policy Econ 8(7):683–690Google Scholar
  25. MacCleery DW (2002) American forests: a history of resiliency and recovery. Forest History Society, Durham, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  26. Ministry of Agriculture and Food (2003) Act 2003-11-28 No. 98 related to concession in the acquisition of real property (Concession Act). Ministry of Agriculture and Food, OsloGoogle Scholar
  27. Ministry of Agriculture and Food (2005) Act 205-05-27 No. 31 relating to forestry (Forestry Act). Ministry of Agriculture and Food, OsloGoogle Scholar
  28. Ministry of Agriculture and Food (2006) St. prp. No. 1 (2006-2007). Ministry of Agriculture and Food, OsloGoogle Scholar
  29. National Forest Inventory (2003) Australia’s State of the Forests Report 2003. Bureau of Rural Sciences, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  30. NIRA (1987) One village one product movement in Oita and local industrial policy. Rural Economic Information Center, OitaGoogle Scholar
  31. Niskanen A (2005a) Summary of country studies of COST Action E30. In: Jagér L (ed) Forest sector entrepreneurship in Europe: Country studies. Acta Silvatica and Lignaria Hungarica. Special edition 2005:7–15Google Scholar
  32. Niskanen A (2005b) Kehittämistarpeet metsäalalla. In: Niskanen A (ed) Menestyvä metsäala ja tulevaisuuden haasteet. Metsälehti Kustannus, Saarijärvi, pp 109–115Google Scholar
  33. Niskanen A, Slee B, Ollonqvist P, Pettenella D, Bouriaud L, Rametsteiner E (2007) Entrepreneurship in the forest sector in Europe. Silva Carelica 52, Faculty of Forestry, University of JoensuuGoogle Scholar
  34. Nybakk A, Lunnan A, Vennesland B (2005) Innovation in non-timber products and services in Norwegian forestry. Past experiences and future development. In: Paper presented at IUFRO World Congress 8–13, August 2005, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  35. Ota I (2002a) Forest legislation in a constitutional state: the Japanese example. Experiences with new forest and environmental laws in European countries with economies in transition. In: Proceedings of IUFRO Jundra Symposium 2001, pp 27–37Google Scholar
  36. Ota I (2002b) The shrinking profitability of small-scale forestry in Japan and some recent policy initiatives to reverse the trend. J Small-scale For Econ Manage Policy 1(1):25–37Google Scholar
  37. Sahlman WA, Stevenson HH (1991) Introduction. In: Sahlman WA, Stevenson HH (eds) The entrepreneurial venture. McGraw Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  38. Slee B (2001) Resolving production-environment conflicts: the case of the Regional Forest Agreement Process in Australia. For Policy Econ 3(1–2):17–30Google Scholar
  39. Vennesland B (2004a) Social capital and rural economic development, with relevance for the utilisation of forest resources. Doctor scientarium theses 2004:2, Agricultural University of Norway, AasGoogle Scholar
  40. Vennesland B (2004b) Social capital and networks in forest-based rural economic development. Scand J For Res 19(supplementary 5):82–89Google Scholar
  41. Vennesland B, Hobbelstad K, Bolkesjø T, Baardsen S, Lileng J, Rolstad J (2006) Skogresurssene I Norge. Norsk institutt fför skog og landskap, AasGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Steve Harrison, John Herbohn 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anssi Niskanen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anders Lunnan
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ikuo Ota
    • 4
  • Keith Blatner
    • 5
  • John Herbohn
    • 6
  • Lyndall Bull
    • 7
  • Ian Ferguson
    • 8
  • Gordon M. Hickey
    • 9
  1. 1.Faculty of ForestryUniversity of JoensuuJoensuuFinland
  2. 2.Department of Economics and Resource ManagementNorwegian University of Life SciencesAasNorway
  3. 3.The Norwegian Forest and Landscape InstituteAasNorway
  4. 4.Faculty of AgricultureEhime UniversityMatsuyamaJapan
  5. 5.Department of Natural Resource SciencesWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  6. 6.School of Natural and Rural Systems ManagementThe University of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia
  7. 7.National Association of Forest Industries, The University of MelbourneDeakinAustralia
  8. 8.School of Forest and Ecosystem ScienceUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  9. 9.Department of Sustainability and EnvironmentEast MelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations