Go to the content. | Move to the navigation | Go to the site search | Go to the menu | Contacts | Accessibility

| Create Account


Full text disponibile come:

PDF Document

Abstract (english)

Forests are fundamentally important in relation to the multitude of ecosystem services they provide.
Many ecosystem services supplied by forests are positive externalities and public goods and they are considered “market failures”: people can benefit from them without contributing to their sustainment. The failure in assigning a proper value may lead to degradation of forest ecosystems, or to abandonment of forest management, resulting in a consequent under provision of the service, with substantial economic and social losses to society.
To preserve and sustain ecosystem services, including those provided by forests, there is an increasing agreement in favour of Market Based Instruments (MBI). MBI encourage behaviour through market signals rather than through explicit directives. Their main common characteristic is the use of monetary values in one way or another through a commodification process.
MBI are heterogeneous and many authors have listed and classified them, in different ways. The present research adopts the classification of Pirard (2012), who described six types of MBI: direct deals, tradable permits, regulatory price signals, voluntary price signals, reverse auctions and Coasean type agreements.
Among the several ecosystem services provided by forests, some, more than others, have experienced a process of commodification, testified by several examples worldwide. This is the case of Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFP) and of the climate regulation that derives from the carbon sequestration function of forests.
The research aimed at i) assessing which are the most important MBI types applied to NWFP and forests carbon, according to the scientific literature; ii) analysing the application of MBI to NWFP and to climate regulation that derives from the carbon sequestration function of forests, at different scales; iii) assessing whether the application of the MBI to NWFP and to climate regulation that derives from the carbon sequestration function of forests, in the selected examples, is likely to deliver co-benefits or sustainability aspects.

In order to determine how is the MBI type reflected in the scientific literature the Elsevier Scopus database was used, using a set of keywords.
According to the analysis of the scientific literature, the most quoted MBI for NWFP is “direct deals”. Two levels of analysis were selected: the first focused on the international NWFP trade of Italy (performed using the Harmonised System and UNComtrade) and the second on the regional market of NWFP (with the supply chain analysis of wild mushrooms and chestnuts in South Tyrol conducted through face-to-face questionnaires; plus two in depth case-studies, one in Fiemme valley (TN), targeting the organization of the mushroom picking service, and one in Castione (TN), targeting the organization of a chestnut producers association). The other MBI of main importance for NWFP is “voluntary price signals”, namely certification, which was investigated through literature analysis.
The study for the climate regulation that derives from the carbon sequestration function of forests was conducted at two levels: i) the Italian compliance forest carbon market, in the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) example (utilising official databases) and ii) the voluntary forest carbon market, by submitting an online questionnaire to the actors of the sector.

The analysis of “direct deals” applied to NWFP confirms that commodification of NWFP is so extended that nowadays many NWFP are traded at international scale. In these, Italy has a leading position within the five main global importers and/or exporters of vegetable tannins, cork stoppers, chestnuts and wild mushrooms. The International trade of wild forest products is increasing. This could be an opportunity for Italy and for European Union in general, to promote a sustainable forest management based on multifunctionality, which includes use and commercialization of NWFP.
The survey conducted in Trentino-South Tyrol for wild mushrooms and chestnuts shows the presence of different types of markets and food supply chains, based on local and non-local NWFP, the second largely exceeding the first. This is driven by the same logics that rule the trade of other commodities, such as the cheaper raw material and labour cost obtainable in some foreign countries.
However, there are also supply chains based on local NWFP. The trade of local products is based on much lower quantities, and almost the totality remains within regional boundaries. The trade occurrs for the vast majority through Short Food Supply Chains, whose application is considered one of the most important tools to strengthen rural development, by providing several socio-economic and environmental benefits.
Chestnuts production in the region takes also advantage of form of integrations among producers and of geographic specific horizontal alliances for the sale of complementary products and services.
Other MBI are applied to NWFP in the region. Of particular importance are the public incentives for the restoration of the chestnuts sector and the permits for the collection of wild mushrooms.

The analysis of tradable permits application to the climate regulation (carbon sequestration function of forest), in the Italian CDM example, shows that Italian Government participates in a relatively high number of forest projects in developing countries, producing a relevant amount of climatic benefits. However, the connection “carbon forest project- conservation of native forests and of biodiversity” is not automatic, since 55% of the new forests was planted with non-native species.
The analysis of the statements of the forest carbon project design documents shows that all the projects claim that they stimulate the local economy, including short and long term employment in the project area, and that they engage the local population. However, the system of indicators developed by United Nation Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC) does not provide a method for assessing how much a project contributes to sustainable development. Integration of the available information from the Italian Government would be particularly valuable, also considering the relevant financial involvement of Italy in these activities and the positive lessons to be learned from the ongoing experience in the light of the future development of the UNFCCC negotiations.
The analysis of the tradable permits in the example of the Italian voluntary forest carbon market shows that the Italian market is a small market, which has showing a decline in the latest years. The prices are instead in positive countertrend. The Italian sector is characterized by a balanced presence of profit and non-profit organizations, which develop more and more small and micro projects in Italy. Differently form the international situation, most of the projects operate in the absence of certification and standards that assure carbon accounting quality and delivery of co-benefits. However, many projects use guidelines and internal quality standards, a strategy aimed at containing costs for the micro or small scale projects. This choice might, however, raise criticisms. A good sign in terms of environmental benefits is given by the fact that most of the projects, contrarily from what happen in the CDM projects, used exclusively native species.
Since problems of double counting with Kyoto based initiatives could undermine the development of the sector, the voluntary carbon market is looking for official signals from the Italian Government. Currently there is a legislative gap about this. With clear and precise directives, a more stable strategy for the sector could be implemented, also looking at the successful examples of domestic markets that exist in many EU countries.

NWFP certification is promoted as a solution to address the many ecological, economic, and social challenges associated with NWFP commercialization. The research shows that several certification schemes are applied to NWFP and they have different scopes, which follow in different degree under the spheres of socio-economic and environmental sustainability and of assurance of quality and health benefits. However, only two standards (sustainable forest management and wild certification), include detailed ecological specifications for sustainable harvesting. Being the entire NWFP supply chain connected to the renewability of the NWFP itself, these recommendations are of particular importance.

Market Based Instruments are mechanisms that can provide economic values to forest ecosystems, also providing greater flexibility of the management of the resources and to changing conditions. The research shows that application of MBI to forest ecosystem services can perform at different scales, form the local to the global. However, they have not to be idealistically seen as the solution; they rather can, if carefully designed and implemented, complement regulations or provide alternatives. The definition of the best option should be designed case-by-case, especially aiming at including the delivering of sustainable aspects, with particular reference to the place where the forest resources are. At the same way, due to heterogeneity of MBI and of the contexts where they are implemented, MBI effectiveness in managing and conserving ecosystems cannot be a priori assessed and other indicators, applied at specific scale, should be used.

Abstract (italian)

Le foreste hanno fondamentale importanza per i servizi ecosistemici che forniscono alla società. Molti servizi ecosistemici derivanti dalle foreste ricadono nelle cosiddette esternalità positive e nella classe dei beni pubblici. Ciò implica che molti possano beneficiare da tali servizi ecosistemici, senza però contribuire al loro sostentamento. Tale fallimento nell’attribuzione del giusto valore può comportare una degradazione degli ecosistemi forestali, o l’abbandono della gestione forestale, con un conseguente sotto approvvigionamento del servizio ecosistemico stesso. Ne derivano conseguentemente perdite anche dal punto di vista socio-economico.
Al fine di preservare, conservare e sostenere i servizi ecosistemici, compresi quelli generati dalle foreste, c’è un crescente accordo circa l’effettività dell’uso degli strumenti basati sul mercato (Market Based Instruments- MBI). I MBI sono strumenti che incoraggiano le azioni tramite segnali di mercato, invece che tramite norme. Essi costituiscono un gruppo eterogeneo di strumenti, il cui maggiore comune denominatore è l’uso di valori monetari, in svariati modi, attraverso un processo di commodificazione. Diversi autori hanno classificato i MBI, in modi differenti. La presente ricerca adotta la classificazione di Pirard (2012), il quale ha definito sei tipi di MBI: scambi diretti (direct deals), permessi commercializzabili (tradable permits), segnali di prezzo su base normativa (regulatory price signals), segnali di prezzo su base volontaria (voluntary price signals), accordi basati sul modello di Coase (Coasean types agreements), aste al contrario (reverse auctions).
Tra i tanti servizi ecosistemici forniti dalle foreste, alcuni, più di altri, hanno esperito un processo di commodificazione, testimoniato da molti esempi nel mondo. E’ il caos dei Prodotti Forestali Non Legnosi (PFNL) e del servizio di regolazione che deriva dalla funzione di sequestro del carbonio operato dalle foreste.
La presente ricerca ha avuto i seguenti obiettivi: i) determinare quali siano i più importanti MBI applicati ai PFNL e al servizio di regolazione che deriva dalla funzione di sequestro del carbonio operato dalle foreste, secondo la letteratura scientifica; ii) analizzare l’applicazione di tali MBI ai PFNL e al servizio di regolazione che deriva dalla funzione di sequestro del carbonio operato dalle foreste, a diverse scale; iii) valutare se sia probabile che l’applicazione dei MBI ai PFNL e al servizio di regolazione che deriva dalla funzione di sequestro del carbonio operato dalle foreste, negli esempi selezionati, porti co-benefici o aspetti di sostenibilità.

Per determinare quali siano i più importanti MBI, è stato utilizzato il database Scopus, tramite una ricerca con parole chiave.
Secondo la letteratura, i più citati MBI per i PFNL sono i “direct deals”. Sono stati determinati due livelli di analisi per la ricerca di tale applicazione del meccanismo: la prima internazionale, con focus sul commercio internazionale dei PFNL in cui l’Italia è coinvolta (utilizzando il database UNComtrade); la seconda regionale, con l’analisi delle filiere di funghi selvatici e castagne in Trentino-Alto Adige, condotta tramite interviste dirette; l’indagine si è anche avvalsa di ulteriori ricerche, la prima concernente il servizio di raccolta dei permessi dei funghi in val di Fiemme (TN), la seconda un’associazione di produttori di castagne a Castione (TN).
L’altro MBI di maggiore importanza per i PFNL, come riportato in letteratura, è “regulatory price signals”, e specificatamente la certificazione e l’uso di standards. L’analisi dell’applicazione di questo meccanismo si è svolta tramite ricerca bibliografica.
Lo studio sul servizio di regolazione che deriva dalla funzione di sequestro del carbonio operato dalle foreste è stato condotto a due livelli: i) il mercato regolamentare del carbonio forestale, nell’esempio dei progetti forestali sviluppati nell’ambito del Clean Development Mechanism del Protocollo di Kyoto (studio avvenuto tramite ricerca nei database ufficiali); ii) il mercato volontario del carbonio forestale, avvenuto tramite questionari inviati agli attori del settore.

L’analisi dei “direct deals” applicati ai PFNL conferma che la commodificazione dei PFNL è tale che oggi molti di questi prodotti sono commercializzati in mercati con scala globale. In questo contesto, l’Italia riveste una posizione di leader globale tra i maggiori importatori o esportatori di alcuni prodotti: tannini di origine vegetale, tappi di sughero, castagne e funghi selvatici. Il commercio internazionale di PFNL è in crescita. Ciò può rappresentare un’opportunità per l’Italia, e per l’Unione Europea in generale, per promuovere una gestione forestale sostenibile e multifunzionale, basata anche sui PFNL.
L’indagine condotta in Trentino-Alto Adige per i funghi selvatici e le castagne mostra la presenza di diversi tipi di mercati e filiere, basate sia su prodotti locali che non locali, i secondi largamente eccedenti i primi. Le dinamiche che muovono tali mercati sono basate su logiche similari a quelle di tanti altri prodotti, quali i minori costi di produzione che susistono in alcuni paesi esteri. Tuttavia, nella regione ci sono anche filiere basate su PFNL locali. Il commercio imperniato sulla produzione locale è basato su quantità molto minori e la quasi totalità rimane all’interno dei confini regionali. La commercializzazione avviene tramite filiere corte (Short Food Supply Chains), la cui applicazione è considerata ono dei più importanti strumenti per rafforzare lo sviluppo rurale, fornendo diversi benefici sociali, economici e ambientali.
Nella regione esistono anche altri MBI applicati ai PFNL. Di particolare importanza sono gli incentivi pubblici per la revitalizzazione del settore castanicolo e i permessi per la raccolta dei funghi.

L’analisi circa l’applicazione dei tradable permits al servizio di regolazione che deriva dalla funzione di sequestro del carbonio operato dalle foreste, nell’esempio CDM italiano, mostra che il Governo Italiano partecipa ad un numero relativamente alto di progetti forestali nei paesi in via di sviluppo. Ciò produce un ammontare rilevante di benefici climatici. Tuttavia, la connessione “progetto di carbonio forestale- conservazione delle foreste native” nonè automatica, visto che circa il 55% di queste foreste è stat piantata con specie non native.
L’analisi condotta sulle dichiarazioni contenute nei documenti di progetto CDM mostra che tutti i progetti sostengono di aver stimolato l’economia locale, inclusa la generazione di impiego a lungo e breve termine, e di aver coinvolto la popolazione locale. Tuttavia, il sistema di indicatori fornito dall’ United Nation Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC) non procura un metodo per valutare quanto un progeto contribuisca allo sviluppo sostenibile. Sarebbero a questo proposito utili integrazioni informative da parte del Governo Italiano, anche considerando il coinvolgimento finanziario rilevante che l’Italia ha in queste attività. Ciò in vista dello sviluppo delle future negoziazioni in ambito UNFCCC.
L’analisi dei tradable permits nell’esempio del mercato volontario italiano mostra come il mercato italiano sia un piccolo mercato, che ha mostrato un declino negli anni recenti. I prezzi dei crediti di carbonio, invece, risultano essere in controtendenza. Il mercato italiano è caratterizzato da una presenza bilanciata di associazioni profit e non profit, le quali sviluppano sempre più progetti a piccola e micro scala. Al contrario di quanto accade internazionalmente, si riscontra che la maggior parte dei progetti opera in assenza di certificazione e di standard che assicurino la bontà dei calcoli sulla quantità di carbonio immagazzinato e la generazione di co-benefici. Tuttavia molti progetti utilizzano linee guida e standard interni, strategia messa in atto per contenere i costi dei piccoli progetti, i quali hanno difficoltà a sostenere i costi di certificazione. Tuttavia, tale scelta può essere da molti criticata. Un buon indicatore è invece dato dall’uso quasi esclusivo di specie native nei progetti.
Dato che problemi di doppia rendicontazione con il Protocollo di Kyoto possono minare lo sviluppo del settore, esssendoci ora una vacanza legislativa, gli attori del mercato volontario sono in attesa da segnali chiari dal Governo. Con precise direttive potrebbe essere designata una strategia più stabile, anche considerando gli esempi positivi di alcuni mercati domestici in altri paesi europei.

La ricerca sui “voluntary price signals” mostra come esistano molti schemi di certificazione che sono applicabili ai PFNL. Hanno obiettivi differenti, ascrivibili con diversa intensità alle sfere di sostenibilità socio-economica, ambientale, e di assicurazione di qualità. Tuttavia, solo due standard (gestione forestale sostenibile e certificazione “wild”) includono specificazioni dettagliate circa la raccolta sostenibile dei PFNL. Essendo l’intera filiera basata sulla presenza della risorsa PFNL, queste specificazioni sono di fondamentale importanza.

I MBI sono meccanismi che possono fornire valore economico agli ecosistemi forestali, dando anche maggiore flessibilità di gestione delle risorse e maggior resilienza a situazioni dinamiche.
La ricerca mostra che l’applicazione di MBI ai servizi ecosistemici derivanti dalle foreste può essere applicata a scale diverse, dalla locale alla globale. Tuttavia, l’applicazione di MBI non deve essere idealisticamente vista come “la soluzione”; è piuttosto, se attentamente sviluppata e messa in atto, di complemento alle norme esistenti. La definizione dell’opzione migliore dovresse essere designata caso per caso, specialmente mirando ad includere la generazione di aspetti di sostenibilità, con riferimento particolare al luogo dove sono site le risorse forestali. Allo stesso modo, data l’eterogeneità dei MBI e dei contesti a cui sono applicati, l’effettività dei MBI nella gestione e conservazione degli ecosistemi non può essere valutata a priori e dovrebbero essere utilizzati altri indicatori, applicati a scala specifica.

Statistiche Download - Aggiungi a RefWorks
EPrint type:Ph.D. thesis
Tutor:Pettenella, Davide Matteo
Ph.D. course:Ciclo 28 > Scuole 28 > TERRITORIO, AMBIENTE, RISORSE E SALUTE
Data di deposito della tesi:31 January 2016
Anno di Pubblicazione:31 January 2016
Key Words:Market Based Instruments, Non Wood Forest Products, forest carbon, ecosystem services, Italy
Settori scientifico-disciplinari MIUR:Area 07 - Scienze agrarie e veterinarie > AGR/01 Economia ed estimo rurale
Struttura di riferimento:Dipartimenti > Dipartimento Territorio e Sistemi Agro-Forestali
Codice ID:9501
Depositato il:14 Oct 2016 09:44
Simple Metadata
Full Metadata
EndNote Format


I riferimenti della bibliografia possono essere cercati con Cerca la citazione di AIRE, copiando il titolo dell'articolo (o del libro) e la rivista (se presente) nei campi appositi di "Cerca la Citazione di AIRE".
Le url contenute in alcuni riferimenti sono raggiungibili cliccando sul link alla fine della citazione (Vai!) e tramite Google (Ricerca con Google). Il risultato dipende dalla formattazione della citazione.

Alexeew, J., Bergset, L., Meyer, K., Petersen, J., Schneider, L., Unger, C., 2010. An analysis of the relationship between the additionally of CDM projects and their contribution to sustainable development. International Environmental Agreements 10(3): 233–248. Cerca con Google

Arens, C. (ed.), 2013. Opportunity versus odyssey: the future of forestry projects in the Carbon market. Carbon Mechanism Review 2013 (2), Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Wuppertal, Germany. Cerca con Google

ASTAT, 2013. 6° Censimento generale dell'agricoltura 2010. ASTAT, Bolzano, Italy. Cerca con Google

Bäckstrand, K., Lövbrand, E., 2006. Planting trees to mitigate climate change: Contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics 6(1): 50-75. Cerca con Google

Bakker, S., Haug, C., Van Asselt, H., Gupta, J., Saïdi, R. 2011. The future of the CDM: same same, but differentiated? Climate Policy 11 (1): 752–767. Cerca con Google

Battistel, G. A., Pietrogiovanna, M., 2006. Mugolio: l'essenza dello sviluppo integrato in Val Sarentino. Alberi e Territorio 3(4-5): 30-33. Cerca con Google

Bauer, J., Kniivilä, M., Schmithüsen, F. 2004. Forest legislation in Europe: How 23 countries approach the obligation to reforest, public access and use of non-wood forest products. Geneva Timber and Forest Discussion Papers no. 37, ECE/TIM/DP/37, United Nations, New York and Geneva Cerca con Google

Belcher, B., Ruìz Pèrez, M., Achdiawan, R., 2005. Global Patterns and Trends in the Use and Management of Commercial NTFPs : Implications for Livelihoods and Conservation. World Development 33(9): 1435–1452. Cerca con Google

Bennett, G., Carroll, N., 2014. Gaining Depth: State of Watershed Investment 2014. Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington, DC. Cerca con Google

Bertazzoli, A., Ruggeri, A., Samoggia, A., 2010. Short supply chain: analysis of the competitiveness of organic horticultural farmers at Italian regional level. 118th Seminar, August 25-27, 2010, Ljubljana, Slovenia, European Association of Agricultural Economists: 94918. Cerca con Google

Berthou, A., Emlinger, C., 2011. The Trade Unit Values database. Economie Internationale 128(4): 97–117. Cerca con Google

Bossi Fedrigotti, V., Fischer, C., 2013. The supply chain of sweet chestnuts in South Tyrol. Economia Agro-alimentare 16(1): 117-137. Cerca con Google

Boucher, D. H., 2015. The REDD/carbon market offsets debate: Big argument, small potatoes. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 34(6-7): 547-558. Cerca con Google

Brown, L., Robinson, D., Karmann, M., 2000. The Forest Stewardship Council and Non-Timber Forest Product Certification : A discussion paper. Forest Stewardship Council, Oaxaca, Mexico. Cerca con Google

Brown T. C., Bergstrom J. C., Loomis, J. B., 2006. Ecosystem goods and services: definition, valuation and provision. RMRS-RWU-4851 Discussion Paper. US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, USA. Cerca con Google

Brunori G., Rossi A., Guidi F., 2012. On the New Social Relations around and beyond Food. Analysing Consumers' Role and Action in Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale (Solidarity Purchasing Groups). Sociologia Ruralis 52(1): 1-30. Cerca con Google

Burgener, M., Walter, S., 2007. Trade measures- tools to promote the sustainable use of NWFP? An assessment of trade related instruments influencing the international trade in Non-Wood Forest Products and associated management and livelihood strategies. Non-Wood Forest Products Working Document No 6, FAO, Rome, Italy. Cerca con Google

Cai, M., Pettenella, D., Vidale, E., 2011. Income generation from wild mushrooms in marginal rural areas. Forest Policy and Economics 13: 221-226. Cerca con Google

Caurla, S., Delacote, P., Lecocq, F., Barthès, J., Barkaoui, A., 2013. Combining an inter-sectoral carbon tax with sectoral mitigation policies: Impacts on the French forest sector. Journal of Forest Economics 19(4): 450-461. Cerca con Google

Cesaro L., Romano R., Zumpano, C., 2013. Le foreste nel contesto internazionale: dibattito in corso. In: “Foreste e politiche di sviluppo rurale, stato dell’arte, opportunità mancate e prospettive strategiche” (Cesaro L., Romano R., Zumpano C., eds). Istituto Nazionale di Economia Agraria, Rome, Italy, 23-32. Cerca con Google

Chiabai, A., Travisi, C., Ding, H., Markandya, A., Nunes, P.A., 2009. Economic valuation of forest ecosystem services: methodology and monetary estimates. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM), Milano, Italy. Cerca con Google

Chobotová, V., 2013. The role of market-based instruments for biodiversity conservation in Central and Eastern Europe. Ecological Economics 95: 41–50. Cerca con Google

Chomitz, K.M., 2000. Evaluating Carbon offsets from forestry and energy projects: how do they compare? The World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper (2357), Washington DC, USA. Cerca con Google

Coase, R. H.,1960. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1-44. Cerca con Google

Cork information bureau, 2011. Sughero. Cultura, natura, futuro. Press release. Intercork, Milan, Italy. Cerca con Google

Corte dei Conti, 2009. Relazione concernente l'indagine su Piano nazionale per la riduzione delle emissioni dei gas responsabili dell'effetto serra. Sezione centrale di controllo sulla gestione delle Amministrazioni dello Stato - I Collegio. Rome, Italy. Cerca con Google

Costanza, R., Daly, H., 1992. Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology 6: 37–46. Cerca con Google

Costanza, R., D'Arge, R., De Groot, R.S., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, G.R., Sutton, P., Van der Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260. Cerca con Google

Croitoru, L. 2007. Valuing the non-timber forest products in the Mediterranean region. Ecological Economics 63: 768-775. Cerca con Google

Croitoru, L., Gatto, P., 2001. Una stima del valore economico totale del bosco in aree mediterranee. Monti e Boschi 52(5): 22–30. Cerca con Google

Cubbage, F., Harou, P., Sills, E., 2007. Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 9(7): 833-851. Cerca con Google

Daily, G.C., 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC. Cerca con Google

De Groot, R.S., 1987. Environmental functions as a unifying concept for ecology and economics. The Environmentalist 7 (2): 105–109. Cerca con Google

De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M., Boumans, R., 2002. A typology for the description, classification and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41 (3): 393–408. Cerca con Google

De Román, M., Boa, E., 2006. The marketing of Lactarius deliciosus in Northern Spain. Economic Botany 60(3): 284–290. Cerca con Google

Diemer, M., Borner, S., 2013. Marktwirtschaftliche Anreize für Naturschutz in tropischen und subtropischen Ländern. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen 164(3): 59-64. Cerca con Google

Ecosystem Marketplace, 2009. Beyond carbon: biodiversity and water markets. Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington, DC. Cerca con Google

EEA, 2014. Annual European Union greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2012 and inventory report 2014. Submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat Technical report No. 09/2014. European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. Cerca con Google

Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H., 1981. Extinction: the causes and consequences of the disappearance of species. Random House, New York. Cerca con Google

Fairtrade Labelling Organization International, 2011. Fairtrade Standard for Herbs, Herbal Teas & Spices for Small Producer Organizations. Fairtrade Labelling Organization International ,Bonn, Germany. Cerca con Google

Fair Wild Foundation, 2009. Fair Wild Website url http://www.fairwild.org/ [accessed September 2015) Vai! Cerca con Google

Fair Wild Foundation, 2010. FairWild Standard: Version 2.0. Fair Wild Foundation, Weinfelden, Switzerland. Cerca con Google

FairWild, 2010. FairWild Standard: Version 2.0. Fair Wild Foundation, Weinfelden, Switzerland. Cerca con Google

FairWild Foundation, 2015. FairWild certified ingredients under production. Fair Wild Foundation, Switzerland. Cerca con Google

FAO, 1999. Non-Wood Forest Products and Income Generation. Unasylva 198: 1–77. Cerca con Google

FAO, 2005. Global Forest Resource Assesment 2005. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Cerca con Google

FAO, 2010. Global Forest Resource Assesment 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Cerca con Google

FAO, 2015. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Cerca con Google

Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 68: 643–653. Cerca con Google

Forest Europe, UNECE, FAO, 2011. State of Europe’s Forest 2011. Status and Trends in Sustainable Forest Management in Europe. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, FOREST EUROPE Liaison Unit Oslo, Aas, Norway. Cerca con Google

FSC, 2001. Bolivian Standards for the forest certification of the Brazil Nut (Bertholletia excelsa). FSC Work Group in Bolivia, Riberalta, Beni, Bolivia. Cerca con Google

FSC, 2006. Estándares para la certificación forestal voluntaria de guaduales en Colombia bajo el esquema del FSC. Forest Stewardship Council Colombia, Santiago de Cali, Colombia. Cerca con Google

FSC, 2014. FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship. Forest Stewardship Council, Bonn, Germany. Cerca con Google

Galli, F., Brunori, G., (eds.), 2013. Short Food Supply Chains as drivers of sustainable development. Evidence Document. Document developed in the framework of the FP7 project FOODLINKS (GA No.265287). Laboratorio di studi rurali Sismondi, Pisa, Italy. Cerca con Google

Gios, G., Rizio D. 2013. Payment for forest environmental services: a meta-analysis of successful elements. iForest 6(3 : 141-149. Cerca con Google

Goio I., Gios G., Pollini C. ,2008. The development of forest accounting in the province of Trento (Italy). Journal of Forest Economics 14(3): 177-196. Cerca con Google

Goldstein A., Gonzales G., 2014. Turning over a New Leaf State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2014. Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington DC. Cerca con Google

Goldstein A., Neyland E., 2015. Converging at the crossroads. State of forest carbon finance 2015, Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington DC. Cerca con Google

Gómez-Baggethun, E., De Groot, R.S., Lomas, P.L., Montes, C., 2010. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice : From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics 69: 1209–1218. Cerca con Google

Gómez-Baggethun, E., Muradian, R., 2015. In markets we trust? Setting the boundaries of market-based instruments in ecosystem services governance. Ecological Economics 117: 217-224. Cerca con Google

Goodman, D., Goodman, M., 2009. Alternative food networks. In: “International Encyclopedia of Human Geography” (Kitchin, R., Thrift, N., eds). Elsevier, Oxford, 208-220. Cerca con Google

Gorte, R. W., Ramseur, J. L., 2008. Forest carbon markets: potential and drawbacks. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, USA. Cerca con Google

Guedes Pinto, L. F., Stanley, P., Gomes, P. C., Robinson, D., 2008. Experience with NTFP certification in Brazil. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 18(1): 37-54. Cerca con Google

Gupta J., van Beukering P., van Asselt H., Brander L., Hess S., van der Leeuw K., 2008. Flexibility mechanisms and sustainable development: lessons from five AIJ projects. Climate Policy 8(3): 261–276. Cerca con Google

Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. Cerca con Google

Hartwig, J., 2007. Die Vermarktung der Taiga. Die Politischen Ökologie der Nutzung von Nicht-Holz-Waldprodukten und Bodenschätzen in der Mongolei. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany. Cerca con Google

Homma, A.K.O., 1996. Utilization of Forest Products for Amazonian Development: Potential and Limitations. In: "Interdisciplinary Research on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Amazonian Rain Forest and its Information Requirements". Report on the Workshop held in Brasilia, Brazil, November 20-22, 1995. (Lieberei, R., Reisdorff, C., Machado, A. D., eds.). Hamburg, Germany, 255-273. Cerca con Google

Hsueh, S. L., 2013. Review on the plain afforestation policy in sustainable community developments. Actual Problems of Econmics 3(2): 136-145. Cerca con Google

Ilbery, B., Maye, D., 2005. Alternative (shorter) food supply chains and specialist livestock products in the Scottish–English borders, Environment and Planning A 37: 823–844 Cerca con Google

IFOAM, 2008. Definition of Organic Agriculture in English, as approved by the IFOAM General Assembly in Vignola, Italy in June 2008. International Foundation for Organic Agriculture, Bonn, Germany. Cerca con Google

IFOAM, 2012. The IFOAM norms for organic production and processing. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement, Bonn, Germany. Cerca con Google

IMO, 2010. IMO Guidance manual for sustainable wild collection practices. Institute for Marketecology, Eschborn, Switzerland. Cerca con Google

INFC, 2005. Inventario Nazionale delle Foreste e dei serbatoi forestali di Carbonio, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Corpo Forestale dello Stato, Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura (CRA-MPF), Rome, Italy Cerca con Google

ISEA, 1983. L’utilizzazione dei prodotti secondari del bosco. ISEA, Istituto per lo sviluppo economico dell’Appennino centro settentrionale, Bologna. Cerca con Google

ISTAT, 2011. 15° censimento generale della popolazione e delle abitazioni. ISTAT, Roma. Cerca con Google

Janssen, M., Hamm, U., 2012. The mandatory EU logo for organic food : consumer perceptions. British Food Journal 114: 335–352. Cerca con Google

Jindal R., Swallow B., Kerr J., 2008. Forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in Africa: Potential benefits and challenges. Natural Resources Forum 32: 116–130. Cerca con Google

Jung M., 2005. The role of forestry projects in the Clean Development Mechanism. Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2): 87–104 Cerca con Google

Kalliola, R., Flores, P., 2011. Brazil nut harvesting in Peruvian Amazonia from the perspective of ecosystem services. Fennia 189(2): 1–13. Cerca con Google

Kangas, K., Markkanen, P., 2001. Factors affecting participation in wild berry picking by rural and urban dwellers. Silva Fennica 35(4): 487–495. Cerca con Google

Keca, L.J. , Keca N. Rekola, M. 2013. Value chains of Serbian non-wood forest products. International Forestry Review 15(3): 315-335. Cerca con Google

Kerchner, C.D., Keeton, W.S., 2015. California's regulatory forest carbon market: Viability for northeast landowners. Forest Policy and Economics 50: 70-81. Cerca con Google

Koziell, I., Swingland, I.R., 2002. Collateral biodiversity benefits associated with ‘free market’ approaches to sustainable land use and forestry activities. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 360: 1807–1816. Cerca con Google

Kuglin, F.A., Hook, J., 2002. Building, Leading, and Managing Strategic Alliances: How to Work Effectively and Profitably With Partner Companies. American Management Association, New York City, USA. Cerca con Google

Lamine, C., 2005. Settling shared uncertainties: local partnership between producers and consumers. Sociologia Ruralis 45(4): 324-345. Cerca con Google

Landel Mills, N., Porras, I.T., 2002. Silver bullet or fools’ gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Cerca con Google

Malhotra, A., Schuler, S.R., Boender, C., 2002. Measuring women’s empowerment as a variable in international development. Background Paper Prepared for the World Bank Workshop on Poverty and Gender. New Perspectives, Washington DC, USA. Cerca con Google

Mantau, U., Merlo M., Sekot W., Welker B., 2001. Recreational and environmental markets for forest enterprises, CABI, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK. Cerca con Google

Marsden,T., Banks, J., Bristow, G., 2000. Food Supply Chain Approaches: Exploring their Role in Rural Development. Sociologia Ruralis 40: 424–438. Cerca con Google

Mavsar, R., Ramcilovic, S., Palahi, M., Weiss G., Rametsteiner, E., Tykka, S.,Van Apeldoorn, R., Vreke, J., Van Wijk, m., Janse, G., Prokofieva, I., Rekola, M., Kuulivainen, J., 2008. Study on the Development and Marketing of Non-Market Forest Products and Services. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Cerca con Google

MCPFE, 2003. State of Europe’s Forests 2003. The MCPFE Report on Sustainable Forest Management in Europe. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe Liaison Unit, Vienna, Austria. Cerca con Google

MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Cerca con Google

Meaton, J., Abebe, B. Wood, A.P., 2015. Forest spice development: the use of value chain analysis to identify opportunities for the sustainable development of Ethiopian cardamom (korerima). Sustainable development 23(1): 1-15. Cerca con Google

Merger, E., Dutschke, M., Verchot, L., 2011. Options for REDD+ voluntary certification to ensure net GHG benefits, poverty alleviation, sustainable management of forests and biodiversity conservation. Forests 2(2): 550-577. Cerca con Google

Merger, T., Pistorius, 2011. Effectiveness and legitimacy of forest carbon standards in the OTC voluntary carbon market. Carbon Balance and Management 6: 4. Cerca con Google

Merlo, M., Croitoru, L., 2005. Valuing Mediterranean forests. towards total economic value. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK. Cerca con Google

Messely, L., Dessein, J., Lauwers, L., 2008. Regional identity in rural development: three case studies of regional branding. Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce 4(3-4): 19-24. Cerca con Google

Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali, 2010. Piano del settore castanicolo 2010/2013. Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali, Roma, Italy. Cerca con Google

Moegenburg S.M., Levey D.J.,2002. Prospects for conserving biodiversity in Amazonian extractive reserves. Ecology Letters 5: 320–324 Cerca con Google

Mori,E., Hitner, W., 2013. Il maso chiuso, La sua storia e la normativa vigente. Fondazione UPAD, Università popolare della Alpi dolomitiche, Bolzano Cerca con Google

Murali K.S., Shankar, U., Shaanker, R., Ganeshaiah, K.N., Bawa, K.S., 1996. Extraction of non-timber forest products in the forests of Biligiri Rangan Hills, India. 2. Impact of NTFP extraction on regeneration, population structure, and species composition. Economical Botany 50: 252–269. Cerca con Google

Nabuurs, G.J., Delacote, P., Ellison, D., Hanewinkel, M., Lindner, M., Nesbit, M., Ollikainen M., Savaresi, A., 2015. A new role for forests and the forest sector in the EU post-2020 climate targets. From Science to Policy 2. European Forest Institute, Barcelona, Spain. Cerca con Google

Nedeljković, J., Lovrić, M., Nonić, D., Stojanovska, M., Nedanovska, V., Lovrić, N., & Stojanovski, V., 2013. Influence of policy instruments on non-wood forest products commercialization in Croatia, Macedonia and Serbia. Šumarski list, 137(9-10): 473-485. Cerca con Google

Nellemann, C., Corcoran, E., Duarte, C. M., Valdés, L., De Young, C., Fonseca, L., Grimsditch, G. (eds), 2009. Cerca con Google

Blue Carbon. A Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenia. Cerca con Google

Nepal, P., Ince, P. J., Skog, K. E., Chang, S. J., 2013. Forest carbon benefits, costs and leakage effects of carbon reserve scenarios in the United States. Journal of Forest Economics 19(3): 286-306. Cerca con Google

NEPCon, 2014. NEPCon FSC Global Non Timber Forest Product Certification Addendum. NEPCon, Copenhagen, Denmark. Cerca con Google

NMC, 2014. Stato del mercato forestale del Carbonio in Italia 2013. Nucleo di Monitoraggio Carbonio INEA, Osservatorio Foreste INEA, Dipartimento TESAF-Università di Padova, Dipartimento DIBAF-Università della Tuscia, Compagnia delle Foreste, Rome, Italy. Cerca con Google

Olmos, S., 1999. Non-wood forest products: utilization and income generation in the Czech Republic, Finland and Lithuania. Unasylva (1999): 27-33. Cerca con Google

Olsen, K.H., 2007. The Clean Development Mechanism’s contribution to sustainable development: a review of the literature. Climatic Change 84: 59–73. Cerca con Google

Olsen K.H., Fenhann J., 2008. Sustainable development benefits of clean development mechanism projects. A new methodology for sustainability assessment based on text analysis of the project design documents submitted for validation, Energy Policy 36(8): 2819–2830. Cerca con Google

Oxaal. Z., Baden. S., 1997. Gender and empowerment: definitions, approaches and implications for policy. University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. Cerca con Google

Pagiola, S., Platais, G., 2007. Payments for Environmental Services: From Theory to Practice. World Bank, Washington, USA. Cerca con Google

Pattanayak, S.K., Wunder, S., Ferraro, P.J., 2010. Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 4 (2): 254–274. Cerca con Google

Peintner, U., Schwarz, S., Mešić, A., Moreau, P. A., Moreno, G., Saviuc, P., 2013. Mycophilic or Mycophobic? Legislation and guidelines on wild mushroom commerce reveal different consumption behaviour in European countries. PLoS ONE 8(5): e63926. Cerca con Google

Pereira, H. (ed.), 2011. Cork: Biology, Production and Uses. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Cerca con Google

Perrings, C., Folke, C., Mäler, K.G., 1992. The ecology and economics of biodiversity loss: the research agenda. Ambio 21, 201–211. Cerca con Google

Peters, R. (ed.), 2012. Local Food and Short Supply Chains. EU Rural Review. Publication no.12. European Network for Rural Development, Bruxelles, Belgium. Cerca con Google

Peters-Stanley, M., Hamilton, K., Yin, D., 2012. Leveraging the landscape state of the forest Carbon markets 2012. Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington DC, USA. Cerca con Google

Pettenella, D., 1994. EU Forest policy and its impacts on the Mediterranean countries. Medit 5(3): 11-15. Cerca con Google

Pettenella, D., 2009. Le nuove sfide per il settore forestale. Mercato, energia, ambiente e politiche. Edizioni Tellus, Roma, Italy. Cerca con Google

Pettenella, D., Ciccarese, L., Dragoi, S., Hegedus, A., Hingston, A., Klohn S., Matilainen., A.,Posavec, S., Thorfinsson, T., 2006. NWFP&S marketing: lessons learned from case studies in Europe. In "Issues affecting enterprise development in forest sector" (Niskanen, A., ed.), University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry, Joensuu, Finland, 367-403. Cerca con Google

Pettenella, D., Secco, L., Maso, D., 2007. NWFP&S Marketing: Lessons learned and new development paths from case studies in some European countries. Small-scale Forestry 6: 373–390. Cerca con Google

Pierce, A., Shanley, P., Laird, S.A., 2003. Certification of non-timber forest products : Limitations and implications of a market-based conservation tool. Paper presented at The International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity 19-23 May 2003. Bonn, Germany. Cerca con Google

Pierce, A.R., Shanley, P., Laird, S.A., 2008. Non Timber Forest products and certification: strange bedfellows. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 18(1): 23-35. Cerca con Google

Pigou, A., C., 1932. The economics of welfare, 4th edition. Mc Millan & Co., London, UK. Cerca con Google

Pirard, R., 2012. Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services : A lexicon. Environmental Science and Policy 19-20: 59–68. Cerca con Google

Pirard, R., Lapeyre, R., 2014. Classifying market-based instruments for ecosystem services : A guide to the literature jungle. Ecosystem Services 9: 106–114. Cerca con Google

Prokofieva I., Gorriz E., Vedel S. et al., 2011. Report on the currently applied market based methods in the case studies. Deliverable D4.1 of the research project “NEWFOREX”, Project no. 243950, FP7-KBBE 2009-3, European Commission, Luxembourg. url http://www.newforex.org/publications#work-package-4 (accessed January 2016). Vai! Cerca con Google

Prokofieva, I., Wunder, S., Vidale, E., 2012. Payments for Environmental Services: a way forward for Mediterranean forests? EFI Policy Brief. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland. Cerca con Google

Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano, 2014a. Programma di Sviluppo Rurale 2014-2020 della Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano, Bolzano. Cerca con Google

Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano, 2014b. Relazione agraria e forestale 2013. Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano, Bolzano. Cerca con Google

Provincia Autonoma di Trento, 2008. Il castagno e il noce nella provincia di Trento. Provincia autonoma di Trento, dipartimento agricoltura e alimentazione e servizio promozione delle attività agricole, Trento Cerca con Google

Provincia Autonoma di Trento, 2014a. Programma Sviluppo Rurale 2014 -2020 della Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Trento Cerca con Google

Provincia Autonoma di Trento, 2014b. Turismo in Trentino, Rapporto 2013. Servizio Turismo I.S. per le politiche turistiche provinciali, Trento Cerca con Google

Renting, H., Marsden, T.K., Banks, J. ,2003. Understanding alternative food networks: exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and Planning A 35(3): 393-411. Cerca con Google

Richards M., 1999. Internalising the externalities of tropical forestry: a review of innovative financing and incentive mechanisms. Overseas Development Institute, London; European Commission, Bruxelles. Cerca con Google

Richardson, D.M., Pyšek, P., Rejmánek, M., Barbour, M.G., Panetta, F.D., West, C.J., 2000. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions, Diversity and distributions 6(2): 93-107. Cerca con Google

Robertson, N., Wunder, S., 2005. Fresh tracks in the forest: assessing incipient payments for environmental services initiatives in Bolivia. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Cerca con Google

Roep, D, Wiskerke, J.S.C., 2006. Nourishing networks: Fourteen lessons about creating sustainable food supply chains. Reed Business Information, Doetinchem, Netherlands. Cerca con Google

Rolfe, J., McCosker, jr, 2003. Overview of the issues in planning a corridor tender process, establishing East-West landscape linkage in the Southern Desert Uplands. Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, Central Queensland University, Emerald, Australia. Cerca con Google

Rosset, P.M., 1999. The multiple functions and benefits of small farm agriculture in the context of global trade negotiations. Policy Briefs, No.4. Food First, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, USA. Cerca con Google

Ruiz de Maya, S., López-López, I., Munuera, J.L., 2011. Organic food consumption in Europe: International segmentation based on value system differences. Ecological Economics 70: 1767–1775. Cerca con Google

Saastamoinen, O., Kangas, J., Naskali, A., Salo, K. 1998. Non-wood forest products in Finland: statistics, expert estimates and recent development. In "Sustainable development of non-wood goods and benefits from boreal and cold temperate forests" (Lund H.G., Pajari B., Korhonen, M., eds.) EFI Proceedings No. 23. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland, 131-146. Cerca con Google

Saastamoinen, O., 1999. Forest policies, access rights and non-wood forest products in Northern Europe. Unasylva 198: 20–26. Cerca con Google

Salzman, J., 2005. Creating markets for ecosystem services: notes from the field. University Law Review 80 (6): 870–962. Cerca con Google

Sambrotta, E., 2010. Quando un territorio diventa brand. Trentino e Alto Adige Südtirol: casi di successo. Dirigente 4: 2010: 1-18. Cerca con Google

Samuelson, P., 1954. The pure theory of public expenditure. Review of economics and Statistics 36(4):387-389. Cerca con Google

Sanchirico, J. N., Siikamaki J. 2007. Natural resource economics and policy in the 21st Century: Conservation of ecosystem services. Resources 165: 1-10. Cerca con Google

Schermer M., Hirschbichler K., Gleirscher N., 2006. Encouraging Collective Farmers Marketing Initiatives (COFAMI). Status-quo analysis (WP3). National Report Austria (D3.2). COFAMI, Austria. Cerca con Google

Schlamadinger, B., Marland, G.,1996. The role of forest and bioenergy strategies in the global carbon cycle. Biomass and Bioenergy 10(5): 275-300. Cerca con Google

Schlamadinger B., Bird N., Johns T., Brown S., Canadell J., Ciccarese L., Dutschke M., Fiedler J., Fischlin A., Fearnside P., 2007. A synopsis of land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) under the Kyoto Protocol and Marrakesh Accords. Environmental Science & Policy 10 (4): 271-282. Cerca con Google

Schmitt, J., Pokorny, B., Ying L., 2008. Certification of non-timber forest products in China: effects on food quality, forest conservation and rural development. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 18(1): 81-89. Cerca con Google

Secco, L., Pettenella, D., Maso, D., 2009. “Net-System” Models Versus Traditional Models in NWFP Marketing: The Case of Mushrooms. Small-scale Forestry 8: 349–365. Cerca con Google

Seres S., Haites E., Murphy K., 2009. Analysis of technology transfer in CDM projects: An update. Energy Policy 37 (11): 4919–4926. Cerca con Google

Shackleton, S., Shackleton, C., Shanley, P., 2011. Non-Timber Forest Products in the global context. Springer Verlag, New York, USA. Cerca con Google

Shanley, P., Pierce, A.R., Guillén, A., Laird, S.A., 2002. Tapping the green market: Certification and Management of Non-Timber Forest Products. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, UK. Cerca con Google

Shanley, P., Pierce, A.R., Laird, S.A., Robinson, D., 2008. Beyond timber: certification and management of non-timber forest products. CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research), Bogor, Indonesia. Cerca con Google

Sitta, N., Floriani, M., 2008. Nationalization and globalization trends in the wild mushroom commerce of Italy with emphasis on porcini (Boletus edulis and allied species). Economic Botany 62(3): 307-322. Cerca con Google

Stavins R. N., 1998. Market-based environmental policies. Resources for the Future, Washington. Cerca con Google

Stavins, R., 2001. Experience with market-based environmental policy instruments. Discussion Paper 01-58, Resources for the Future, Washington Cerca con Google

Stewart, K. M., 2003. The African cherry (Prunus africana): Can lessons be learned from an over-exploited medicinal tree? Journal of Ethnopharmacology 89(1): 3-13. Cerca con Google

Steven, G., 1989. Integrating the supply chain. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Materials Management 19: 3–8. Cerca con Google

Stryamets, N., Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P., 2012. Role of non-wood forest products for local livelihoods in countries with transition and market economies: case studies in Ukraine and Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 27(1): 74-87. Cerca con Google

Sjølie, H. K., Latta, G. S., Solberg, B., 2013. Potential impact of albedo incorporation in boreal forest sector climate change policy effectiveness. Climate Policy 13(6): 665-679. Cerca con Google

Sullivan, A., Sheffrin, S.M., 2003. Economics: Principles in action. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, USA. Cerca con Google

Sutter C., Parreño J.C., 2007. Does the current Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) deliver its sustainable development claim? An analysis of officially registered CDM projects. Climate Change 84: 75–90. Cerca con Google

TEEB, 2009. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers – Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, Geneva, Switzerland. Cerca con Google

The Montreal Process, 2009. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests, 4th ed., The Montreal Process, Tokyo, Japan. Cerca con Google

The World Bank Group, 2015. [online 20 June 2015] URL: http://wbcarbonfinance.org/BioCF Vai! Cerca con Google

Thogersen, J., 2010. Country Differences in Sustainable Consumption: The Case of Organic Food. Journal of Macromarketing 30: 171–185. Cerca con Google

Thomas S., Dargusch P., Harrison S., Herbohn J., 2010. Why are there so few afforestation and reforestation Clean Development Mechanism projects? Land use policy 27: 880–887. Cerca con Google

Ticktin, T., Shackleton, C., 2011. Harvesting Non-timber Forest Products Sustainably : Opportunities and Challenges. In "Non-timber forest products in the global context" (Shackleton, S., Shackleton, C., Shanley, P., eds.). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 149-169. Cerca con Google

Turtiainen, M., Nuutinen T., 2011. Evaluation of Information on Wild Berry and Mushroom Markets in European Countries. Small-Scale Forestry 11(1): 131-145. Cerca con Google

UN, 2000. Millenium Development Goals. Traffic International, Cambridge, UK. Cerca con Google

UN-ESCAP, 2009. Trade Statistics in Policymaking - A handbook of commonly used trade indices and indicators. United the Nations, New York, USA. Cerca con Google

UNFCCC, 2001. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Decision 10/CP.7. Funding under the Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1. United Nations Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. Cerca con Google

UNFCCC, 2005a. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Decision 5/CMP.1. Modalities and procedures for afforestation and reforestation project activities under the clean development mechanism in the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.1. United Nations Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. Cerca con Google

UNFCCC, 2005b. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Decision 16/CMP.1. Land use, land-use change and forestry, FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3. United Nations Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. Cerca con Google

UNFCCC, 2005c. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Decision 6/CMP.1. Simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale afforestation and reforestation project activities under the clean development mechanism in the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and measures to facilitate their implementation, FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.1. United Nations Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. Cerca con Google

UNFCCC, 2006. Guidelines for completing the Project Design Document (CDM-PDD),The proposed new methodology: Baseline (CDM-NMB) And The Proposed New Methodology: Monitoring (CDN-NNM) Version 04. United Nations Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. Cerca con Google

UNFCCC, 2010. The contribution of the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol to technology transfer. United Nations Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. Cerca con Google

UNFCCC. 2011a. CDM project search. United Nations Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. URL: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/projsearch.html (accessed June 2015). Vai! Cerca con Google

UNFCCC, 2011b. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Decision 2/CMP.7. Land use, land-use change and forestry, FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1. United Nations Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. Cerca con Google

UNFCCC, 2012a. Report of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on its 7th Session held in Durban from 28 November to 1112. United Nations Convention on Climate Change, Durban, South Africa. Cerca con Google

UNFCCC, 2012b. Benefits of the Clean Development Mechanism 2012. United Nations Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. Cerca con Google

UNFCCC, 2012c. CDM Methodology Booklet. United Nations Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. Cerca con Google

UNFCCC, 2013a. CDM Methodology Booklet. United Nations Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. Cerca con Google

UNFCCC, 2013b. Afforestation and Reforestation Projects under the Clean Development Mechanism. United Nations Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. Cerca con Google

UNFCCC,2015. CDM Sustainable Development co-Benefits tool. United Nations Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. URL: http://cdmcobenefits.unfccc.int/Pages/SD-Tool.aspx [accessed June 2015]. Vai! Cerca con Google

UNOPS, 2009. A guide to environmental labels - for Procurement Practitioners of the United Nations System. United Nations Office for Project Services, Copenhagen, Denmark. Cerca con Google

Vantomme, P., 2003. Compiling statistics on Non-Wood Forest Products as policy and decision-making tools at the national level. International Forestry Review 5(2): 156–160. Cerca con Google

Vantomme P., Walter, S., 2003. Opportunities and challenges of non-wood forest products certification. Paper submitted to the World Forestry Congress, Quebec, 21-28 September, Rome. Cerca con Google

Viana, V., E. Jamison, R. Donovan, C. Elliot, Gholz, H., 1996. Certification of Forest Products: Issues and perspectives. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Cerca con Google

Voces, R., Diaz-Balteiro, L., Alfranca, O., 2011. Demand for wild edible mushrooms. The case of Lactarius deliciosus in Barcelona (Spain). Journal of Forest Economics 18(1): 47-60. Cerca con Google

Walter, S., 2002. Certification and benefit-sharing mechanisms in the field of non-wood forest products–an overview. Medicinal Plant Conservation 8: 3-9. Cerca con Google

Walter, S., 2006. Certification of Non-Wood Forest Products: Relevant Standards, Preliminary Experiences and Lessons-Learnt. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Wild Organic Production Teslic, Bosnia Herzegovina, 3-4 May 2006, 3–4. Cerca con Google

Warner, K., 1995. Marketing, valuation and pricing of NWFPs. Beyond Timber: Social, economic and cultural dimensions of non-wood forest products in Asia and the Pacific. In "Proceedings of a Regional Expert Consultation" (Durst, P.B., Bishop, A., eds.) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, 97-108. Cerca con Google

Weng, Y. F. , 2013. Public Policy Research on Promoting to Develop Forest Carbon Sink in the Coal Industry. Advanced Materials Research 807: 861-864. Cerca con Google

Weiss, G., Pettenella D., Ollonqvist P., Slee, B., 2011. Innovation in forestry: territorial and value chain relationships. CABI, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK. Cerca con Google

Westman, W., 1977. How much are nature's services worth? Science 197: 960–964 Cerca con Google

Whiteman, A., 2003. Money doesn't grow on trees: a perspective on prospects for making forestry pay. Unasylva 212: 3-10. Cerca con Google

WHO, 2003. WHO guidelines on good agricultural and collection practices (GACP) for medicinal plants. Geneva, Switzerland. Cerca con Google

Willer, H., Lernoud, J., Home, R., 2013. The World of Organic Agriculture Statistics and Emerging Trends 2013. FiBL-IFOAM Report. Traffic International, Cambridge, UK. Cerca con Google

Wilsey, D.S., Radachowsky, J., 2007. Keeping NTFPs in the Forest : Can certification provide an alternative to intensive cultivation ? Ethnobotany Research and Applications 5: 45–58. Cerca con Google

Windle, J., Rolfe, J., O'Dea, G., 2005. Selecting market-based incentives for natural resource management. Report prepared for the Burnett Mary Regional Group, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia. Cerca con Google

World Bank, 2003. Italian Carbon Fund, The World Bank Washington DC, USA Cerca con Google

World Bank, 2007. The BioCarbon Fund: An Overview. Bio Carbon Fund and World bank Carbon Finance Unit, Washington DC, USA. Cerca con Google

World Bank, 2011. BioCarbon Fund experience: insights from afforestation and reforestation Clean Development Mechanism Projects. Bio Carbon Fund and World bank Carbon Finance Unit, Washington DC, USA. Cerca con Google

World Bank’s Africa Region Sustainable Development Department , 2011.Humbo Reforestation Project Delivering multiple benefits, Africa on the move… Seeds of Green Growth, Washington DC, USA. Cerca con Google

Wunder, S., 2005. Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42. CIFOR, Bogor. Cerca con Google

Wunder, S., Vargas, M.T., 2005. Beyond “markets”: why terminology matters. Guest editorial. The Ecosystem Marketplace, Katoomba Group, Washington, DC. Cerca con Google

Wunder, S., Thorsen, B.J., 2014. Ecosystem services and their quantification: what are ecosystem services? In: "The provision of forest ecosystem services: quantifying and valuing non-marketed ecosystem services" (Thorsen, B.J., Mavsar, R., Tyrväinen, L., Prokofieva, I., Stenger, A., eds.). European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland, 17-20. Cerca con Google

Yadav, M., Dugaya, D., 2013. Non-timber forest products certification in India: opportunities and challenges. Environment, Development and Sustainability 15(3): 567-586 Cerca con Google

Download statistics

Solo per lo Staff dell Archivio: Modifica questo record