This study examines the feasibility and institutional capacity of integrating blockchain technologies (BT) into (agro)forest governance and forensic (FFG) traceability systems across the Western Balkans 6 region (WB6). Through a systematic desk-based analysis of 13 (agro)forestry case studies, regulatory frameworks, stakeholder ecosystems, and species-marker-blockchain interfaces, the research identifies the most suitable digital architectures and policy pathways for implementation. Results show that all WB6 countries possess basic legal and institutional capacity, particularly anti-money laundering (AML), countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) and digital-signature frameworks, to support permissioned blockchain pilots, though enforcement gaps and limited forensic laboratory capacities remain major constraints. Among evaluated technologies, Hyperledger Fabric and Private Ethereum (Proof of Authority) emerge as optimal for national traceability systems, while Corda and EBSI-linked Verifiable Credentials (VCs) provide interoperability and confidentiality for cross-border applications. The analysis highlights the potential of blockchain-anchored genetic and forensic data to enhance legality assurance, transparency and compliance with the EU Deforestation-Free Regulation (EUDR) and several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A stepwise roadmap for the period from 2027 to 2031 outlines harmonized metadata structures, phased deployment of permissioned blockchain systems and coordinated regional governance measures designed to achieve reliable and interoperable traceability across the WB6. Findings demonstrate that a hybrid, permissioned blockchain ecosystem can substantially strengthen transparency, accountability and cross-border cooperation in WB6 FFG. A central bottleneck identified is the limited availability of courtroom-grade proof-of-origin in the WB6, driven by sparse genetic reference baselines and the lack of publicly documented national timber-forensic laboratory capacity, which constrains the evidentiary value of otherwise robust blockchain traceability systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Trudić et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: