FSC reflected in scientific and professional literature

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Forest Stewardship Council 3.3 Governments and policy development Greater awareness, clearer roles Ruth Nussbaum and Markku Simula (2004) 354 found that “There is a general view that certification has had a positive impact on policy development and institutions. These impacts are found both in the policy process and the substantive contents of the policy. The process improvements are a result of raising awareness of the possibilities for sustainable forest management, decentralization and democratization through debates in national working groups on standards, and improved scientific interdisciplinary input in defining SFM (Bass at al. 2001 355 , Elliott 2000 356 ). However, certification’s biggest role in policy change has probably been indirect through greater awareness and clearer roles of stakeholders (Rametsteiner 2000 357 ). The main impact derives from the participatory approach in national level standard setting and development of locally applicable certification procedures. This positive view on certification’s role is not, however, shared by all stakeholders. In countries where sustainable forest management policies have been well established and institutional and governance problems are not major issues, some stakeholders feel that the development of certification may have sometimes unnecessarily contributed to the polarization of the national debate on how forests should be managed. There have even been some suggestions that certification may have opened a new avenue of influence for opportunistic parties to seek their own interest which may not necessarily by compatible with the goal of sustainable forest management.” 354 Nussbaum, Ruth & Simula, Markku (2004): Forest Certification. A Review of Impacts and Assessment Frameworks. Research Paper September 2004 A TFD Publication. The Forests Dialogue. Yale University School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. http://www.theforestsdialogue.org 354 Bass, Stephen; Thornber, Kristi; Markopoulos, Matthew; Roberts, Sarah & Grieg-Gran, Maryanne (2001): Certification’s Impacts on Forests, Stakeholders and Supply Chains. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/9013IIED.pdf (as of June 2008) 355 Bass, Stephen; Thornber, Kristi; Markopoulos, Matthew; Roberts, Sarah & Grieg-Gran, Maryanne (2001): Certification’s Impacts on Forests, Stakeholders and Supply Chains. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/9013IIED.pdf (as of June 2008) 356 Elliott, Chris (2000): Forest Certification: A policy Perspective. CIFOR Thesis Series. Bogor. 357 Rametsteiner, Ewald (2000): The role of governments in SFM-certification. In: Diskussionspapiere - Institut fuer Sozioökonomik der Forst- und Holzwirtschaft (Austria) 176 of 245 ® FSC, A.C. All rights reserved. FSC-SECR-0002
3. Impact on forest policy: 3.3 Governments and policy development The impact on land tenure issues Nussbaum and Simula (2004) continue that “Certification has probably fostered policy development particularly in countries with weak attention to traditional and indigenous tenure rights (Molnar 2003) 358 . A number of countries have specified certification in their forest legislation. The Mexican Forest Law (2003) makes provisions for certification as an instrument for good forest management. In the Russian Federation the current forest law (under revision in 2004) specifies mandatory certification as an enforcement instrument. In Brazil, the states of Acre and Amazonas will apply certification as a precondition for concession agreements (Viana, J. pers. comm.; Viana, V. 2004) 359 . In Bolivia, independent third-party certification can replace statutory audits in forest concessions (Forest Law 1996). In the Republic of South Africa certification in government leased land is mandatory substituting government monitoring of compliance with lease conditions (Bass et al. 2001). In Guatemala certification within three years is a concession agreement condition in the Mayan Biosphere Reserve (Molnar 2003) 360 . In England, certification will become a condition for forest areas of more than 30 ha to access woodland management grants from government from 2005 (Forestry Commission England, 2003) 361 . These examples cover a wide range of countries and applications and many other governments are in the process of exploring similar opportunities. There is still limited knowledge and experience on such policy linkages and therefore this issue will merit further study as there may be risks related to creation of unnecessary costs and bureaucracy, particularly for community forests, non-industrial private forest owners and small and medium forest enterprises.” 362 358 Molnar, A. (2003): Forest Certification and Communities: Forward to the Next Decade. Forest Trends.Washington, D.C. 359 Viana, Virgilio (2004): Sustainable Forestry Policy of the Amazonas State, Brazil, and Opportunities forInternational Cooperation. Paper submitted to the XXXVI Session of the International TropicalTimber Council. 360 Molnar (2003): ibid. 361 Forestry Commission England and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2003. The English Woodland Grand Scheme. 362 Nussbaum, Ruth & Simula, Markku (2004): Forest Certification. A Review of Impacts and Assessment Frameworks. Research Paper September 2004 A TFD Publication. The Forests Dialogue. Yale University School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. http://www.theforestsdialogue.org (as of June 2008) 177 of 245 ® FSC, A.C. All rights reserved. FSC-SECR-0002
Page 1 and 2:
Forest FSC’s Stewardship vision a
Page 3 and 4:
FSC’s vision and mission FSC’S
Page 5 and 6:
FSC’s vision and mission 2.3 Envi
Page 7 and 8:
1. Introducing FSC: 1.1 Why FSC 1.
Page 9 and 10:
1. Introducing FSC: 1.2 FSC in figu
Page 11 and 12:
1. Introducing FSC: 1.3 FSC’s sco
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
1. Introducing FSC: 1.4 Measuring F
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
2. Impact in and beyond the forest:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126: 2. Impact in and beyond the forest:
Page 157 and 158: 3. Impact on forest policy: 3.1 FSC
Page 167 and 168: 3. Impact on forest policy: 3.2 Inf
Page 175: 3. Impact on forest policy: 3.2 Inf
Page 179 and 180: 3. Impact on forest policy: 3.3 Gov
Page 185 and 186: 3. Impact on forest policy: 3.4 Dev
Page 187 and 188: 3. Impact on forest policy: 3.5 Cor
Page 195 and 196: 4. Beyond FSC: 4.1 Certification of
Page 197 and 198: 4. Beyond FSC: 4.1 Certification of
Page 199 and 200: 4. Beyond FSC: 4.2 Combating the il
Page 201 and 202: 4. Beyond FSC: 4.2 Combating the il
Page 203 and 204: 4. Beyond FSC: 4.3 Comparing certif
Page 217 and 218: 5. Conclusion FSC arguing that with
Page 219 and 220: 5. Conclusion (Poschen 2003). In ge
Page 221 and 222: References REFERENCES Arboleda, Mar
Page 223 and 224: References Errol Meidinger, and Dea
Page 225 and 226: References FSC (2000): FSC Principl
Page 227 and 228:
References Corrêa Alves, Rodrigo F
Page 229 and 230:
References the Convention on Biolog
Page 231 and 232:
References PricewaterhouseCoopers (
Page 233 and 234:
References Ros-Tonen, Mirjam A.F. (
Page 235 and 236:
References Turtica, Marius (2006):
Page 237 and 238:
References Yuan, Yuan & Eastin, Iva
Page 239 and 240:
Annex I: 5 Develop an ongoing dialo
Page 241 and 242:
Annex II:Annex I: opment Facility 4
Page 243 and 244:
Abbreviations and definitionsAnnex
show all

FSC reflected in scientific and professional literature

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?