FSC reflected in scientific and professional literature

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Forest Stewardship Council • Forest certification has provided a credible set of standards on which a few countries have based their own forestry reform principles and agendas; • The participation of a diverse range of stakeholders in standard setting and in the certification process for specific producers or chains of custody have increased civil society participation in the sector, enabling some governments to draw upon these relationships for broader forest sector dialogue; • Forest certification initiatives have provided needed credibility for recognizing local tenure rights over forests in some countries and for raising tenure issues in the broader country dialogue; • Some governments have successfully provided incentives for forest certification in the form of tax breaks, waivers of regulatory approval processes, or financial incentives.” (Jenkins in Segura 2004). In the same Segura (2004) 367 it is summarized: “The most important contribution of certification as a policy instrument has been on the induction of multi-stakeholder dialogues to advance in developing local principles, standards and criteria to achieve sustainable forest management. Governments have found stakeholder participation in national standard setting initiatives to be most effective when these processes are given the space and flexibility to develop healthy relationships among the stakeholders. When countries have been under pressure from donors or outside advocates to progress quickly, balanced relationships have not developed between government, industry, and civil society and government officials have sometimes ended up monopolizing the process. The standard process cannot be rushed. To date, forest certification has had a limited influence on inducing direct forest policy changes and reforms of regulations and institutional arrangements. Its impact has been greatest in countries which depend heavily upon export markets where a large share of forest producers and processors have an incentive to adopt certification as a means of accessing more lucrative or more demanding markets. In addition, the role of certification as a “soft” policy instrument to achieve sustainable forest management has been most effective in countries where minimal preconditions of good forest governance have been developed.” 367 Segura, Gerardo (2004): ibid. 180 of 245 ® FSC, A.C. All rights reserved. FSC-SECR-0002
3. Impact on forest policy: 3.3 Governments and policy development A new culture of multi-stakeholder processes “One of certification’s most relevant contributions to positive policy developments has been the introduction of a new culture of multi-stakeholder processes that is characterized by an increased awareness of SFM. New forms of dialogue have emerged where forestry issues are addressed at local, national, and even regional levels improving the transparency of forest practice, the understanding of what should be deemed good forestry and the appropriate role of different groups in the process. This influence seems to have derived more from the outcomes related to the participatory processes for developing SFM standards, than from the cumulative biophysical or sectoral impacts of individual certificates.” (Rametsteiner 2000) 368 Creation of inter-sectoral dialogues in Russia Hirschberger’s study (2005) of certification reports from 12 Russian forest companies says in the summary: “Another important improvement, which cannot be shown by an analysis of the CARs, is the creation of an inter-sectoral dialogue between environmental NGOs, business representatives and administration.” 369 Measures to foster certification Lincoln Quevedo (2006) 370 and other authors report that governments in some countries actually reducing regulatory requirements for certified operations, which partly include tax incentives for the forest management with FSC certification: 368 Rametsteiner, Ewald (2000): The role of governments in SFM-certification. In: Diskussionspapiere - Institut fuer Sozioökonomik der Forst- und Holzwirtschaft (Austria). 369 Hirschberger, Peter (2005): The Effects of FSC-certification in Russia: an analysis of CARs. WWF Forest Programme. 25 p. http://www.panda.org/downloads/forests/fscanalysisrussia.pdf (as of June 2008) 370 Quevedo, Lincoln (2006): Forest Certification in Bolivia. In: Cashore, B.; Gale, F.; Meidinger, E.; Newsom, D. (2006): Confronting Sustainability: Forest Certification in developing and transitioning countries. In: Environment. 181 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:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130: 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 177 and 178: 3. Impact on forest policy: 3.3 Gov
Page 179: 3. Impact on forest policy: 3.3 Gov
Page 183 and 184: 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?