FSC reflected in scientific and professional literature

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Forest Stewardship Council 1.4 Measuring FSC’s impact Ruth Nussbaum and Markku Simula (2004) 29 note: “There is no question that certification has had a range of impacts on forests and the forest products sector. Most people working with forestry could easily list a number of areas where certification has had an impact on the management of a particular forest, a group of forest-dependent people or a particular forest products market. (…) The current evidence on the impacts of certification can mainly be derived from individual case studies on certified forest management units and countries where they are found or where national processes to develop certification standards and processes have been active. This evidence, supported by expert opinions, suggests that, by and large, the impacts have been positive and in many cases significant.” However, such assessments, including the one carried out in this paper, are based on secondary information which is not consistent and often compiled for other uses than impact assessment. To demonstrate and/or to measure the impact of FSC certification on forest management, we have to clarify some terms: 1.4.1 What are impacts, what are outcomes? Impacts are defined by Blankenburg (1995) 30 as "...long-term and sustainable changes introduced by a given intervention in the lives of beneficiaries. Impact can be related either to the specific objectives of an intervention or to unanticipated changes caused by an intervention; such unanticipated changes may also occur in the lives of people not belonging to the beneficiary group. Impact can be either positive or negative." “FSC’s Impact” is therefore any change resulting from FSC related activities, or FSC projects (conducted by FSC IC, National Initiatives, FSC partner organizations or those organizations using FSC as a tool to implement their management goals). This can include intended as well as unintended effects, negative as well as positive, and long-term as well as short-term impacts. 29 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 July 2008) 30 Blankenburg, F. (1995): Methods of Impact Assessment Research Programme: Resource pack and discussion. The Hague: Oxfam UK/I and Novib 20 of 245 ® FSC, A.C. All rights reserved. FSC-SECR-0002
1. Introducing FSC: 1.4 Measuring FSC’s impact Outputs are countable units (e.g. hectares, cubic meters, certified forest management units, number of threatened species, number of avoided accidents), and are the direct products of a program or organization's activities. Outcomes are the benefits or changes for participants, or intended beneficiaries – in our case forests and people. Impact can be categorized according to the level at which it is being measured (within and/or be-yond the forest management unit, within one country, region etc.). Impact can also be categorized according into broad types of impact (as chosen here: environmental, political, social and economic), with sub-categories considering the types of beneficiaries, such as communities, local businesses or impact on plantation forestry versus natural forests). Impact can be achieved with intention or unintended (this would be another option for sub-categories.) In most cases of program evaluation it is too complex to measure the full spectrum of impacts: It is important therefore, to be selective and realistic about the types of impact that they want to measure, and to find an approach that meets its particular needs. The FSC standards, as well as the FSC Mission statement and the FSC Global Strategy, describe the levels of outcome that FSC aims to achieve in particular. Indicators, as defined in the FSC Global Strategy, are used in forest management and chain of custody (CoC) certification processes and also in the audits of certification bodies conducted by Accreditation Services International (ASI). (ASI is FSC’s Accreditation Program which provides accreditation services to certification bodies, based on international standards). They point out, more or less specifically, data that can be measured to determine whether FSC / (the certification body) have met its outcomes. Benchmarks are data that act as a baseline and are used for before-and-after comparison. Evaluation is a general term for the process of determining what has been achieved during or after a particular activity. 1.4.2 What is the intended impact of FSC forest management certification? The goal of FSC is to promote environmentally responsible, socially beneficial and economically viable management of the world's forests, by establishing a worldwide standard of recognized and respected Principles of Forest Stewardship. In 1993 the FSC introduced the set of FSC's Principles and Criteria (P&C) together with an international certification and labeling scheme for products from forest management. With this certification and labeling scheme FSC commits itself to a challenging mission, as reconfirmed in the FSC Global Strategy (2007) 31 . The intended impact of changed forest management practices based on FSC standards has therefore to be regarded as in principle limited to the three areas mentioned in the FSC Mission statement (see “FSC Mission” on page 3). 31 FSC Global Strategy (2007): Strengthening Forest Conservation, Communities and Markets. http://www.fsc.org/global_strategy.html 21 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 19: 1. Introducing FSC: 1.3 FSC’s sco
Page 23 and 24: 1. Introducing FSC: 1.4 Measuring F
Page 29 and 30: 2. Impact in and beyond the forest:
Page 71 and 72:
2. Impact in and beyond the forest:
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:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
3. Impact on forest policy: 3.1 FSC
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
3. Impact on forest policy: 3.2 Inf
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
3. Impact on forest policy: 3.3 Gov
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
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 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
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 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
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?