FSC reflected in scientific and professional literature

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Forest Stewardship Council Benefits for local, indigenous communities of the Marajó Islands in the Amazon Another example, given by Rainey and Renström from WWF Sweden (2001), already quoted under “environmental impacts / NTFP certification”, shows how FSC certification has provided at least for a couple of years (1999-2005) benefits for local, indigenous communities of the Marajó Islands in the Amazon River Delta: “The project involves the local people in the management of forest operations, raising awareness of the economic and environmental advantages of conservation. One of the objectives is to create a technical forestry school. (…) Other technical training courses are made available to the community as a whole. New harvesting methods have been developed that enable adults to gather the fruit and the children now go to school. The newly founded producers’ association provides boats and fuel for school transportation. The state government continues to provide support as well since eradication of child labour is high on their agenda. School curriculum includes forest management and the basic concepts of nature conservation. (...) The project in Marajó clearly illustrates the social, environmental, and economic benefits of FSC-certification.” 186 Local employment by certified saw mill in Oregon In September 2008 the FSC certified Upper Colombia Mill (UCM) started to hire 80 new staff to join the team that will operate the new UCM. Opening a new mill in that region and time is an unusual event, and the fact that they announce the employment of the “Natural Step Principles” in their manufacturing process (see more at http://www.ortns.org/), “which empowers the employees to make a real difference on the mill’s and their own our triple bottom line, and theirs!” might also be partly due to the drive of the FSC spirit. [This is not from a research paper – still interesting to note though - the editor.] 186 Renström, Margareta and Rainey, Margaret (WWF Sweden) (2001): Social issues and the Forestry Stewardship Council. Sustainable Development International 4, 137–139. 96 of 245 ® FSC, A.C. All rights reserved. FSC-SECR-0002
2. Impact in and beyond the forest: 2.3 Social effects 2.3.4 Communication, consultation – participation and empowerment One of the seven main findings of an external evaluation of FSC’s impacts by Guillery et al (2007) 187 is that “Stakeholders believe the key strength of FSC lies in its ability to bring diverse groups of people together to craft policy. Evaluation participants gave high marks to the FSC for its ability to bring people with diverse backgrounds and interests together to discuss issues of forest management and community sustainability. In this process the FSC brings people together who normally would not talk or work together. The FSC is perceived as an excellent conflict resolution mechanism. This was revealed in comments made about the General Assembly meetings. Participants reported that the FSC creates a space or climate where it is possible to find common ground and consensus on difficult issues. When participants were asked about the shift in the role of the FSC as reflected in its mission statement, most comments were positive on the change to the concept of “...bringing people, organizations and businesses together to develop solutions that promote responsible management of the world’s forests.” (Guillery 2007) Newsom & Hewitt (2005) as previously referred to note in respect to social issues that: “Communication and conflict resolution with stakeholders, neighbors and communities is the social issue most often requiring improvement by forestry operations during their FSC certification assessment by SW, with 75% of certified operations given at least one condition in this area. Conditions dealing with this issue sometimes required that a communication or conflict resolution process be put in place, and other times required operations to deal with a specific issue that the assessment team had identified as being important. For example, some operations were required to increase the general level of stakeholder input by providing copies of management plans to interested neighbors; other operations were required to involve specific stakeholders in defining of high conservation value forests. Some operations were required to develop a general dispute resolution policy, while others were required to resolve a specific conflict. Indigenous peoples’ land 187 Guillery, Phil; Haslett Marroquin, Reginaldo and Hampton, Maree (2007): Ford Foundation Funding to the Forest Stewardship Council: A Qualitative Review of External Impacts. A confidential report to the FSC International Center. 97 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: 2. Impact in and beyond the forest:
Page 95: 2. Impact in and beyond the forest:
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?