Browsing Impact Resources by Subject "Adoption"
Results Per Page
- Impact of FSC forest certication on agroextractive communities of the state of Acre, Brazil de Lima, A.C.B.; Keppe, A.L.N.; Alves, M.C.; Maule, R.F.; Sparovek, G; Private funds (NGOs, companies, VSS self-funded etc); Forest Stewardship Council (Imaflora, 2008) Type ReportFPIC is increasingly seen as an appropriate tool for managing the relationship between indigenous peoples and companies wishing to exploit natural resources on the land where they live. This report is the first to consider the applicability of FPIC within the context of industrial forestry exploitation in the Congo Basin. It presents FPIC as a process to guide forestry management so as to ensure open, ongoing and equitable relationships between forest peoples and forestry companies. Such relationships are the basis for making long-term socio-economic development a consequence of forestry operations. The FPIC approach requires, above all, that forest people are aware of the issues surrounding industrial forest exploitation so that they can make informed decisions about their role in forest management. This reduces negative impacts, enhances positive ones and ensures equitable sharing of benefits. The report shows how this approach is advantageous to both forest populations and forestry companies implementing it. In impact assessment studies, the main interest is focused on the identification of the consequences of one particular treatment on one or more variables that were affected by such treatment (PRENNUSHI et al., 2000; RAVALLION, 2003; RAVALLION, 2006). In the present case of assessing the impact of socioenvironmental certification on community forest management in the State of Acre for wood production, the treatment consisted of socioenvironmental certification and the certified community forest producers were the beneficiaries. The control sample (paired) for this experiment was a group of community producers that had a profile similar to that of the beneficiaries and also practiced forest management, but who were not certified producers. The differences between the group receiving treatment (certified community producers) and the control group (non certified community producers) were attributed to the treatment (certification). The main output variables analyzed were: environmental preservation, quality of the administration of the association, use of Personal Protection Equipment (PPI), and income from wood sales. Two aspects of fundamental importance in ensuring the quality and the assumptions of this impact assessment were: i) similarity of the community forest operations, and ii) the existence of similar non certified community forest operations. Four criteria were considered in determining similarity among forest community operations: i) use of community forest management practices; ii) logging for wood production as the main forest management activity; iii) land rights/ownership situation as Agroextractive Settlement Project, and iv) forest management carried out according to the FSC Management Standard for Highland Natural Forests of the Brazilian Amazon Region.
- Reasons for choosing forest stewardship council (FSC) and sustainable green ecosystem council (SGEC) schemes and the effects of certification acquisition by forestry enterprises in Japan Sugiura, K.; Oki, Y.; Unreported; Forest Stewardship Council (2018) Type Journal ArticleThe Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Sustainable Green Ecosystem Council (SGEC) are deployed as forest certification schemes in Japan. This study aimed to identify the reasons that enterprises choose the FSC or the SGEC scheme and the effects of certification. A questionnaire survey was conducted on 126 forestry enterprises with certification as of May 2014. The results of questionnaire tabulation found different reasons for choosing FSC (high reliability of the international certification system) or SGEC (examination costs and difficulty of acquisition, certification acquisition by neighboring enterprises in the region, and guidance and information from familiar people and enterprises). The results suggest that choosing FSC or SGEC depended on international or domestic emphasis, reliability, cost, and difficulty of acquisition. Both schemes reportedly improved management planning, environmental impact assessments, and monitoring, but increased timber value was not reported. Japanese consumers' understanding of forest certification should be enhanced and attention to forest management certification in Japan should increase because the SGEC now offers international certification. If SGEC certification is easier to obtain than FSC certification, and FSC is relatively expensive, the SGEC forest area should continue to expand.