Publication: Certification - a Discussion of Equity Issues
Certification - a Discussion of Equity Issues
| dc.contributor.author | Thornber, K. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:58:24Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:58:24Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/1065 | |
| dc.title | Certification - a Discussion of Equity Issues | en |
| dcterms.abstract | Forest certification was initiated as a tool to promote sustainable forest management (SFM) through communicating to consumers that wood products were verified as originating from well-managed forests. It is essentially a communication tool to link "good producers" with market demand. This has remained the underlying goal, even if many of the drivers of certification have been primarily concerned about their market access. Many of the original proponents of it believed that, whilst small producers would be easily certified, it would be more challenging to bring big business on board. FSC certification was the first international forest certification scheme, and it was very much designed with communities in mind. It was implicitly expected that it would work well for and benefit community level enterprises and improve equity in the forest industry. However, only a few of the actors in certification have made improved equity an overt goal - notably, the social "chamber" members of the FSC, and some of the development assistance support to certification. The expectation that certification can address equitable sharing of powers over forests, and benefits from forest management, continues - with development agencies and NGOs often seeing certification as a tool to improve livelihoods. But the history to date of FSC in particular shows that big business has been keen to be involved in certification, and trends (see below) show them at the forefront of the application of certification. This shows the strength and success of certification as a market- based instrument (MBI), but also raises concerns about equity, in terms of who can achieve it and who can benefit from it. This paper discusses these equity issues raised by forest management certification, and their implications to all stakeholders, but with a focus on the poor, smaller producers and poorer producer countries. It aims to highlight areas for improvement - an approach consistent with the philosophy of certification itself - and considers what the limitations of certification might be as a tool to address equity and livelihoods. | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Open access | |
| dcterms.bibliographicCitation | Thornber, K., 2003. Certification: a discussion of equity issues. Social and political dimensions of forest certification, pp.63-82. | en |
| dcterms.issued | 2003 | |
| dcterms.language | en | |
| dcterms.license | Copyrighted; all rights reserved | en |
| dcterms.publisher | International Institute for Environment and Development | |
| dcterms.type | Report | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
| fsc.focus.forestType | Natural Forest | |
| fsc.focus.forestType | Plantation | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Social | |
| fsc.focus.tenureOwnership | Community | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Deforestation, tree cover loss | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | CAR Analysis | |
| fsc.subject | Effects of certification | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| fsc.subject | State forest | |
| fsc.subject | Private forest | |
| fsc.subject | Russia | |
| fsc.subject | HCVF | |
| fsc.topic.social | Consultation, participation, empowerment | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.funderType | Mixed sources | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | No | |
| is.evaluation.dataSource | Independent researcher data | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Whilst certification holds many potential benefits, it is not a panacea to the problem ofpromoting SFM for all forest stakeholders. Benefits are largely to be gained by those who arealready successful, already doing the right thing. How certification can tackle the “real”forest problems and distribute benefits equitably is a challenge for all involved in it. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Certification- intentionally or otherwise - serves producers within a market environment, rather than those outside the market. Livelihoods are only likely to be improved with support, and are more likely to be a consequence of improved capacities for a variety of aspects of sustainable land use, rather than through uncertain forest product market gains. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Non-market approaches tocertification may be required for producers operating outside of a market environment butwanting management verification. | |
| is.evidenceSubType | Descriptive information - contextual and operational | |
| is.evidenceType | Descriptive information | |
| is.focus.products | Forestry products | |
| is.focus.sdg | SDG 17 - Partnerships for the Goals | |
| is.focus.sdg | SDG 10 - Reduce Inequalities | |
| is.focus.sectors | Agriculture | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Social | |
| is.focus.sustainIssue | Participant costs and benefits | |
| is.focus.sustainIssue | Forests and other ecosystems | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Multiple certification | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Supply chain benefits | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Transnational governance | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Market access | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Deforestation and forest protection | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
| is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
| is.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international304 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.link.url | http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G00411.pdf |