Publication: Analyzing Strategies to Enhance Small and Low Intensity Managed Forests Certification in Europe using SWOT-ANP
Analyzing Strategies to Enhance Small and Low Intensity Managed Forests Certification in Europe using SWOT-ANP
| dc.contributor.author | Di Lallo, G. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Maesano, M. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Masiero, M. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Mugnozza, G.S. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Marchetti, M. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:57:11Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:57:11Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/895 | |
| dc.title | Analyzing Strategies to Enhance Small and Low Intensity Managed Forests Certification in Europe using SWOT-ANP | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Limited access | |
| dcterms.issued | 2016 | |
| dcterms.language | en | |
| dcterms.type | Journal Article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
| fsc.focus.forestType | Natural Forest | |
| fsc.focus.forestType | Plantation | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Social | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| fsc.focus.tenureManagement | Smallholder | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | Commercial Tenure | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| fsc.subject | Social Organisation | |
| fsc.subject | Business Capacity | |
| fsc.subject | Enterprise Isolation | |
| fsc.subject | Comparing Cases | |
| fsc.subject | Success Factors | |
| fsc.subject | Community Forest Enterprise | |
| fsc.subject | Policy Implications | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.coverage.region | Europe | |
| is.evaluation.collection | CAR analysis | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | No | |
| is.evaluation.notes | This study aims at determining 1) the kind of impact that FSC certification have on European smallholders and 2) what aspects FSC should focus on to facilitate SLIMF getting certified and to maximize benefits of certification. It provides new insight into the management of SFEs in Europe by analyzing 76 FSC reports from 31 European countries. A limitation of the method used is that, as mentioned: “improvements made in preparation of the certification audits cannot be recorded, so available data are likely to underestimate the benefits provided by certification”. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Regarding the first part of the study, the authors mention:“Principle 6 has the highest number of non-conformities. It concerns practices which can threaten biological diversity, water resources, soils, ecosystems and landscapes. In particular, 6.1 deals with assessments of issues caused by forestry practices” | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | “The criterion that has the highest number of non-conformities is the 7.1 (Fig. 6), which concerns the description of the forest site. Findings indicate that small owners have difficulties in writing, implementing and keeping updated an appropriate forest management Plan.” | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | “The Criterion 2 of Principle 4 also counts numerous non-conformities (23 major and 4 minor); this criterion refers to social aspects related to forest management, with special regard to workers' health and safety and that of their families.” | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | The authors firstly conclude that “FSC certification can improve the social conditions for forest workers and can deliver a number of benefits for a wide range of stakeholders in the forest industry” since “a third of Small Forest Enterprises (SFEs) do not meet all applicable laws or regulations covering health and safety of employees and their families”Similarly, they hypothesize that “forest certification might enhances biodiversity levels” because “Principles 6 and 7, concerning environmental impacts and management plans, had the highest number of non-conformities” and that putting CARs into practice should “encourages better management techniques and can reduce negative environmental impacts”. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Secondly, the study highlights that certification costs is the most critical limiting factor for smallholders. Also, costs are likely to exceed benefits of being certified, especially on the short-term but also on the long-term for smallholders. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Finally, the authors propose some measures to boost forest certification among smallholders: ”simplifying the requirements that are still too strict for a company owning <100 ha; reducing certification costs; promoting forms of aggregation between private and public companies; supporting the access of SFEs to high-value markets.” They also underline that “the number of SLIMF certificate is still low, especially in comparison with other certification schemes”. | |
| is.evidenceType | Empirical study | |
| is.evidenceType | Monitoring report | |
| is.focus.sectors | Agriculture | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Social | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
| is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
| is.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-016-9329-y | |
| is.identifier.fscdoi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international367 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.item.reviewStatus | Peer reviewed | |
| is.journalName | Small-scale Forestry |