Publication: A Cost Benefit Analysis of Forest Certification at The Forestland Group
A Cost Benefit Analysis of Forest Certification at The Forestland Group
| dc.contributor.author | Schreiber, J. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:56:46Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:56:46Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/826 | |
| dc.title | A Cost Benefit Analysis of Forest Certification at The Forestland Group | en |
| dcterms.abstract | This project evaluates the costs and benefits of the Forest Stewardship Council's (FSC) forest certification for a large timber management organization (TIMO). FSC certification is a voluntary, market-based program that promotes sustainable forest management through third-party certification. The TIMO in this case study manages 3.3 million acres of land certified under FSC, and this project evaluated both the direct and indirect costs and benefits of certification. This project was able to quantify the direct and indirect costs and benefits of forest certification through surveys, financial analyses and regression analyses. On average, forest certification is a net-positive program for the client, earning an estimated $771,000 of additional annual revenue. Certification premiums paid for finished wood products are significantly higher than certification premiums for certified stumpage. Certified wood products receive an overall price premium of 10.5% while the premium for certified stumpage ranges from 1.6-4.3%. Price premiums for finished wood products are considerably higher for domestic sales than for export sales. The domestic sale of finished wood products generates a statistically significant price premium of 30.0% as compared to the statistically significant but much lower premium for exported wood products of 3.4%. This project provides evidence that there are financial incentives for forestland owners to maintain forest certification. FSC has marketed both the ecological and financial benefits of maintaining forest certification. Previous studies of forest certification have generally concluded that the ecological benefits of forest certification are clear but that the desired financial benefits have not yet materialized. This project demonstrates that a large timberland owner can receive meaningful financial benefits from its forest certification program. | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Open access | |
| dcterms.bibliographicCitation | Schreiber, J., 2012. A cost benefit analysis of forest certification at The Forestland Group. Duke University | en |
| dcterms.issued | 2012 | |
| dcterms.language | en | |
| dcterms.license | Other | en |
| dcterms.publisher | Duke University | |
| dcterms.type | Thesis | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| fsc.focus.tenureOwnership | Private | |
| fsc.issue.economic | Benefits, motivations, reasons for certification | |
| fsc.issue.economic | Costs, obstacles, barriers to certification | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Environmental management | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| fsc.topic.economic | Price premium | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.funderType | Private funds (NGOs, companies, VSS self-funded etc) | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.coverage.country | United States of America | |
| is.coverage.countryAlpha2 | US | |
| is.coverage.countryAlpha2 | CA | |
| is.coverage.geographicLevel | Country | |
| is.coverage.latitude | 37.09024 | |
| is.coverage.longitude | -95.712891 | |
| is.coverage.region | North America | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Company/certified entities /co-op data records | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Interviews/surveys with certified entities and their representatives and workers/producers | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | No | |
| is.evaluation.dataSource | Data by scheme / tool under evaluation | |
| is.evaluation.dataSource | Private Company data | |
| is.evaluation.notes | The following is important to consider, since it may explain why the cost-benefit analysis is relatively positive and price premiums high. For other (Multiple)FMUs that do include indirect costs for compliance with FSCs performance criteria things may look very different. "For this project, compliance with performance criteria was not evaluated because the mission of TFG promotes silvicultural practices that directly align with FSC standards. TFG would maintain hardwood silvicultural practices that promote natural regeneration and protect high conservation value forests with or without forest certification. As a result, TFG does not incur additional opportunity costs or indirect compliance costs related to complying with FSC performance standards." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "This project provides evidence that there are financial incentives for forestland owners to maintain forest certification. FSC has marketed both the ecological and financial benefits of maintaining forest certification. Previous studies of forest certification have generally concluded that the ecological benefits of forest certification are clear but that the desired financial benefits have not yet materialized. This project demonstrates that a large timberland owner can receive meaningful financial benefits from its forest certification program." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Research indicates that costs and benefits of forest certification vary significantly depending on the certification process the landowner chooses to employ, the size of the forest ownership and the country (Cubbage et al., 2009)"The timescales for measuring outcomes are likely to vary between the three main sets ofindicators. Environmental outcomes may have longer time scales, ranging from four to overtwenty years, depending upon tree growth and cutting cycles. Social impacts may be seasonal,associated with silvicultural activities such as planting, and may vary significantly between theearly stages of establishing plantations and when trees in plantations are mature, and dependentupon product development and marketing. After establishing a baseline, a period of three tofour years is estimated as required to detect changes in many of the indicators, determining theperiod when an impact evaluation could be conducted." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | On average, forest certification is a net-positive program for the client, earning an estimated $771,000 of additional annual revenue. Certification premiums paid for finished wood products are significantly higher than certification premiums for certified stumpage. Certified wood products receive an overall price premium of 10.5% while the premium for certified stumpage ranges from 1.6-4.3%. Price premiums for finished wood products are considerably higher for domestic sales than for export sales. The domestic sale of finished wood products generates a statistically significant price premium of 30.0% as compared to the statistically significant but much lower premium for exported wood products of 3.4%." | |
| is.evidenceSubType | Monitoring report - performance | |
| is.evidenceType | Monitoring report | |
| is.focus.products | Timber products | |
| is.focus.sdg | SDG 12 - Responsible Production and Consumption | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| is.focus.sustainIssue | Participant costs and benefits | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Finance | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Price premiums | |
| 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-international377 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.link.url | http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/6026 |