Publication: 15 years of Forest Certification in the European Union. Are we doing things right?
15 years of Forest Certification in the European Union. Are we doing things right?
| dc.contributor.author | Gafo Gómez-Zamalloa, M. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Caparros, A. | |
| dc.contributor.author | San-Miguel Ayanz, A. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:57:18Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:57:18Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/911 | |
| dc.title | 15 years of Forest Certification in the European Union. Are we doing things right? | en |
| dcterms.abstract | Forest certification is one of the most important issues that have entered the forest sector in the past 15 years. There are many detractors and supporters of this instrument, but merely looking at the number of hectares certified and products carrying the logo of certification, one cannot deny that certification has gained importance, year after year. The overall objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of 15 years of forest certification in the EU forest-based sector, using the Delphi method. The analysis leads to the conclusion that the impact of certification in the EU forest- based sector is positive-neutral with respect to ecological aspects, positive-negative on the economic and positive- neutral on the social ones. However, its positive effect is limited, due to the fact that the changes needed for the certification are minor. An improvement in the information to both society and local people by the actors involved in forest certification could increase the positive impact on the sector. | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Open access | |
| dcterms.bibliographicCitation | Gómez-Zamalloa, M.G. and Caparrós, A., 2011. 15 years of Forest Certification in the European Union. Are we doing things right?. Forest Systems, 20(1), pp.81-94. | en |
| dcterms.issued | 2011 | |
| dcterms.language | en | |
| dcterms.license | Other | en |
| dcterms.type | Journal Article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
| fsc.focus.forestZone | Temperate | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Social | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| fsc.issue.economic | Benefits, motivations, reasons for certification | |
| fsc.issue.economic | Costs, obstacles, barriers to certification | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Ecosystem services | |
| fsc.issue.social | Local communities | |
| fsc.issue.social | Indigenous peoples | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | PEFC | |
| fsc.subject | FSC | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| fsc.subject | Comparative Analysis | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.funderType | Public funds (government, EU funding, public research grants) | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.coverage.geographicLevel | Country | |
| is.coverage.region | Europe | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Company/certified entities /co-op data records | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | No | |
| is.evaluation.dataSource | Data by scheme / tool under evaluation | |
| is.evaluation.notes | The overall objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of 15 years of forest certification in theEU forest-based sector. In substance, the purpose is to analyze whether it has been an effective tooland to assess whether we are doing things right, in order to correct any shortcomings and build onsuccesses.' Some of the results are displayed for 'certification' in general, not distinguishing between FSC and PEFC. This is a major shortcoming of the paper, since effects may vary considerably between schemes. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | FSC is more present in 14 Member States of which 9have a predominance of public forest ownership, whereasPEFC is more important in the remaining 11 MemberStates, of which 8 have predominance of private property. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Most experts, with an acceptable degree of conver-gence (77.2%), estimated that certification improvesthe image of certified forest products, offering consu-mers a guarantee of sustainable origin (Table 6). | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | In view of the data, it appears that the FSC systemis best suited to public ownership and the PEFC to pri-vate property, which seems reasonable considering thatPEFC scheme was initially proposed by the privateowners and the industry in response to FSC and sought,among other objectives, to minimize costs. While FSCalso has a program for smallholders, it has not achievedthe same success, probably due to its higher levels ofrequirement and cost | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | With regard to economic aspects, although otherstudies have found that consumers would be willing topay more for certified products (Ozanne and Blosky,1997), usually certified wood and forest products havenot obtained the expected price«premium»and there-fore forest owners have to bear themselves the certifi-cation costs (negative impact). This result is consistentwith the work of Ramesteiner and Simula (2003) andRametsteineret al. (2007). | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Thus, the analysis leads to the conclusion that theimpact of certification in EU forest-based sector in theEU is positive-neutral with respect to ecological aspects,positive-negative on the economic and positive-neutralon the social ones. However, its positive effect is li-mited, due to the fact that the changes needed for thecertification are minor. An improvement in the infor-mation to both society and local people by the actorsinvolved in forest certification could increase the posi-tive impact on the sector. Therefore, the findings ofthis study confirm that forest certification in the EUis an instrument that should continue, but further effortsare necessary to improve the weaknesses hereby iden-tified. | |
| is.evidenceSubType | Monitoring report - collective | |
| is.evidenceType | Monitoring report | |
| is.extent.number | 1 | |
| is.extent.pages | 81-94 | |
| is.extent.volume | 20 | |
| is.focus.products | Other forestry and logging | |
| is.focus.sdg | SDG 17 - Partnerships for the Goals | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Social | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| is.focus.sustainIssue | Forests and other ecosystems | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Multiple certification | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Ecosystem quality | |
| 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-international463 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.item.reviewStatus | Peer reviewed | |
| is.journalName | Forest Systems | |
| is.link.url | http://oa.upm.es/7130/1/INVE_MEM_2011_77662.pdf |