Publication:
La certification de « bonne gestion forestière » est-elle soluble dans la légalité ?

dc.contributor.authorKarsenty, A.
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-23T18:57:34Z
dc.date.available2022-01-23T18:57:34Z
dc.identifier.urihttps://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/952
dc.titleLa certification de « bonne gestion forestière » est-elle soluble dans la légalité ?en
dcterms.accessRightsPublic
dcterms.accessRightsOpen access
dcterms.issued2017
dcterms.languagefr
dcterms.publisherLes Feuilles du Flamboyant
dcterms.typeReport
dspace.entity.typePublication
fsc.evidenceCategoryFSC-relevant
fsc.focus.forestZoneTropical
fsc.topic.politicalGovernance
fsc.topic.politicalEU Timber Regulation
is.availability.fullTextFull text available
is.coverage.geographicLevelGlobal
is.evaluation.counterfactsNo
is.evaluation.notesThis paper analysis the extent to which forest certification, especially FSC, could/should be maintained as a guarantee for sustainable forest management knowing that legality certification become increasingly important.
is.evaluation.notesThe author firstly points out that FSC certification has brought significant improvements in the forest management sector in Central Africa despite the poor forest governance in the region. He confirms that certification can to some extents be a substitute to weak public policies.
is.evaluation.notesHe then recalls that the EUTR (European Union Timber Regulation) has been implemented to prevent the circulation of illegal wood in Europe, forcing companies to get FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade) authorization to export their wood. Wood producing countries can also get help from the EU to control the legality of their wood. Notably, this kind of public certification is at odds with private certification schemes that guarantee “good forest management”, whose added-value is called into question in regards to the alignment on laws and rules. This brings the important question to know whether legality and sustainability are different, and whether certification schemes of good forest management such as the FSC can guarantee higher sustainability than by respecting national management plans. There does not seem to be a consensus on that. For instance, in some countries from the Congo Basin, verification systems for legality do not succeed to be fully operational. Those countries become therefore at risk of losing the important market share of Europe. In this context, another key aspect is the growth of private certification schemes that attest legality in response to the implementation of the EUTR. Such certifications are cheaper and less demanding than FSC certification. The risk for FSC is that companies only opt for the certification of legality given that consumers of FSC-certified products are primarily interested to get a product coming from a legal source and not participating to deforestation.
is.evaluation.notesThe issuance of FLEGT authorization by private certification could represent a major challenge for FSC as it would push it to prove that by certifying “good forest management” FSC brings a clear added value in terms of sustainability compared to the certification of “legality”. This topic is also of great relevance for the decision to exclude or not Central African forest concessions that overlap with IFL: the withdrawal of FSC from those operations would leave room for legality certification such as the PEFC/PAFC (Pan-African Forest Certification).
is.focus.sectorsAgriculture
is.focus.sectorsForestry
is.focus.systemElementMandE outcomes and impacts
is.focus.systemElementMandE performance monitoring
is.identifier.codeImpacts
is.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international472
is.link.urlhttp://www.academia.edu/34930938/La_certification_de_bonne_gestion_foresti%C3%A8re_est-elle_soluble_dans_la_l%C3%A9galit%C3%A9
Download