Publication: The impacts of forest certification for Chilean forestry businesses
The impacts of forest certification for Chilean forestry businesses
| dc.contributor.author | Tricallotis, M. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Gunningham, N. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kanowski, P. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:55:47Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:55:47Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/654 | |
| dc.title | The impacts of forest certification for Chilean forestry businesses | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Limited access | |
| dcterms.issued | 2018 | |
| dcterms.language | en | |
| dcterms.type | Journal Article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
| fsc.focus.forestType | Plantation | |
| fsc.focus.forestZone | Temperate | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Political, legal, systemic | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Social | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Pesticides | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Fertilizers | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | High Conservation Values | |
| fsc.issue.social | Workers | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | Economic Impacts | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| fsc.subject | Costs of Certification | |
| fsc.subject | USA | |
| fsc.subject | North America | |
| fsc.topic.economic | Price premium | |
| fsc.topic.economic | Market access | |
| fsc.topic.political | Spillover | |
| fsc.topic.social | Consultation, participation, empowerment | |
| fsc.topic.social | Health and safety | |
| fsc.topic.social | Working conditions | |
| fsc.topic.social | Employement conditions | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.coverage.country | Chile | |
| is.coverage.countryAlpha2 | CL | |
| is.coverage.region | South America | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Interviews/surveys | |
| is.evaluation.collection | CAR analysis | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | No | |
| is.evaluation.notes | This highly qualitative study of the impacts of forest certification on the Chilean Forestry business is based on interviews with 72 actors from the Chilean forest sector representing different roles and perspectives as well as CAR-analysis of audit reports. Methods:The study distinguishes between plantation forest and natural forest industries, between large, medium and small-size forestry companies and between those with CERTFOR (PEFC-endorsed) certification, FSC certification, double certification and non-certified businesses.“..the research design was based on investigation of a set of reasonably similar “matched groups” of certified and non-certified forestry businesses, and of FSC-certified and CERTFOR-certified businesses; a total of 19 businesses comprised the sample (Table 3). These groups were similar in terms of the common characteristics shown in Table 3, but differed in their adoption of certification. This design was complemented by use of a before-after approach […]”Observed study limitations:The research design is informative, but sample sizes for each sub-category are small (total n=19). The outcomes are mostly reported (based on observations and perceptions), not measured. The counterfactual (the not certified cases) are not referred to in the presentation of the results. Sometimes claims are made on certification outcomes where it remains unclear whether CERTFOR or FSC certification is referred to. Results:Certification impacts on plantation forestry business (PFB) Environmental outputs and outcomes:The authors report several observed certification outcomes in terms of procedures/environmental measures, a.o. improved planning of forest operations to protect soils, watercourses and riparian buffer zones, control of chemical pollution, prevention of exotic trees invading natural areas and the identification of HCVAs and HCVFs.They also report several environmental outcomes such as the reduction of clear cuts and the restoration of converted native forests, mainly in the large PFBs. Other environmental certification outcomes reported were enhanced transparency on companies' environmental issues, collaboration with NGOs in environmental matters and [enhanced] environmental awareness in forestry workers, contractors and executives. Social outputs and outcomes:The authors also found a number of social measures taken as a response to certification, such as implementing procedures to enforce social and OHS laws, hiring of specialized staff to address community concerns and establishing consultation procedures concerning forest operations, HCVFs and HCVAs. The authors also observed the following social outcomes; improvement of some working conditions and social benefits, tangible benefits for local communities and collaborative relationships with NGOs. For other social aspects no positive outcomes were found, such as persistent anti-union practicesor land tenure conflicts with indigenous peoples. Economic impactsThe authors report two economic impacts: a) market access and b) increased cost due to certification. Certification helped the larger PFBs to maintain access to environmentally sensitive overseas markets and helped smaller PFBs to gain access to these markets. Large PFBs particularly reported significant costs for adapting forest operations to meet certification requirements. Certification outcomes on native forestry businesses are presented in table 8 (page 87). | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | On environmental outcomes:“Most certified companies undertook a number of systematic, substantive and procedural measures to make their forest operations more environmentally sustainable. This influenced their processes. For in- stance; companies set measures to protect and enhance some environmental values. Thus, most industry and stakeholders respondents agreed that such measures made companies more aware of the environmental impact of their operations (e.g. by setting an improved planning of forest operations to protect soils, watercourses and riparian buffer zones); and encouraged companies to undertake new measures, such as identification and protection of high conservation value forests (HCVFs) and high conservation value areas (HCVAs). […]The FSC not only deepened and drove most of the changes (many already initiated by CERTFOR), but also initiated some new ones too (e.g. restoration of converted native forests and reduction of clear-cuts) which went beyond legal compliance. Generally, the FSC encouraged companies to seek alternative solutions to address environmental problems and; as many respondents both from the industry and NGOs noted, the FSC encouraged companies to take a more environmentally proactive role.” | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | On social outcomes:“Again, the FSC deepened and drove most of the social changes initiated by certification. Therefore, both CERTFOR and the FSC initiated various important changes such as the improvement of working conditions and OHS issues, consultation processes with communities, mitigation measures for local communities and Indigenous peoples, and monitoring of social impacts. However, as many industry officers and their stakeholders admitted, the FSC deepened most of these changes, e.g. consultation processes with communities were not sufficiently deep, and social impacts were not thoroughly monitored, in CERTFOR certified companies.” | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | On price premiums:“[…] no Chilean company reported premium prices for selling certified timber (mainly pulpwood).” | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | On community consultation and participation:“Although CERTFOR pioneered consultation processes with communities, the FSC certification deepened such processes and engaged communities and NGOs in developing shared sustainability goals. For example, large forestry businesses and Indigenous communities engaged in dialogue processes to define HCVFs and HCVAs.”“At a local level, local communities and NGOs leveraged the planning of forest operations and of mitigation measures, which had hitherto been led or undertaken only by companies, to advance their interests.” | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | On governance:“State responses towards certification thus varied over time and between agencies, from simply observing and not obstructing its development to openly endorsing and promoting certification (interviews with A-IX-01, A-IX-02, A-X-01 and A-RM-01).”“This non-state governance approach in the Chilean context has both supplemented and supplanted the role of the state in each of the plantation and natural forestry sectors; this is due to the more effective enforcement mechanism and the higher prescriptiveness of some certification requirements, particularly for plantation forestry businesses. At the same time, as elsewhere, the state has played a key role in facilitating the development and adoption of certification […].” | |
| is.evidenceType | Empirical study | |
| is.extent.pages | 82-91 | |
| is.extent.volume | 92 | |
| is.focus.sectors | Agriculture | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Social | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
| is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
| is.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.03.007 | |
| is.identifier.fscdoi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international591 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | CERTFOR | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.item.reviewStatus | Peer reviewed | |
| is.journalName | Forest Policy and Economics |