Publication: Evaluating the impacts of plantations and associated forestry operations in Africa - methods and indicators
Evaluating the impacts of plantations and associated forestry operations in Africa - methods and indicators
| dc.contributor.author | Ingram, V. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Werf, E. van der | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kikulwe, E. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Wesseler, J.H.H. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:56:35Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:56:35Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/797 | |
| dc.title | Evaluating the impacts of plantations and associated forestry operations in Africa - methods and indicators | 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-relevant | |
| fsc.focus.forestType | Plantation | |
| fsc.focus.forestZone | Tropical | |
| fsc.subject | Economic Impacts | |
| fsc.subject | Social Impacts | |
| fsc.subject | Political Impacts | |
| fsc.subject | Ecological Impacts | |
| fsc.subject | Income | |
| fsc.subject | Livelihoods | |
| fsc.subject | Governance | |
| fsc.subject | Participation | |
| fsc.subject | Communities | |
| fsc.subject | Nepal | |
| fsc.subject | Asia | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.coverage.country | United Republic of Tanzania | |
| is.coverage.country | Mozambique | |
| is.coverage.countryAlpha2 | TZ | |
| is.coverage.countryAlpha2 | MZ | |
| is.coverage.region | Southern Africa | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Interviews/surveys | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Literature review | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | No | |
| is.evaluation.notes | The article provides a framework for 'examining impacts of major investments by the private sector,institutional investors and governments in modern, large scale plantations in Africa, based on cases in East-Africa'. The framework outlined in this article, will be tested and used for further research i.e. by doing a baseline and later an impact evaluation. Note for FSC: monitor further publications as they can be relevant and rigorous impact studies for large-scale plantations in Africa! It seems FAST is involved in this work (as commissioner?). A discussion point is that it seems forest certification (both FSC as well as PEFC) seems to be taken as having similar impacts. This clearly isn't the case...but would be great if this could be reflected in the follow up work that is planned. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "Another factor expected to make a major difference in the level of outcomes is how forestoperations are run. In this impact logic, it is assumed that operations adhere to responsibleforestry practices. Certification is assumed as representing the best available forestmanagement practices and hence will lead to more positive impacts, based on recentlypublished evidence of social and environmental benefits (Cerutti et al. 2014, RESOLVE Inc.2012, Romero et al. 2013).Third party verified certification standards, such as FSC can also beused to ensure the legality and traceability of wood and timber products. In contrast, an impactlogic based on conventional, uncertified silvicultural practices is anticipated to have not onlydifferent objectives but also outcomes for different groups of stakeholders, illustrated by costbenefit analyses of different forest management approaches (Arets and Veeneklaas 2014)." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "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 | "It is recommended that these indicators are tested, using the quantitative and qualitativedata collection and methods of analysis described. The indicators proposed and theirmeaningfulness for the full range of stakeholders involved in plantations need to be explored,for example in pilot tests in a range of ecosystems - including both dry and humid forests - andsocial contexts across Africa. It will be important to track the costs, advantages anddisadvantages, feasibility, effectiveness and efficiency of gathering data on the indicators. Datacollection protocols can aid this process." | |
| is.extent.number | 1 | |
| is.extent.volume | 18 | |
| is.focus.sectors | Agriculture | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
| is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
| is.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1505/146554816818206087 | |
| is.identifier.fscdoi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international644 | |
| is.item.reviewStatus | Peer reviewed | |
| is.journalName | International Forestry Review |