Does forest certification enhance livelihood conditions? Empirical evidence from forest management in Kilwa District, Tanzania.

dc.contributor.authorKalonga, S.K.
dc.contributor.authorKulindwa, Kassim Athumani
dc.titleDoes forest certification enhance livelihood conditions? Empirical evidence from forest management in Kilwa District, Tanzania.en
dcterms.accessRightsLimited access
dcterms.bibliographicCitationKalonga, S. K. and Kulindwa, K. A., 'Does forest certification enhance livelihood conditions? Empirical evidence from forest management in Kilwa District, Tanzania.', Forest Policy and Economics, 74, 2017, 49-61.en
dcterms.typeJournal Article
fsc.evidenceCategoryFSC impact-related
fsc.focus.forestTypeNatural Forest
fsc.issue.socialLocal communities
fsc.issue.socialIndigenous peoples
fsc.subjectLocal communities
fsc.subjectIndigenous peoples
fsc.subjectLiving income
fsc.subjectPro-poor development
fsc.subjectEmployment conditions
fsc.topic.socialEmployment conditions
fsc.topic.socialConsultation, participation, empowerment
is.availability.fullTextFull text available
is.contributor.memberForest Stewardship Council
is.coverage.countryUnited Republic of Tanzania
is.coverage.regionSouthern Africa
is.evaluation.collectionFocus groups
is.evaluation.collectionMixed methods
is.evaluation.dataSourceIndependent researcher data
is.evaluation.findingsThe household forest income was higher in villages managing FSC-certified forests than in villages neighboring non-certified forests. This was true for income coming both from timber and non-timber forest products.
is.evaluation.findingsThe average daily income at household level from all the income sources was higher for households in villages managing FSC-certified forest than in villages neighboring uncertified forests (US$ 2.86 and US$ 1.94, respectively).
is.evaluation.findingsRevenues in villages managing FSC-certified forests were used more for forest management and community development projects than in the villages managing non-certified forests.
is.evaluation.findingsVillagers managing FSC-certified forests benefited from continuous training, meetings and activities to diversify their economic activities, and on forest resource management. There were also supported to develop income generating activities and establish enterprises, while this was never reported nor observed in villages managing uncertified forests.
is.evaluation.findingsVillagers managing FSC-certified forests demonstrated more favourable attitudes towards forest governance and institutions and higher motivation to implement sustainable forest management practices than villagers mantaining uncertified forests.
is.evaluation.findingsAwareness and effectiveness of forest bylaws were significantly higher in villages managing FSC-certified forests than in uncertified forests, making bylaws enforcement ineffective in the latter.
is.evaluation.findingsVillagers managing FSC-certified forests had good opportunities to be hired by timber dealers, received relevant training and could negotiate for better wages. In villages managing uncertified forests, timber dealers managed their own teams with low wages, and villagers mostly did not receive forest incomes.
is.evaluation.notesA methodological limitation of the study is that it compares FSC-certified community forests with non-FSC-certified forests with an open access regime ' but not with non-FSC-certified community forests. Therefore the effect of both FSC certification and CBFM are confounded and the specific effect of FSC cannot be distinguished. In that regards, it is worth noting that in the two certified forests, the CBFM process started in 2001 and became officially recognized in 2007. They became FSC certified in 2009. Indeed, as the authors mention in their discussion: 'It is obvious that what is currently observed as a result of certification is actually stemming from the historical good foundation laid down by the predecessors (UTUMI) and MCDI support, not only from certification.' Yet, interviewee were asked about perceived changes about forest conditions and socioeconomic aspects after certification has been implemented to try to isolate its effect.
is.evaluation.quotesBetween 2006 and 2013, 34 logging concessions achieved FSC forest management certification in Loreto, Madre de Dios and Ucayali under this regulatory context (FSC Peru and WWF Peru). Timber companies now operate 550,516.54 certified ha of forest under FSC forest management certificates. [...] In total, 940.000 ha were operated under FSC certificates as of 2014 (Cerutti et al., 2014).
is.evaluation.quotesWe presented statistics and panel regressions using concession-level data to conclude that, at the least for these data and this time period, we find very little deforestation impacts of certification.
is.evaluation.quotesEven what is measured in the forest seems likely to change. The effects of selective logging, and thus very likely of FSC certification, may take the form of changes in level of forest degradation. That is a more subtle change than deforestation, yet can be absolutely critical to the provision of ecosystem services including carbon storage and species habitat.
is.evaluation.scopeThis study aims at evaluating the impact of Community-based Forest Management certification on the livelihood of forest-dependent people. To do so it uses economic valuation methods and governance indicators through theory of change.
is.evaluation.significanceStatistically significant
is.evidenceSubTypeEmpirical study - with matched control, data collected post-intervention
is.evidenceSummaryThis study looks at the impacts of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification in Tanzania, finding that household incomes from FSC-certified forests are significantly greater than those from non-certified forests, suggesting that FSC certification works to enhance livelihood conditions.
is.evidenceTypeEmpirical study
is.focus.productsForestry products
is.focus.sdgSDG 12 - Responsible Production and Consumption
is.focus.sustainIssueForests and other ecosystems
is.focus.sustainIssueParticipant costs and benefits
is.focus.sustainLensLiving income
is.focus.sustainLensPro-poor development
is.focus.sustainOutcomeEcosystem quality
is.focus.sustainOutcomeHousehold Income
is.focus.sustainOutcomeIncome diversification
is.focus.systemElementMandE outcomes and impacts
is.focus.systemElementMandE performance monitoring
is.identifier.schemeNameForest Stewardship Council
is.identifier.schemeTypeVoluntary Sustainability Standards
is.item.reviewStatusPeer reviewed
is.journalNameForest Policy and Economics