Publication: A Critical Comparison of Conventional, Certified, and Community Management of Tropical Forests for Timber in Terms of Environmental, Economic, and Social Variables
A Critical Comparison of Conventional, Certified, and Community Management of Tropical Forests for Timber in Terms of Environmental, Economic, and Social Variables
| dc.contributor.author | Burivalova, Z. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hua, Fangyuan | |
| dc.contributor.author | Koh, L.P. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Garcia, C. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Putz, F. E. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:57:03Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:57:03Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/873 | |
| dc.title | A Critical Comparison of Conventional, Certified, and Community Management of Tropical Forests for Timber in Terms of Environmental, Economic, and Social Variables | en |
| dcterms.abstract | Tropical forests are crucial in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem services, but at the same time, they are major sources of revenue and provide liveli- hoods for forest-dependent people. Hopes for the simultaneous achievement of conservation goals and poverty alleviation are therefore increasingly placed on forests used for timber extraction. Most timber exploitation is carried out unsustainably, which causes forest degradation. Two important mechanisms have emerged to promote sustainable forest management: certification and community-based forest management (CFM). We synthesize the published in- formation about how forest certification and CFM perform in terms of en- vironmental, social, and economic variables. With the caveat that very few published studies meet the standards for formal impact evaluation, we found that certification has substantial environmental benefits, typically achieved at a cost of reduced short-term financial profit, and accompanied by some im- provement to the welfare of neighboring communities. We found that the eco- nomic and environmental benefits of CFM are understudied, but that the social impacts are controversial, with both positive and negative changes reported. We identify the trade-offs that likely caused these conflicting results and that, if addressed, would help both CFM and certification deliver the hoped-for benefits. | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Open Access | |
| dcterms.bibliographicCitation | Burivalova, Z., Hua, F., Koh, L.P., Garcia, C. and Putz, F., 2017. A critical comparison of conventional, certified, and community management of tropical forests for timber in terms of environmental, economic, and social variables. Conservation Letters, 10(1), pp.4-14. | en |
| dcterms.issued | 2017 | |
| dcterms.language | en | |
| dcterms.license | CC-BY-4.0 | en |
| dcterms.type | Journal Article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
| fsc.focus.forestType | Natural Forest | |
| fsc.focus.forestZone | Tropical | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Social | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| fsc.inTransition | no | * |
| fsc.issue.economic | Benefits, motivations, reasons for certification | |
| fsc.issue.economic | Costs, obstacles, barriers to certification | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Deforestation, tree cover loss | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Buffer zones | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Water and soil | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Illegal logging | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Carbon | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Biodiversity | |
| fsc.issue.social | Local communities | |
| fsc.issue.social | Indigenous peoples | |
| fsc.issue.social | Workers | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | Community Forest Products | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| fsc.subject | Fair Trade | |
| fsc.subject | Market access | |
| fsc.subject | Empowerment | |
| fsc.subject | International Demand | |
| fsc.subject | Dual Certification | |
| fsc.subject | National Case Studies | |
| fsc.topic.economic | Income | |
| fsc.topic.economic | Price premium | |
| fsc.topic.economic | Market access | |
| fsc.topic.social | Training and education | |
| fsc.topic.social | Health and safety | |
| fsc.topic.social | Working conditions | |
| fsc.topic.social | Living conditions | |
| fsc.topic.social | Local communities | |
| fsc.topic.social | Indigenous peoples | |
| fsc.topic.social | Livelihoods | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.funderType | Private funds (NGOs, companies, VSS self-funded etc) | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Literature review | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | Not applicable | |
| is.evaluation.dataSource | Independent researcher data | |
| is.evaluation.notes | This study reviews the social, environmental and economic impacts of FM (including FSC as well as RIL) and CFM certification. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Based on 50 studies that focused on economic aspects, "certified or RIL management was better than conventional logging in 44%, no different in 14%, and worse in 42% of comparisons. Price premiums for certified products were reported in most cases, but they rarely met the expectations of forest managers. Furthermore, reported price premiums varied over time and were highly species-, product-, and country-dependent." Additionally, "total direct costs of certified forest management operations were mostly higher than for conventional logging", and certified management was found to be "overall less profitable than conventional logging in the majority of cases". Yet, the authors note that "this pattern may be reversed if more than one logging cycle is considered, given that future profitability of RIL concessions will likely be higher (Boltz et al. 2003)." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "In terms of social variables, 20 of 38 comparisons (53%) indicated that certified management was better than conventional, 2% worse, and 45% showed no difference. Certification is often associated with better employee living and working conditions, including better housing and health care, better work contracts and medical insurance, and a perceived stronger purchasing power of workers (Cerutti et al. 2014; Miteva et al. 2015). Certification is also associated with improved well-being of neighboring communities, partly due to better local infrastructure..." "In contrast, certification apparently does not always directly alleviate poverty by increasing access to forest resources, or by direct economic benefits such as fees paid by logging companies to local inhabitants (Cerutti et al. 2014; Miteva et al. 2015)." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "Certified and RIL management reportedly performed better in 76% of 68 environmental comparisons, did not differ from conventional management in 18%, and was worse in 6% of comparisons. Certified management practices, such as RIL, clearly resulted in less ground disturbance and a lower density of roads and skid trails (Feldpausch et al. 2005). This effect is additional to the finding that certified forests suffer less deforestation than conventionally logged forests, which further mitigates the impacts of logging on biodiversity." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "Compared to conventionally logged forests, areas subjected to RIL reportedly retain more plant and animal species and a higher abundance of animals" | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | The authors also looked if FSC certification was associated with additional benefits for CFM. Only six studies compared certified and noncertified community managed forests:"FSC community certification appeared to bring additional benefits when compared to noncertified CFM in 47% of the 61 comparisons, no additional benefits in 51%, and worse outcomes in 2%: certification appeared to have mostly little effect on economic variables in community forests". "Most of the positive impacts attributed to CFM certification were related to social variables." "There is little evidence for environmental benefits of CFM certification relative to CFM without certification." To conclude, the results show that it is not clear whether certification benefits CFM. | |
| is.evidenceSubType | Synthesis paper - literature review | |
| is.evidenceType | Synthesis paper | |
| is.focus.products | Forestry products | |
| is.focus.sdg | SDG 17 - Partnerships for the Goals | |
| is.focus.sectors | Agriculture | |
| 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 | Deforestation and forest protection | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
| is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
| is.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12244 | |
| is.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12244 | |
| is.identifier.fscdoi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international699 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.item.reviewStatus | Peer reviewed | |
| is.journalName | Conservation Letters |