Publication: Third-Party Certification of Forest Management In Indonesia: Analysing Stakeholders'Recognition and Preferences
Third-Party Certification of Forest Management In Indonesia: Analysing Stakeholders'Recognition and Preferences
| dc.contributor.author | Pratiwi, S. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Wibowo, A. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Giessen, L. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:56:03Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:56:03Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/704 | |
| dc.title | Third-Party Certification of Forest Management In Indonesia: Analysing Stakeholders'Recognition and Preferences | en |
| dcterms.abstract | The existence of third-party forest and timber certification schemes in Indonesia has created benefits and challenges, mainly for forest industries. In the end, the interests and objectives of those industries will determine whether they decide to get certified and if so, what certification schemes they will use. This study analyses the stakeholder recognition of the competing forest legality and sustainability certification systems and describes the preferences for particular schemes based on stakeholder interests. Online questionnaires were distributed to relevant stakeholders, namely logging companies, wood processing industries, wood processing associations, auditors, academics, environmental organisations and government officials. The results indicate that there are different scheme preferences based on the stakeholder's interests. Sistem verifikasi legalitas kayu (SVLK) is the most frequently preferred scheme due to the simplicity of its requirements and the low cost of its certifying process, while the Forest stewardship council (FSC) is valued for its reputation and very high standards. Furthermore, lembaga ekolabel Indonesia (LEI) was least preferred because of its complexity and because it was unpopular with foreign end buyers, and the programme for the endorsement of forest certification (PEFC) was identified as being a complex scheme that was expensive and subject to high standards, and also appeared to have the least demand. Each scheme should be improved based on stakeholders' expectations, that their popularity with end buyers of timber products should be improved, and that this should be done in a way that allows logging and wood processing industries to choose freely the scheme that is most advantageous to them. | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Open access | |
| dcterms.bibliographicCitation | Pratiwi, S., Wibowo, A. and Giessen, L., 2015. Third-party certification of forest management in Indonesia: Analysing stakeholders' recognition and preferences. Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 21(2), pp.65-75. | en |
| dcterms.issued | 2015 | |
| 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.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| fsc.issue.economic | Demand and supply | |
| fsc.issue.economic | Stakeholder preferences | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| fsc.topic.political | National Forest Policy | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.funderType | Mixed sources | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.coverage.country | Indonesia | |
| is.coverage.countryAlpha2 | ID | |
| is.coverage.latitude | -0.789275 | |
| is.coverage.longitude | 113.921327 | |
| is.coverage.region | Asia | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Interviews/surveys with certified entities and their representatives and workers/producers | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | No | |
| is.evaluation.dataSource | Private company data | |
| is.evaluation.notes | Empirical survey research comparing perceptions and popularity of different schemes in Indonesia. Some of the data are interesting and usefull for FSC, but there are also some 'misrepresentations' - oversimplifications in the text. Be careful in using this article. I also have some doubts with regards to the scientific quality of the research, for example the survey results are presented in % and it is not possible to trace the nr of observations they are based on. In addition, the affiliation of the main author with the relevant Ministry might involve a certain bias, to be judged by someone that understands the Indonesian context. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "The existence of many third-party certification schemes has created benefits and barriers for the stakeholders involved (Thornber et al. 1999; Hansen et al. 2005), especially logging companies and the wood processing industry." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "The 4 groups of respondents were of the opinion that the FSC has a higher quality of standards than other schemes (Figure 3). The FSC is known as the golden standard because of its high standards of environmental and social responsibility (Magin 2008). Respondents from the auditor group thought that the FSC(91%) and PEFC (82%) have higher standards forsustainable forest management (SFM) as compared to theLEI (68%) and SVLK (46%). Quite different results arisefrom environmental organisations, where about 83% and73% of the respondents say that the FSC and LEI,respectively, have higher standards for SFM than PEFC(44%) and SVLK (11%). A similar result can be observed forthe group of academics, for whom the FSC (72%), PEFC(72%) and LEI (54%) had higher standards than the SVLK(36%). In contrast, respondents from the MoEF opined thatthe PEFC (75%) and LEI (75%) have higher standards thanthe FSC (50%) and SVLK (50%)." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "The schemes preferred by customers differ according to thetype of respondent (Figure 4). Logging company respondentsconvey that their customers prefer FSC and SVLK schemesto those of the PEFC and LEI. Something similar happens inthe industry group, where 56% of the respondents expressthat their customers prefer FSC most often. The FSC wasselected by timber producers' customers due to its wellknownreputation, internationally-market acceptance, andbecause no buyers reject. LEI has detailed standards that aresuitable for SFM in Indonesia. However, respondents conveythat there is a lesser demand for LEI among customers thanthere is for other schemes." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "The reason for preferring the FSC is because it is accepted inmarkets worldwide, even if its standards are morecomplicated. The FSC may be an attractive marketingimperative for companies that seek to penetrate markets inthe logging industry (Nukpezah et al. 2014). In Indonesia, theFSC is considered to be closer to natural forest managementand community forestry (small holders). The FSC scheme, asthe most satisfactory scheme from the point of view of endconsumers, on the other hand, needs to adopt local businesscustoms to increase its acceptance by domestic industries(Klassen et al. 2014, Hajjar 2013)." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | "In brief, the SVLK is evidently preferred byindustries for economic and technical reasons, while FSC ispreferred due to its good image branding and wide marketacceptance." | |
| is.evidenceSubType | Descriptive information - contextual and operational | |
| is.evidenceType | Descriptive information | |
| is.focus.products | Forestry products | |
| is.focus.sdg | SDG 15 - Life on Land | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| is.focus.sustainIssue | Consumers and supply chains | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Multiple certification | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Consumer preferences | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Sustainability Claims | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
| is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
| is.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.7226/jtfm.21.2.65 | |
| is.identifier.fscdoi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international842 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.item.reviewStatus | Peer reviewed | |
| is.journalName | Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika / Journal of Tropical Forest Management |