Forest Certification: More Than a Market-Based Tool, Experiences from the Asia Pacific Region

Abstract

Over the last 25 years, the global area of certified forests has grown rapidly and voluntary forest certification has become recognized as an effective tool to engage international markets in improving sustainability within forest management units. However, the bulk of this growth has occurred in North America, Northern Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, with relatively limited uptake in the tropics. Since its creation, forest certification has been largely understood as a “market-based” mechanism, in contrast to government-led policies and regulations. Through the experience of the Responsible Asia Forestry and Trade (RAFT) partnership in the Asia Pacific region, we find that the framing of forest certification as voluntary and market-based, and as a mechanism to overcome governance failure, has created an artificial dichotomy. In this dichotomy, voluntary certification and regulatory measures to promote sustainable forest management are conceived of and pursued largely independently. We argue that it is more constructive to view them as complementary approaches that share a common goal of increasing sustainability across the forestry sector. In practice, forest certification interacts with conventional governance institutions and mechanisms. Understanding these interactions and their implications, as well as additional possibilities for interaction, will help in realizing the full potential of forest certification.

Enhancing land cover and carbon storage through rehabilitation of degraded lands into Wono: a case study of a small-scale private forest in Dengok Village, Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta, Indonesia (1972-2021)

“…Therefore, community forest certification is capable of dealing with deforestation and degradation issues, which can expand productive areas and enhance land cover (Malek et al, 2022;Sadono et al, 2022). It provides opportunities to manage forests under responsible, sustainable management standards that consider ecological, economic, and social factors (Lewin et al, 2019;Tian et al, 2021;Zubizarreta et al, 2021). Gunungkidul Regency started implementing community-based forest management in the early 2000s (Wicaksono et al, 2019).…”

Smallholder Forestry in the FSC System: A Review

“…One successful example was Vietnam, where the government "introduced a subsidy of 13 USD per hectare of FSC certified forest for both plantation companies and smallholders. In 2018, a total of 80,000 USD has been paid to forest owners to help cover costs associated with forest certification" (Lewin et al, 2019). FSC certification provides verification of the legality and sustainability of timber exports from Vietnam to the EU.…”

Forest Governance in Nepal concerning Sustainable Community Forest Management and Red Panda Conservation

“…However, community forest remains the most popular participatory resource management initiative. Community forests are widespread and have been successful in strengthening forest governance and increasing linkages and coordination between stakeholders, including women and disadvantaged people in income-generating activities [40,117]. The commitment to conserve and use resources sustainably is placed on a stronger and more powerful basis when there is secure management ownership.…”

“…This is a matter of concern, as the resource-poor communities interact with red pandas and forests more directly and frequently. Consequently, policies and strategies should prioritize the needs and perspectives of forest-dependent communities and marginalized groups in particular around training and capacity building as well as income generation and alternative sources of livelihood at the same time while encouraging and maintaining red panda habitat [117].…”