Suchergebnisse

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 ; peerReviewed

The global community is currently grappling with multiple and overlapping social and environmental threats. These include the climate emergency, COVID-19 and the threat of widespread hunger, and the accelerating loss of biodiversity. All of these threats point to an urgent need to restore and sustainably manage land and forests. Studies are pointing to the critical role of tenure reform, and in particular strengthening collective forest tenure, as an effective means to reduce deforestation, mitigate climate change, restore ecosystem services and maintain biodiversity. Since the 1970s, countries worldwide have attempted to better recognize the customary rights of local communities. Yet despite over 40 years of effort, collective forest tenure reforms have yielded only moderate results. This article draws on recent assessments conducted in 23 countries by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) on community-based forestry and associated forest tenure regimes based on the internationally endorsed Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (the VGGT). The findings suggest that governments are increasingly giving legal recognition to community rights to use both timber and non-timber forest products for commercial purposes. Yet, the tenure provided to collective forestry is less robust than that held by companies and smallholders in a number of ways. These include fewer legal protections, more barriers to the use of these rights, inadequate access to justice, and less administrative support in documenting rights. Furthermore, in many cases the existing community forestry legal provisions are not implemented. The relatively successful cases suggest that with robust tenure, communities and smallholders can be potent vehicles for moving towards sustainable forest management and mitigating climate change, improving local livelihoods, contributing to timber and non-timber product economies, and achieving several of the Sustainable Development Goals. But for this, governments ...

Deforestation and forest degradation remain huge global environmental challenges. Over the last decades, various forest governance initiatives and institutions have evolved in global response to interlinked topics such as climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation, indigenous rights, and trade impacts – accompanied by various levels of academic attention. Using a Delphi methodology that draws on both policy and academic insights, we assess the currently perceived state of play in global forest governance and identify possible future directions. Results indicate that state actors are seen to be key in providing supportive regulatory frameworks, yet interviewees do not believe these will be established at the global scale. Rather, respondents point to issue-specific, regional and inter-regional coalitions of the willing, involving the private sector, to innovate global forest governance. Linking forest issues with high politics may hold promise, as demonstrated by initiatives regarding illegal logging and timber trade. Confident rule-setting in support of the public good as well as responsible investments are seen as further avenues. New forest governance "hypes", if used strategically, can provide leverage points and resources to ensure sustainability effects on the ground. At the same time, informal markets are often crucial for governance outcomes and need consideration. As such, clarifying tenure in sovereignty-sensitive ways is important, as are innovative ways for inclusive "glocal" decision-making. Lastly, new technologies, big data and citizens' capacities are identified as potent innovation opportunities, for making global dependencies between consumption, production and deforestation visible and holding players accountable across the value chains.

The tension between biodiversity conservation and multipurpose forest management may lead to conflicts. An internationally prominent example is the Bialowieza Forest Massif (BFM), an extensive forest complex with high levels of naturalness. We apply a systematic, multidisciplinary assessment process to review empirical evidence on different dimensions of the BFM conflict. While there is broad consensus that this forest massif is an exceptional place worth conserving and that a way forward is a zonation system combining conservation with management, exactly how this should be done has yet to be agreed upon. Our assessment shows that the key reasons for the BFM controversy go beyond the availability of knowledge on the ecological status of the BFM and include: 1) evidence stemming from different sources, which is often contradictory and prone to different interpretations; 2) knowledge gaps, particularly with regard to socio-economic drivers and beneficiaries as well as uncertainties about future trends; 3) fundamentally different values and priorities among stakeholder groups, resulting in power struggles, and an overall lack of trust. We conclude that evidence-based knowledge alone is insufficient to cope with complex conservation conflicts. While more evidence may help assess the consequences of decisions, the actual management decisions depend on different actors' worldviews, which are rooted in their professional identities and power, and their political and legal realities. This calls for conflict management through a well-organized participatory process organized and supervised by a body deemed legitimate by the groups involved.

The tension between biodiversity conservation and multipurpose forest management may lead to conflicts. An internationally prominent example is the Białowieża Forest Massif (BFM), an extensive forest complex with high levels of naturalness. We apply a systematic, multidisciplinary assessment process to review empirical evidence on different dimensions of the BFM conflict. While there is broad consensus that this forest massif is an exceptional place worth conserving and that a way forward is a zonation system combining conservation with management, exactly how this should be done has yet to be agreed upon. Our assessment shows that the key reasons for the BFM controversy go beyond the availability of knowledge on the ecological status of the BFM and include: 1) evidence stemming from different sources, which is often contradictory and prone to different interpretations; 2) knowledge gaps, particularly with regard to socio-economic drivers and beneficiaries as well as uncertainties about future trends; 3) fundamentally different values and priorities among stakeholder groups, resulting in power struggles, and an overall lack of trust. We conclude that evidence-based knowledge alone is insufficient to cope with complex conservation conflicts. While more evidence may help assess the consequences of decisions, the actual management decisions depend on different actors' worldviews, which are rooted in their professional identities and power, and their political and legal realities. This calls for conflict management through a well-organized participatory process organized and supervised by a body deemed legitimate by the groups involved.