Impacts of forest management certication in Argentina and Chile

Frederick Cubbage
a,
, Diana Diaz
b
, Pablo Yapura
c
, Francis Dube
d
a
Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA 27695-8008
b
Instituto Nacional de Tecnologa Agropecuaria, EEA Concordia, Entre Rios, Argentina
c
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina
d
Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad de Concepcin, Concepcion, Chile
a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 14 January 2009
Received in revised form 20 September 2009
Accepted 7 June 2010
Keywords:
Forest Management Certication
FSC
CERTFOR
Evaluation
Impacts
Individuals at ten rms in Argentina and Chile that had received Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or Sistema
Chileno de Certicacin Forestal (CERTFOR) forest management certication were interviewed to determine
the management, environmental, social, and economic impacts of certication. All rms improved many
practices in forest management, environmental protection, community relations, public affairs, economic,
and environmental management systems in order to receive certication, with an average of 27 changes
reported per rm that received forest certication. The amount of changes were fairly evenly distributed
among forest management practices, social and legal aspects, and economic and system impacts. Most rms
certied by FSC received several conditions or corrective action requests, but these represented only about
one-third of the 27 changes those rms made to receive or maintain certication. Certication appeared to
prompt similar changes in Argentina and Chile, and with FSC and CERTFOR. Certied rms usually hired only
one or two new employees for certication, but did shift job responsibilities so that about 5% to 10% of
personnel time was spent on certication. Individuals at interviewed rms were generally very satised with
certication and all rms except one intended to re-certify.
A n de determinar los impactos de la certicacin sobre el manejo forestal en relacin a aspectos ecolgicos,
econmicos y sociales fueron entrevistadas con diez empresas enArgentina y Chile que recibieronla certicacin
de Manejo Forestal Sustentable del Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) o Sistema Chileno de Certicacin Forestal
(CERTFOR). Todas las empresas mejoraron sus prcticas de manejo forestal, de proteccin ambiental, sus
relaciones con la comunidad y con el pblico, su economa y sus sistemas de manejo ambiental a n de recibir la
certicacin forestal, con un promedio de 27 cambios informados por cada rma que obtuvo la certicacin. La
cantidad de cambios estuvo uniformemente distribuida entre las prcticas de manejo forestal, los aspectos
sociales y legales, y los aspectos econmicos y de planicacin. La mayora de las rmas certicadas por FSC
recibierontambin varias solicitudes de acciones correctivas, pero stas representan slo untercio del total de 27
cambios realizados por estas empresas para recibir o mantener la certicacin. La certicacin parece haber
generado similar nmero de cambios en Argentina y Chile, ya sea FSC o CERTFOR. Alrededor 5% hasta 10% del
tiempo de los empleados fue ganado con certicacin forestal. Las personas entrevistadas en las empresas se
encontraban por lo general satisfechas con la certicacin y excepto una de las empresas, el resto de ellas
proyectaban renovar la certicacin forestal.
2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In the last decade, Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) has
become the dominant paradigm for discussing forest management
and protection in the world. SFM addresses economic, ecological, and
social components of forestry. Several international SFM Criteria and
Indicator processes and accords address SFM in temperate and
tropical forests. These generally include broad criteria that state
principles for forest management, and indicators that can be used to
measure and track the status of the world's forests at the national
level, or in some cases, at the forest management unit level.
Parallel with SFM, forest certication has developed to measure
forest management, environmental protection, and social benets
from forest ownership and forest practices at the forest management
unit or stand level (Ramesteiner & Simula, 2002). Forest certication
has become the principal new means that producers and consumers
can use to verify sustainable forestry and to market forest products
throughout the world, and become a new nongovernment, market-
based approach to environmental protection and sustainable forest
management (Cashore et al., 2004).
Forest Policy and Economics 12 (2010) 497504
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 (919) 515 7789.
E-mail addresses: fredcubbage@yahoo.com, fred_cubbage@ncsu.edu (F. Cubbage),
ddiaz@correo.inta.gov.ar (D. Diaz), ypf@agro.unlp.edu.ar (P. Yapura), fdube@udec.cl
(F. Dube).
1389-9341/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.06.004
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Forest Policy and Economics
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ f or pol
Despite the perceived popularity of forest certication, its effective-
ness in enhancing forest management practices, social welfare, and
economic returns has beenevaluatedlittle. Toassess forest management
impacts in Argentina and Chile, we conducted interviews to collect
information from forest managers about the changes in rms'
employment and costs related to certication, objectives of forest
certication, and management impacts. This provided a means to assess
the impacts of changes made by organizations fromimplementingforest
certicationon forest management practices, environmental protection,
economic returns, social, and legal benets. The results of this research
may helpbusinesses make decisions about seeking or maintainingforest
certication, or forest certication systems in revising and promoting
those systems.
2. Forest certication extent
Forest certication has developed rapidly since 1993, and about
322 millionha, or 8%of the world's 3.9 billionhaof forests werecertied
as of 2008 (Table 1). The total forest area in the world includes a large
amount of dry savannahs with little stocking, so the certied share of
well stocked forests is somewhat greater. Approximately 12% of all of
the Americas forests are certied. Canada has about 69% of the certied
forests in the Americas, which accounts for about 43% of those certied
inthe world, althoughthis total couldinclude some multiple systems on
the same lands. The Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certication
(PEFC), which has recognized individual programs in different
countries, has 202 million ha enrolled in forest management certica-
tioninparticipating programs. This includes 57 millionha inEurope and
137 millionhainthe Americas. The Forest StewardshipCouncil, whichis
the only system with worldwide common principles and governance
(Forest Stewardship Council, 2000), has certied about 103 million ha.
3. Forest certication impact literature
Directly evaluating the impacts of forest certication is difcult. An
ex-post evaluation of forest certication might require complete on-
the-ground assessments of biological, social, and economic impacts of
forest certication comparing certied and uncertied rms, preferably
drawn randomly from their respective populations. This is difcult and
expensive, and has been approached by only a few studies (e.g., Hagan
et al., 2005; Federation of Nordic Forest Owners' Organisations, 2005).
One also may examine the forest management plans or audit reports of
certied forest landowners, and this approach has been applied in
particular with FSC plans and audits (WWF, 2005; Newsom & Hewitt,
2005). Another approach is to survey public or forest owner opinions
about forest certication, which is more common (e.g., Rickenbach &
Overdevest, 2006). In addition, some studies examine whether forest
certication has indirectly improved general forest practice standards
andnorms (e.g., Cashore et al., 2007; Auld et al., 2008). Inadditiontothe
various approaches to assess forest certication, one also must
determine what changes are attributable directly to certication, and
what affects might be attributable to generally better practices or
performance by certied rms or due to other contextual factors. The
literature regarding prior certication evaluations claries these
approaches, and provided bases for this study.
Several international studies have examined the effectiveness of
forest certication of FSC and PEFC. This includes a series of World
Wildlife Fund European Forest Programme studies in Latvia, Estonia,
Germany, Russia, Sweden, and the UK. These include individual country
reports (WWF, 2005). In total, WWF analyzed 2817 Corrective Action
Requests made in those countries, covering 18 million ha of forests. The
WWF summary concluded that FSC certication improved the conser-
vation status and enhanced biodiversity levels in forests. This included
consistent implementation of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs);
identication, mapping and management or protection of natural areas
and biotypes; increased deadwood levels; more natural regeneration to
favor species diversity; andrestorationof threatenedforest types. Better
economic outcomes included better game management; better plan-
ning and long-term sustainability; better monitoring of objectives;
improved marketing and product tracking; and improved recreational,
cultural, and historical benets. Social benets included better imple-
mentation of health and safety legislation; better equipment training;
and public safety improvements.
Newsom and Hewitt (2005) analyzed global FSC/Smartwood
impacts. They too found that certication required operations to make
signicant changes, and did not simply give a rubber stamp of
approval to the good players and industry leaders. On average, certied
operations were required to make changes affecting 15 different forestry
issues as a result of the forestry assessment. The ten most important
categories of required changes included some in social issues worker
training, safety, and communication with stakeholders; environmental
issues aquatic and riparianareas, sensitive sites, and high conservation
value forests; and systems issues management plans, monitoring,
chain of custody, and inventory.
The Federation of Nordic Forest Owners' Organisations (2005)
examined the effectiveness and efciency of FSC and PEFC in Finland,
Sweden, and Norway. Forest certication improved sustainable forest
management, with the greatest contributions being in the area of
environmental protection. This required greater environmental
investments by forest landowners, but had not brought signicant
economic benets to forest owners to date. The report notes that the
better environmental image may enhance market access in the long
term for Nordic timber and wood products.
Two eld-based surveys of certied and uncertied forest lands in
the United States found that environmental practices were better under
forest certication schemes. The Texas Forest Service (Simpson et al.,
2005) foundthat implementationof best management practices (BMPs)
was statistically higher when the timber was delivered to a Sustainable
Forestry Initiative (SFI) mill. A Manomet Center for Conservation
Sciences (Hagan et al., 2005) case study found that landowners who
were certied sustainable under either SFI or FSC had signicantly
stronger biodiversity practices than landowners not certied. As
expected with a eld-based study, the sample was small, and did not
lead to a nding of a statistically signicant difference between FSC and
SFI in terms of the overall biodiversity practice scores.
Rickenbach and Overdevest (2006) surveyed forest managers
regarding certication expectations and satisfaction with FSC certi-
cation in the U.S. They found that signaling benets of getting better
recognition for one's forest practices and public relations were ranked
highest with the highest satisfaction, exceeding expectations. Parti-
cipants had the greatest expectations for market benets, but received
less satisfaction with those. The category of learning about new
forest management practices ranked third in expectations and
satisfaction. However, the differences among these categories were
moderate.
Table 1
Major forest certication systems in the world, November 2008.
System Area (million ha)
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) 103.5
Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certication (PEFC)
a
202.3
a
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) 61.4
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) 75.8
American Tree Farm System (ATFS) 12.1
Sistema Chileno de Certicacin Forestal (CERTFOR) 1.8
Sistema Brasileiro de Certicao Florestal (CERFLOR) 0.9
Australian Forestry Standard 7.9
Malaysian Timber Certication Council 4.7
Total, FSC, PEFC, Malaysian 322.6
a
Includes 75.8 million ha of CSA in Canada, 61.4 million ha of SFI in U.S and Canada,
1.818 million ha of CERTFOR in Chile, 0.889 million ha CERFLOR in Brazil, 7.9 million ha in
Australia, 54.5 millionhainEuropeas of July2008. Sources: www.fsc.org, Forest Stewardship
Council, 2008; www.pefc.org, Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certication, 2008.
498 F. Cubbage et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 12 (2010) 497504
Auld et al. (2008) examined the direct and indirect impacts of
certication schemes on forest and forestry in the world. They noted that
the area of land certied and the number of chain-of-custody certicates
have increased dramatically in the last 15 years. They concluded that
audits have ensured that certied forests improve practices. However,
patterns of adoption that focused more on system changes than on the
ground practices raised questions about overall effectiveness. Further-
more, they notedthat current researchhas not indicatedthat certication
has reduced pressure for deforestation or assisting forest conservation at
the landscape level.
Cubbage et al. (2003) summarized the time, expenses, and
management responses required to obtain forest certication for
state and university lands in North Carolina ranging from 2000 ha to
12,000 ha. The amount of effort, total costs, and management changes
required were somewhat similar for all organizations regardless of
ownership size, so time and expenses per unit of area were greater for
the smallest ownership, and vice versa.
In data obtained in surveys including those reported here, Cubbage
et al. (2009) examined costs of forest certication in the Americas,
including systems in the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and
Chile. Average total costs varied considerably depending on forest
ownership size, certication system, and country. Median average
total costs ranged from $6.45 to $39.31 per ha per year for small tracts
of less than 4000 ha. The large ownerships of 400,000 ha or more had
median costs of $0.07 to $0.49 per ha per year. Average total costs for
certication were a function of ownership size, but did not vary
signicantly among certication systems or country. Opinions about
benets of forest certication generally classed rm strategic or
management reasons highest, organizational learning factors second,
signaling stewardship to external groups third, and improved prices
or markets last, but all broad groups were considered important
benets of certication. The largest perceived disadvantages of forest
certication were its time and audit costs, and no other disadvantage
was rated more than somewhat important. Certied forest rms had
relatively evenly mixed opinions about whether certication benets
exceeded costs, but a large majority stated that they would continue
forest certication in the future.
4. Methods
As noted in the literature review, changes due to forest certication
may be assessed by eld studies, managers' opinions, or secondary data
from management plans and audit reports. We combined the use of
managers' opinions and direct experience in implementing forest
certication with secondary data from audit reports to assess the
impacts of forest certication in Argentina and Chile. We conducted
personal interviews with a sample of owners with FSC forest
management certicationinArgentinain2006andwithFSCor CERTFOR
certication in Chile in 2007. The purpose of the interviews was to
determine reported data on the actual changes in forest management
inputs labor or budgets, and forest management practices ecological,
social, or economicand to obtain the opinions of forest managers about
their goals and satisfaction with certication.
In each case, we interviewed the forester or environmental
management system director that was directly responsible for
administering forest certication for the rm. These individuals
usually had other responsibilities as well, but were the lead persons
for preparing and administering certication, so were very familiar
with the changes required to meet the certication standards. We also
examined the public audit reports for each of the rms with FSC
certication as well in order to compare the effects reported by the
managers with those reported by the audit rms.
Obtaining such individual data and opinions from managers in
Argentina and Chile required direct personal contact and personal
interviews, so the sample was limited by the time and budget to
conduct them. About half the certied rms (7 of 13) at that time in
Argentina were contacted. Only three rms in Chile were interviewed,
but they were the largest ones in the country, and covered a majority
of the certied forest land area. We did obtain the audit reports for all
rms.
The interviews combined general background questions about the
certied rms and their products; quantiable changes in the number of
employees or their job description; Likert scale questions (from 1 to 5)
about objectives for and satisfaction with forest certication; open ended
questions benets and problems with certication; and yes/no/ll-in-
the-blank questions about changes in forest management practices.
The initial draft survey instrument underwent review by academi-
cians andrepresentatives of several major forest certicationsystems and
the co-authors from each country. These included colleagues at North
Carolina State University, the Universidad Nacional de Misiones and FSC
in Argentina; representatives of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Forest
Stewardship Council, and American Tree Farm System; consultants who
have analyzed certication costs; auditors who have assessed confor-
mance with forest certication; and researchers with the USDA Forest
Service. After completion of the initial English language survey, the
survey was translatedintoSpanish, andit was revisedwiththe assistance
of U.S. Spanish speakers and colleagues from Chile and Peru. The
interviews were conducted in Spanish by Cubbage, Diaz, and two PhD
students, from NC State University and Universidad de Concepcin.
We obtained responses to the survey instrument during 2006 in
Argentina and 2007 in Chile. All surveys responses were obtained by
detailed personal interviews except one. One survey was lled out by
email by an Argentina forestry business executive after two email
requests and sending the survey form. One interview in Argentina was
conducted with a company whose certication was still in process, but is
now certied. During the personal interviews, any comments or
observations about changes in practices or opinions about forest
certication were written in by the interviewer on the ll-in-the-blank
section, or in any other section as appropriate. Survey responses were
then typed and sent to the interviewees for reviewand correction within
two weeks, and those nal corrected versions were used for analyses.
The data were summarized as descriptive summaries, quantied
averages for open numerical responses, or statistical means for the
Likert scale questions. These data were then analyzed and are
discussed in the results section. For Argentina, the copies of all the
FSC reports for each rm from the individual web sites of the auditing
rms provided another means to compare responses fromthe surveys
with the conditions that were required to retain certication. The FSC
certied rms usually also gave us copies of the summaries of their
required pre-conditions, conditions, or continuing action requests.
To help triangulate on the information collected in personal
interviews and to compare changes reported in those surveys with the
corrective action requests, we also analyzed the conditions required of
FSC certied organizations in Argentina, similar to the approach taken
by the WWF (2005) and Newsom and Hewitt (2005). This consisted
of obtaining data on the current owners who were certied from the
FSC web site, locating the public FSC audit reports from the FSC
certiers, and summarizing the data by type of conditions required.
Three certication bodies have certied all the FSC forests in
Argentina. Their audit reports for each rm were accessed in 2007
(Smartwood, 2007; SGS, 2007; SCS, 2007). Two older reports that are
no longer posted on the web were obtained in interviews from FSC
certied rms. The Chilean audit reports were obtained directly in the
personal interviews.
5. Results
Seven rms that were certied or pending by FSC in Argentina in
2006 were included in the sample, out of 13 total eligible rms. They
represented a total of 99,464 ha, or about 40% of the 231,126 ha of
certied forest area in the country in 2008. They represented about
97% of the certied plantation forests, but none of the natural or
499 F. Cubbage et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 12 (2010) 497504
mixed forests. The response does indicate that the interviews would
be expected to best at gauging opinions about FSC certication for
plantations in the country. However, we did examine the similarity of
the exclusively plantation responses with the mostly natural forest
certied rms based on the FSC audit reports and type of conditions
required, as discussed below. In Chile, we interviewed the three
largest forest products rms in the country that had either FSC (one
rm) or CERTFOR (two rms) forest management certication. This
covered 1.9 million ha out of 2.1 million ha of certied forests in the
country, or 90% of the total area certied. The companies had various
forest types, but only their plantations were certied.
The results for opinions of the managers about the impacts of
forest certication in Argentina and in Chile are reported in aggregate
here in order to protect condentiality of individual rm responses
with such a small sample in each country. This mixes two countries
and two forest certication systems. This mix may not be ideal for
uniformity, but still provides a larger and more robust sample with a
wider breadth of rms for analysis. The number of responses between
countries and between systems was too small in number to
successfully test for statistical differences. However, there seemed
to be quite similar experiences and opinions among forest managers
and systems in both countries, so the aggregate summaries should
provide a good representation of the collective impacts of certica-
tion. Notable differences among systems or countries are discussed
when relevant in the results.
5.1. Firm size, production, and certication
In Argentina, the rms surveyed had FSC forest areas certied
ranging from 221 ha to 44,986 ha. They produced a wide variety of
products, rangingfromonlyroundwoodfor saletoother rms tovarious
solid wood products, but not pulp and paper. Two rms produced
sawtimber, three produced panel products, and one produced moldings
andinterior framinglumber. Three producedonlyroundwoodfor sale to
forest products rms. The companies in Chile were all large integrated
forest products rms, with certied forest land holdings ranging from
99,000 ha to 1,100,000 ha. They produced panel products (plywood,
MDF, HDF, moldings), lumber, sawtimber, pulp, and paper.
All FSC rms had received forest certication ranging from initial
year of 2001 through 2007. One had received FSC Group Certication
and most had also received FSC Chain of Custody certication. One
had received ISO14001 registration for their manufacturing plant, and
one had received ISO 14001 for their forest management. Two rms in
Chile received CERTFOR forest management certication in 2003 or
2004, one was FSC forest management certied, and all three also
were ISO 14001 registered, and most of their manufacturing plants
also received ISI 14001:2004 registration. Most rms also had FSC or
CERTFOR Chain of Custody certication.
5.2. Personnel changes
Six of the ten total respondents replied that they had employed
newpersonnel to work in and prepare for forest certication; four had
not. None of these rms employed more than three new persons,
except one that employed seven. No more than three new persons
were employed in the ofce by any rm, and the balance was always
with new eld employees. New employees had job duties that
spanned the range of possible responses. The lower ranking newareas
of responsibility covered silviculture, wildlife, public relations, and
social components. The most frequent new responsibilities were
accounting and auditing and employee training and health.
Four rms reassigned current employees to work specically in
forest certication, changing the assignment of one person in the
central ofce and three persons in the eld. Five rms did change the
job descriptions of or functions of employees to cover the new forest
certication duties, and ve did not. Four made estimates of the
amount of time required for forest certication by existing personnel.
These ranged from 5 to 15% of the time for personnel in the eld, and
5% to 10% of the time for personnel in the ofce. In our discussions,
other rms indicated that certication did not take much more time
per se, but did change how the foresters spent their time.
5.3. Management changes
We asked interviewees what changes were adopted in order to meet
the forest management certication standards. This included forest
management and environmental changes; social and legal changes; and
economic or system changes. We selected 52 key standards that were
likely to be important, rather thanlisting all of the many standards, which
could amount to 100 or more. Only nine of the ten rms responded to
thesequestions about management changes. Tables 2, 3, and4summarize
the reported changes in forest management, social or legal aspects, or
economic and system impacts.
5.3.1. Forest management and environmental protection
For forest management and environmental protection practices,
eight rms said their management planchanged withadoption of forest
certication and that they used better control and use of chemicals in
forest management. Sevenreportedincreasedefforts to control invasive
speciesusually to make sure that the rm's exotic tree species did not
escape. More protection for threatened species, planning for biological
diversity, old growth reserves, use of best management practices, and
use of GIS were other environmental activities that a majority of the
respondents saidhadchangedwithcertication. The three large rms in
Chile responded positively to all of these factors; fewer rms in
Argentina changed practices in the last three areas. Many of the rms in
both countries had changed other forest management practices with
respect to environmental protection, but only a couple had done so for
the remaining practices identied.
All the rms varied somewhat in their mix of practices that they had
changed in order to obtain forest certication. No changes were
necessary in calculating sustained yield in Argentina, but two rms in
Chile changed their practices for this standard. No rm changed
practices for the forest health protection standard, since they all were
active already. No rms changed practices for the use of genetically
modied organisms (GMOs) standard either, but for different reasons.
Table 2
Number of changes required in forest management and environmental protection
practices in Argentina and Chile with forest management certication.
Changes in forest management practice Yes No Depends on situation
Forest inventory programs 4 5
Soils and inventory maps 5 4
Growth and yield calculations 2 7
Geographic information systems 5 4
Sustained yield/allowable cut/adjacency
constraints
2 7
Forest management plan 8 1
Reforestation/afforestation 4 5
Chemical safety, reduction, disposal 8 0 1
Site productivity protection 3 6
Forest health protection 0 9
Use and monitoring of BMPs 6 3
Implementation/effectiveness monitoring 4 4 1
Threatened species protection 7 2
Biological diversity planning 6 2 1
Old growth/high conservation reserves 6 3
Special sites reserves 5 4
Prevention of exotic invasives 7 2
Determining clearcut size 3 6
Meeting green-up standards 2 7
Meeting plantation guidelines 4 5
Reduced forest type conversions 3 6
Eliminating GMOs 0 9
Total 94 101 3
500 F. Cubbage et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 12 (2010) 497504
The FSC rms did not have any GMOs, so did not need to make changes.
The CERTFORsystemallows use of GMOs withproper caution, andwhile
none are employedyet, the large rms in Chile have researchto develop
this application of biotechnology.
To provide a qualitative check on the similarity of the responses by
country and system, we tallied Argentina data rst, then the data from
Chile. Sixteenof the 19practices listedhadthe same proportionof yes or
no responses in both data sets, indicating generally similar results. To
illustrate, for forest inventory programs, Argentina had 2 yes responses
and4no; thecombineddata had4yes and5no. Similarly, for prevention
of exotic invasives, the responses were 5 yes and 1 no for Argentina and
7 yes and 2 no for both countries. The rms in Chile made a few more
changes with certication than those in Argentina, which might be
explained based on their much larger size and capacity, and perhaps
their ISO 14001 continual improvement requirements. In total, for
Argentina alone, there were 53 management changes reported, with 76
practices not changed. The total data set had 94 management changes
reported and 101 practices not changed.
The types of management and environmental changes were also
described by the foresters in the interviews. Some of the most
common examples of changes reported follow in the list below:
Chemicals limited use of chemicals; use only approved chemicals
for FSC and CERTFOR; better health and safety standards; minimize
number of applications
Threatened species know their distribution; dene threatened
zones; develop protection plan; comply with country laws
Best management practices elaborate and document procedures;
include in planning; monitor permanently; maintain lists of
practices; audit internally
Prevention of exotic invasives prevent exotic trees from
spreading; kill with machetes or machines on company and
neighboring lands; provide employees training to identify them;
combat in native forests
Biological diversity identify zones of production and protection;
training of employees; increase research; identify native species;
make enrichment planting
High conservation value forests establish reserves; identify, plan
for, and manage; increase research for protection
Forest management plan prepare and release publicly; develop in
detailed manner; add a new environmental impact statement
component; much more details on soils, water, fauna, etc.
Meeting plantation guidelines be more careful with erosion,
fragile soils, and water protection; describe use of and diversify
clones used; follow FSC principle and indicators
5.3.2. Social and legal aspects
Improved record keeping, outreach and extension, and public
relations were the practices with the most changes made by the
certied rms in terms of legal and social aspects (Table 3). Almost all
rms alsoconsultedmore withcommunities andperformedmore social
impact analysis. One rmthat did not make any changes already had an
extremely active community involvement program in effect before it
became certied by FSC. Most of the other social standards identied
also required management changes by a majority of the rms, including
having stakeholder meetings, and public outreach and extension
meeting, offering more workshops, complying better with environ-
mental laws, and publicly releasing the management plan. Half of the
rms responded that they gave more community grants; the rest did
not. Tenure andindigenous rights didnot present problems withthe FSC
standard for rms we interviewed in Argentina, but were somewhat
more important in Chile. In both countries, rms interviewed were all
focusedonplantationmanagement ontheir ownlands, whichmay have
limited perceptions of problems with tenure or indigenous rights.
Again, the responses for Argentina and Chile were similar. The
balance between yes and no responses remained the same for every
practice except community grants and support, where all rms in Chile
reported changes. For Argentina only, there were 53 yes responses to
practice changes and 48 noresponses. Firms inChile made slightly more
changes, leading to a combined total for the combined data set of 84 yes,
65 no change responses.
The types of changes in social and legal aspects were also described
by the respondents in the interviews. Some of the most common
examples of changes reported were as follows:
Legal planning and record keeping review international treaties;
keep better records; develop compliance plans; develop manage-
ment system; maintain book of laws
Public/stakeholder meetings many more direct meetings of
foresters with communities; incorporate in ISO 14001; develop web
page; reinforce existing efforts; meet with personnel in schools;
develop written process to respond to complaints; perform surveys of
community needs
Social impact analyses develop (and monitor) a work plan; perform
surveys of needs; develop courses and training; hire sociologist to
develop plans; develop permanent social impact matrix; assess
transportation impacts, especially in cities
Comply with environmental laws maintain environmental manage-
ment system; maintain book of laws; incorporate in ISO14001; review
Kyoto, Ramsar, chemicals, nativeforest laws, etc.; maintaincontact with
federal agency bureaucrats; hire external consultant to review
Table 3
Number of changes required in social and legal aspects in Argentina and Chile with
forest management certication.
Changes in management practice Yes No Depends on situation
Protection from illegal trespass 3 6
Establishing tenure rights 1 8
Protecting indigenous rights 1 7 1
Consulting with communities 5 3 1
Social impact analyses 6 2 1
Ensuring labor rights and practices 3 6
Public/stakeholder meetings 7 2
Offer program workshops 6 3
Legal planning and record keeping 8 1
Comply with environmental laws 6 3
Compliance with social/worker laws 4 5
Comply with international treaties 3 6
Public release of management plan 5 3 1
Outreach and extension 8 1
Public relations/education 8 1
Community grants and support 6 3
Program reporting 4 5
Total 84 65 4
Table 4
Number of changes required in economic and system aspects in Argentina and Chile
with forest management certication.
Changes in management practice Yes No Depends on situation
Natural heritage planning/reserves 8 1
Utilization planning and practices 6 2 1
Minimizing wood waste 6 3
Wood procurement plans/practices 4 5
Chain of custody implementation 7 2
Forest research/demonstration 6 2 1
Logger/supplier training 9 0
Economic analyses 2 7
Internal program monitoring/auditing 7 2
Implementation committee/program
commitment duties
5 4
Continuous improvement 7 2
Time to build management system 6 3
Customer inquiries/procurement 3 6
Management review system 4 5
Total 80 44 2
501 F. Cubbage et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 12 (2010) 497504
Program reporting FSC-publish management plan, but not
CERTFOR; develop summary for FSC release
Ensuring labor rights and practices work with contractors to
ensure compliance; maintain records for all laws and employees
and contractors; develop management system; maintain book of
laws; incorporate in ISO 14001
Establishing tenure rights improve titles of ownership
5.3.3. Economic and system impacts
The most important economic and system aspects required were
logger and supplier training, internal/program monitoring, wood
procurement, andprogrammonitoring (Table 4). Other practices ranged
fromleading to changes in many as six or as fewas two rms. In general,
proportionately more changes were made in the economic and system
standards identied than in the forest management or social standards,
althoughthere were about 80 total changes made by all the rms ineach
of the three broad classes of standards. For the Argentina data set only,
rms reported 46 changes in practices versus 36 practices with no
changes. Firms in Chile again reported slightly more changes, giving a
total of 80 yes responses and 43 no responses.Common examples of the
types of changes in economic and system standards were:
Logger and contractor training more training, especially best
practices; courses on safety, hygiene, nutrition, and leadership; use
of equipment, re ghting; records of training; required participation
Natural heritage planning/reserves identify and mapping of areas;
formalize programs with NGOs; follow federal laws; discuss high
conservation value forest protection more; establish reserve areas
Internal program monitoring/auditing develop internal system
and audits, especially with ISO 14001; conduct inspections of plans
Continuous improvement develop better implementation; incor-
porate suggestions/opportunities for improvement and areas of
concern from previous certication audits
Forest research/demonstration genetic improvement and bio-
technology; areas of high conservation; biodiversity; impacts of
plantations on water; conditions of workers
Economic analyses valuation for strategic planning
5.3.4. Total number of changes
It also is interesting to look at the total number of changes made (or
not) for the practices identied. Each set of practices listed 80 or more
changes for all nine rms, for a total of 248 changes reported, versus 208
instances where practices did not change with forest certication. The
number of practices changed averaged 27 changes out of the 53
individual practices listed for each rm that became certied. For the
forest management practices that we identied, about half actually led
to changes in practices by the rms surveyed when they obtained forest
certication (84 of 189 possible responses). A greater share of the social
and the economic practices (80 each) required changes in practices, but
the forest management and environmental protection components still
had a slightly more in total (84). Overall, the responses indicated a very
balanced set of changes were made to obtain forest certication.
5.3.5. Certication strengths and weaknesses
Respondents also gave their opinions about the strengths and
weaknesses of forest certication. Most of the strengths mentioned
follow:
Strengthen forestry work in general
Conrmation of public and consumer agreement with management
practices
Training of and equipment for workers
Control of wood procurement practices
Develop a system of sustainability for the future
Develop a system of continuous improvement
Improve forest management, working conditions, and environmen-
tal protection
Better community relations
International recognition
Market recognition
External credibility
Auditors' review
Higher technical standards
Maintain national autonomy
Similarly, most of the weaknesses mentioned were:
Certication only covers a small part of the country
More bureaucracy
Lack of recognition in South America
Poor funding for certication
Few people know of certication
No market structure to take advantage of certication
Inadequate protection for native forests
No country/government incentives for certication
Small producers do not receive price benets and must pay high costs
Need to develop certication clusters to contact clients
Need to comply at a higher standard with state laws than non-
certied rms
More public attention than non-certied rms
No price benets for certication
5.3.6. Corrective actions required versus interview changes reported
The FSC conditions and corrective action requests (CARs) that each
company in Argentina had to perform provided another means to
assess the impacts of forest certication, and to compare changes
prompted by audits with internal changes made to prepare for forest
certication. When the initial certication is issued, these are stated as
conditions. In the subsequent surveillance audits (vigilancia), the
conditions are then termed Corrective Action Requests (CARs), or
Solicitudes de Accin Correctiva (SACs) in Spanish. We counted all the
CARs/SACs for each rmfor all certications in Argentina based on the
auditor report data bases, and then categorized them by FSC principle
(Table 5).
From 2000 to 2007, 137 conditions/CARs/SACs were required for all
the rms in Argentina to meet and maintain FSC forest management
certication. This included 58 conditions for the rms that we surveyed,
and79 for the rms that we did not survey. This was anaverage of about
9 conditions per rm interviewed that received FSC certication. It
appeared that there were fewer conditions for the rms that received
certication for plantations than for those that received certication for
natural forests. All the CARs were closed within the required time
period, usually 6 months to two years.
Table 5
Summary of conditions for FSC forest certication in Argentina as listed in forest
certication audit reports, 2007.
FSC principle Firms
interviewed
Firms not
interviewed
Total
Number of conditions/CARs
1. Conform with laws and principles of FSC 1 5 6
2. Tenure rights and responsibilities 0 2 2
3. Rights of indigenous communities 0 1 1
4. Community relations and workers' rights 22 24 46
5. Multiple forest uses 4 4 8
6. Environmental impact and biodiversity 19 20 39
7. Management plan 3 6 9
8. Monitoring and evaluation 6 6 12
9. Maintenance of high conservation
value forests
0 8 8
10. Plantations 3 3 6
Total 58 79 137
Chain of custody 1 3 4
Note: 7FSCcertiedrms interviewedall plantationforest type6rms not interviewed
3 plantation, 2 natural, and 1 mixed forest type. Certied area of interviewed rms was
99,464 ha, total was 231,126 ha of certied forest area in the country in 2008.
502 F. Cubbage et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 12 (2010) 497504
Note that the number of specic changes required through
conditions or CARs was substantially less than the number actually
performed by the certied rms according to our Argentina survey
responses, with the average of 9 conditions/CARs in total, versus the
27 changes per rm reported by the forest managers. Thus the formal
required changes made by the certied rms after receiving
certication were only about one-third of the total number of changes
identied in the survey. Most of these changes appeared to be
performed in preparation for the forest audits, in order to implement
the forest certication system.
For the FSC certied rms we interviewed in Argentina, there were
58 conditions/CARs; for the non-surveyed rms there were 79. Since
the surveyed sample was less than half of the total area, this
proportion seems roughly representative. The most CARs were
focused in improvements on community relations and workers rights.
Probably more than half of these focused on workers' training and
safety, and the balance of CARs on better communication and relations
with or support for the community. The second largest group of
conditions covered improvements in environmental impacts and
biodiversity protection. Monitoring and evaluation ranked third in
importance. In general, the rms in our survey sample and those that
were not surveyed had a similar distribution of CARs. The only notable
difference was that maintenance of high conservation value forests
was only important for rms getting certication for natural or mixed
forests, not plantations.
Since plantations (most of our sample) and natural stands had similar
distributionof CARs, it seems that our sample is fairly representative of all
certied forest rms in Argentina. The distribution of required changes
that rms listed in our survey also seemed similar to those listed in the
CARs. Training, consultation with communities, social impact analyses,
record keeping, monitoring, prevention of invasive plants, especially the
exotic trees planted, and forest management planning were important in
our survey. These categories generally tracked the FSC conditions/CARs.
6. Discussion
These detailed surveys of ten rms in Argentina and Chile that
received FSC and CERTFOR certication assessed the impacts of that
certication on changes in forest management, environmental, social,
and economic practices. The responses included almost all the
certied plantation forests in Argentina and Chile, and the associated
natural forests. The sample was too small to analyze statistically, but
there seemed to be a reasonable commonality in the interviews
between countries and between systems.
The statistical means for the survey responses were complemen-
ted by personal discussions during the interviews, with each forest
manager giving details and candid opinions about various responses.
We did talk with the actual foresters that implemented FSC and
CERTFOR for their companies in each case, so received an excellent
on-the-ground opinion of its impacts, advantages, and disadvantages.
The foresters knew well what practices had changed or not, and had
the management plans, records, anecdotes, and framed certication
signs at hand in their ofce during the interviews. The statements of
the forest managers regarding changes required in their practices
matched the FSC conditions and corrective action requests that they
received.
The rms took a variety of approaches to implementing forest
certication. Three hired at least two new employees, usually split
between the ofce and the eld. About half gave their foresters and
managers new tasks, but none directly reassigned staff to forest
certication. They simply added forest certication as part of the duties
of the foresters. These job changes also were usually split among eld
and ofce staff. Overall, most of the implementation of forest
certication occurred by reassigning responsibilities rather than adding
staff, although a few specialists were hired and some consultants
contracted with as well.
The most important forest management changes required were
writing new forest management plans, increased effort to control
invasive species, and more careful use of chemicals in forest manage-
ment. But at least one rmchangedsomething for eachiteminthe list of
53 forest practices, with two exceptions. Only forest health and the use
of genetically modied organisms (GMOs) remained unchanged for
every rm before and after forest certication. However, the lack of
change indicated the lack of use of GMOs in FSC, and the acceptance of
GMOs inCERTFOR. Conversations withthe foresters conrmedthat they
had to write a new comprehensive forest management plan, and that
they spent much more time assessing and reducing chemical use,
training employees, writing justications for chemicals that were used,
and discussing these issues with auditors and certication
representatives.
The rms made many substantial improvements in their record
keeping, and each had extensive stacks and binders of documentation.
They also signicantly improved interaction with communities. The
companies thought they were doing a good job before, but denitely
increased their efforts. Logger and supplier training and internal/
program monitoring increased greatly with certication, and about
half the managers interviewed said that loggers and contractors
probably received the most benet fromcertication. Development of
a chain of custody system and continuous improvement also were
required in most rms by for the rst time.
The differences between countries and certication systems
seemed small based on the data and number of changes reported to
meet the certication standards. The large rms in Chile, both FSC and
CERTFOR, reported slightly more changes than the small rms in
Argentina, such as in research, economic analyses, and ISO 14001
implementation, but most standards generated fairly similar
responses. The Argentina analysis of plantation and natural forest
conditions by FSC Principle also indicated that these CARs seemed
very similar between forest types.
Last, most of the certied rms indicated that they were satised or
very satised with forest certication. The managers we interviewed
acknowledged that forest certicationentailed considerable newefforts
and work, and expressed discontent with the lack of a signicant price
premium for certied wood. They were more accepting of the costs of
forest certication, whichwere assumedby the forest products rm, not
taken from their individual budget. In general, though, the managers
were enthusiastic and very supportive of the benets that certication
had provided, and concurred that their rms would re-certify (Cubbage
et al., 2009). Our interviews indicated that in many cases, forest
certication was used not only as a tool to meet public expectations of
better forest management, environmental practices, social standards,
and economics analyses, but also to promote high quality forest
practices and sustainable forestry within the companies themselves.
7. Conclusions
Overall, there were clear and substantial changes in forest
management, social and legal aspects, and economic and system
activities by the rms that received forest management certication in
Argentina and Chile. The differences in changes between Argentina and
Chile and between FSC and CERTFOR could not be detected statistically
given the small sample, or revealed specically in order to provide
condentiality for rms. But the summaries of the number of changes
adopted by certied rms in each country and system consistently
showed very similar patterns. Adding Chile to the Argentina data
consistently led to similar totals in the types of practices that were
changed or were not. And our interviews in each country revealed
similar opinions and support for forest certication from the foresters
who administered the programs. There were actually slightly more
management changes reported by the three rms in Chile than those in
Argentina, but they were far larger, with registered ISO 14001
environmental management systems, so had substantial organizational
503 F. Cubbage et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 12 (2010) 497504
capacity to implement such changes, especially those involving
economic or social practices (Dube et al., 2004).
The results of this survey of companies that have received forest
management certication in Argentina and Chile do indicate that
certication does indeed matter for the rms that choose to obtain it.
The companies that have received certication in each country had
generally good reputations before forest certication, with good forest
management practices and worker and community relations. Our
interviews indicate that even with this sound base, the rms spent
much time and money to improve their operations and meet the
certication standards. Furthermore, they all received several condi-
tions and corrective action requests, and continue to improve,
indicating that the practice standards continue to be strengthened.
The interviews indicate that rms have changed many forest
management, environmental protection, community relations, public
affairs, economic, and environmental management system effects.
The rms are generally pleased with certication and intend to
continue to re-certify. The lack of price premiums have been the
greatest disappointment, but outweighed by the other advantages
that the forest managers identied. Many plantation forests are
certied, but natural forest certication remains small.
The results of this survey conform with and augment the earlier
studies that have examined certication in Europe. The WWF surveys
were based on only audit reports of corrective actions. The Finnish study
was based on eld samples. Both found that environmental practices
improved according to the certicationstandards andcorrective actions.
Our survey found similar results based on both the FSC and CERTFOR
conditions/CARs listed in the auditors' reports and in our interviews of
forest managers in rms certied by FSC and CERTFOR in Argentina and
Chile.
Our study goes further to show that many forest practices have
changed to meet the certication standards, not just those listed as
corrective actions. Infact, it shows that onaverage, the formally required
FSC corrective actions in Argentina were only about 36% of the actual
changes made by thesurvey respondents. Thus theresults shownot only
that the managers are implementing the changes required by audits to
meet the FSC standards, they also made more changes to comply with
the FSC standards than just those required by CARs. This is signicant,
indicating that FSC prompted better management in general, not just in
response to externally identied problems. The CERTFOR system
mandates that any required standards and changes be made before
certication, but those rms alsomade about as manychanges as didFSC
rms in order to obtain forest certication.
This study improved our knowledge of the number and type of
changes that rms made in response to forest certication, but it did not
estimate the relative impact and magnitude of those changes on the
ground. Field researchwould be needed to assess outcomes of such issues
as species diversity, water quality, community benets, or other
components of certication standards. Certication standards also are
continually under revision, driving continuous improvement of the
systems, as well as the standards. Certication also has helped drive
broader policy discussions of sustainable forest management through its
integration with international SFMprocesses. These net effects of on-the-
groundimpacts, improvedstandards, andpolicy linkages alsobear further
investigation, as docomparisons of the eldperformanceof thestandards.
This study used detailed interviews to obtain information about the
impacts of forest management changes of certication. While the
sample was small, the pervasive changes made by every certied forest
landowner do suggest that it is achieving its objective of improved
sustainable forest management. As noted, certied rms made many
changes in order to meet and maintain certication standards. They
have added some new capacity in some cases, and rewritten job
descriptions to ensure that the standards are implemented well. The
managers with the companies were very supportive of forest certica-
tion, andintendtoremaincertiedinmost instances. The challenge is to
increase the number of rms and share of forest land that does receive
forest certication. Forest certication will continue to be demanded by
the public, by buyers of wood products, and by environmental NGOs
that drive much of this agenda. Further research on forest certication
practices can continue to assess its contribution to enhanced forest
management, forest protection, and social benets in the future.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the rms and individuals that granted inter-
views to provide data for this research; many persons with FSC and
PEFC certication schemes who reviewed survey drafts and made
specic suggestions; Patricio Mac Donagh in Argentina and Pablo
Donoso in Chile who helped arrange some interviews; and excellent
reviewsuggestions fromthe reviewers/editors for the Journal of Forest
Policy and Economics.
References
Auld, Graeme, Gulbrandsen, Lars H., McDermott, Constance L., 2008. Certication
schemes and the impacts on forest and forestry. Annual Review of Environment
and Resources 33, 187211.
Cashore, Benjamin, Auld, Graeme, Newsom, Deanna, 2004. Governing through
Markets: Forest Certication and the Emergence of Non-State Authority. Yale
University Press, New Haven. 327 p.
Cashore, Benjamin, Auld, Graeme, Bernstein, Steve, McDermott, Constance, 2007. Can
non-state governance ratchet up global environmental standards? Lessons from
the forest sector. Review of European Community & International Environmental
Law 16 (2), 158172.
Cubbage, Frederick, Moore, Susan, Cox, Joseph, Jervis, Larry, Edeburn, Judson, Richter,
Daniel, Boyette, Warren, Thompson, Mike, Chesnutt, Michael, 2003. Forest certica-
tion of state and university lands inNorth Carolina. Journal of Forestry 101 (8), 2631.
Cubbage, Frederick, Moore, Susan, Henderson, Thresa, Araujo, Michelle, 2009. Costs and
benets of forest certication in the Americas. Chapter 5 In: Paulding, Jeanette B.
(Ed.), Natural Resources: Management, Economic Development and Protection.
Nova Publishers, pp. 155183.
Dube, F., Gignac, G., Miranda, M.I., Melo, E., 2004. CERTFOR: a new sustainable forestry
management standard for Chile's forest plantations. Forestry Chronicle 80 (6), 672677.
Federation of Nordic Forest Owners' Organisations, 2005. Effectiveness and efciency of
FSC and PEFC forest certication on pilot areas in Nordic countries. Final report
Savcor Indufor Oy, Helsinki. Mimeo/PDF.
Forest Stewardship Council. 2000. FSC Principles and Criteria. Document 1.2, Revised
February 2000. Accessed at: http://www.fscoax.org/html/1-2.html. 14 September
2003.
Forest Stewardship Council. 2008. Forests certied by FSC-Accredited Certication
Bodies, April 17, 2008. Accessed at: http://www.fsc.org. 31 July 2008.
Hagan, John M., Irland, Lloyd C., Whitman, Andrew A., 2005. Changing timberland
ownership in the Northern Forest and implications for biodiversity. Manomet Center
for Conservation Sciences, Report #MCCS-FCP-2005-1, Brunswick, Maine. 25 p.
Newsom, Deanna, Hewitt, Daphne, 2005. The global impacts of SmartWood certication.
Final Report TREES Program, Rainforest Alliance. Accessed at: http://www.rainforest-
alliance.org/programs/forestry/perspectives/documents/sw_impacts.pdf. 4 May 2006.
Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certication. 2008. Statistical gures on PEFC
certication, July, 31, 2008. Accessed at: www.pefc.org. 17 August 2008.
Ramesteiner, Ewald, Simula, Markku, 2002. Forest certicationan instrument to
promote sustainable forest management? Journal of Environmental Management
67 (2003), 8798.
Rickenbach, Mark, Overdevest, Christine, 2006. More than markets: assessing Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) certication as a policy tool. Journal of Forestry 104 (3),
143147.
SCS. 2007. Audit summaries of SCS certied forest rms in Argentina. Accessed at:
http://www.scscertied.com/forestry/forest_certclients.html. 26 February 2007.
SGS. 2007. Audit summaries of SGS certied forest rms in Argentina. Accessed at: http://
www.forestry.sgs.com/forestry_services_index_v2/mini_site_forestry_certication/
forest_management_reports/qualifor_fmr_argentina.htm. 26 February 2007.
Simpson, Hughes, Donellan, Jacob, Harrington, Shane, 2005. Voluntary implementation
of best management practices in East Texas. Results from Round 6 of BMP
Implementation Monitoring. Texas Forest Service. College Station, Texas. Accessed
at: http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/shared/article.asp?DocumentID=950&mc=
forest. 2 February 2006.
Smartwood. 2007. Audit summaries of Smartwood certied forest rms in Argentina.
Accessed at: http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/forestry/smartwood/
public_documents_country.cfm?country=6. 26 February 2007.
WWF, 2005. Theeffects of FSCcerticationinEstonia, Germany, Latvia, Russia, Swedenand
the UK. Summary report & country reports. Accessed at: http://www.panda.org/
about_wwf/what_we_do/forests/publications/index/cfm?uNewsID=18510. 4 May
2006.
504 F. Cubbage et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 12 (2010) 497504