IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v13y2011i5p328-337.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does forest certification enhance community engagement in Australian plantation management?

Author

Listed:
  • Dare, Melanie (Lain)
  • Schirmer, Jacki
  • Vanclay, Frank

Abstract

The rapid expansion of timber plantations across Australia has been contentious, with ongoing debate in rural communities about the social, economic and environmental impacts of plantations. The need for effective and ongoing community engagement (CE) has been highlighted by this ongoing contention and the ensuing desire for plantation management companies to maintain a social licence to operate. CE activities are required under various regulations governing forest management practices within Australia. In recent years, voluntary governance mechanisms, particularly forest certification, have further promoted stakeholder engagement as an integral component of modern forest management. This paper reviews the influence of the introduction of forest certification on CE practice in the field. The effectiveness of operationally-based CE activities conducted within Australian plantation management was examined through a qualitative study of plantation managers and community members in conjunction with a document analysis of relevant regulations, codes of forest practices and forest certification standards. Whilst arguing that forest certification is positively impacting on CE practice, the research indicates that a number of regulatory, corporate and social influences impact on the capacity of forest certification to promote positive changes in CE practice. The impact of forest certification is limited by existing CE requirements within both mandatory and voluntary regulations; the narrow commercially-oriented foci promoted by corporate realities and organisational ethos; poor practitioner skills and understanding of fundamental CE concepts; and the presence of pre-existing negative perceptions of firms or individuals. Regardless of these limiting influences, our research has shown that forest certification is positively affecting engagement practices within operational plantation management. Such improvements are infrequently acknowledged as they are typically not obvious in terms of changes in CE techniques or improved social relations. Instead, we suggest that forest certification is promoting a longer term, cumulative change in CE practice. The capacities of plantation managers and communities to effectively engage with each other are improving due to the forest certification requirement for continual improvement that results in plantation managers continually reflecting on engagement outcomes and adapting practices based on prior learnings.

Suggested Citation

  • Dare, Melanie (Lain) & Schirmer, Jacki & Vanclay, Frank, 2011. "Does forest certification enhance community engagement in Australian plantation management?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 328-337, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:13:y:2011:i:5:p:328-337
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993411100030X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1973 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Lars Gulbrandsen, 2005. "The Effectiveness of Non-State Governance Schemes: A Comparative Study of Forest Certification in Norway and Sweden," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 125-149, June.
    3. John Parkins, 2006. "De-centering environmental governance: A short history and analysis of democratic processes in the forest sector of Alberta, Canada," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(2), pages 183-202, June.
    4. Genevieve Carruthers & Frank Vanclay, 2007. "Enhancing the social content of environmental management systems in Australian agriculture," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(3), pages 326-340.
    5. Siry, Jacek P. & Cubbage, Frederick W. & Ahmed, Miyan Rukunuddin, 2005. "Sustainable forest management: global trends and opportunities," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 551-561, May.
    6. Cashore, Benjamin & Auld, Graeme & Newsom, Deanna, 2003. "Forest certification (eco-labeling) programs and their policy-making authority: explaining divergence among North American and European case studies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 225-247, September.
    7. David E. Hawkins, 2006. "Corporate Social Responsibility," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-62581-5, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. E. Ingrid Putten & Elizabeth Pinkard & Anthony O’Grady & Rebecca K. Schmidt & Ian Cresswell & Vincent Raoult & Matt D. Taylor, 2021. "Stakeholder perspectives on the value proposition of enterprise-level natural capital accounting for three primary industries," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 541-555, December.
    2. Degnet, Mohammed B. & van der Werf, Edwin & Ingram, Verina & Wesseler, Justus, 2022. "Community perceptions: A comparative analysis of community participation in forest management: FSC-certified and non-certified plantations in Mozambique," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    3. Kalonga, Severin Kusonyola & Kulindwa, Kassim Athumani, 2017. "Does forest certification enhance livelihood conditions? Empirical evidence from forest management in Kilwa District, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 49-61.
    4. Pablo Rodrigo & Ignacio J. Duran, 2021. "Why Does Context Really Matter? Understanding Companies’ Dialogue with Fringe Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-26, January.
    5. Teitelbaum, Sara & Wyatt, Stephen, 2013. "Is forest certification delivering on First Nation issues? The effectiveness of the FSC standard in advancing First Nations' rights in the boreal forests of Ontario and Quebec, Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 23-33.
    6. Tricallotis, Marcos & Gunningham, Neil & Kanowski, Peter, 2018. "The impacts of forest certification for Chilean forestry businesses," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 82-91.
    7. Busscher, Nienke & Parra, Constanza & Vanclay, Frank, 2018. "Land grabbing within a protected area: The experience of local communities with conservation and forestry activities in Los Esteros del Iberá, Argentina," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 572-582.
    8. Stephen Wyatt & Sara Teitelbaum, 2020. "Certifying a state forestry agency in Quebec: Complementarity and conflict around government responsibilities, indigenous rights, and certification of the state as forest manager," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 551-567, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. So, Hau Wing & Lafortezza, Raffaele, 2022. "Reviewing the impacts of eco-labelling of forest products on different dimensions of sustainability in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    2. Stephen Wyatt & Sara Teitelbaum, 2020. "Certifying a state forestry agency in Quebec: Complementarity and conflict around government responsibilities, indigenous rights, and certification of the state as forest manager," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 551-567, July.
    3. Teitelbaum, Sara & Wyatt, Stephen, 2013. "Is forest certification delivering on First Nation issues? The effectiveness of the FSC standard in advancing First Nations' rights in the boreal forests of Ontario and Quebec, Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 23-33.
    4. Alba Rocio Gutierrez Garzon & Pete Bettinger & Jacek Siry & Bin Mei & Jesse Abrams, 2019. "The Terms Foresters and Planners in the United States Use to Infer Sustainability in Forest Management Plans: A Survey Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof & Shkaruba, Anton, 2018. "Governance and legitimacy of the Forest Stewardship Council certification in the national contexts – A comparative study of Belarus and Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 180-188.
    6. Hubert Paluš & Ján Parobek & Rastislav Šulek & Ján Lichý & Jaroslav Šálka, 2018. "Understanding Sustainable Forest Management Certification in Slovakia: Forest Owners’ Perception of Expectations, Benefits and Problems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    7. Jens Heidingsfelder & Markus Beckmann, 2020. "A governance puzzle to be solved? A systematic literature review of fragmented sustainability governance," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 355-390, August.
    8. Eero Palmujoki, 2009. "Global principles for sustainable biofuel production and trade," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 135-151, May.
    9. John R Parkins & A John Sinclair, 2014. "Patterns of Elitism within Participatory Environmental Governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(4), pages 746-761, August.
    10. Morgan, Edward A. & Buckwell, Andrew & Guidi, Caterina & Garcia, Beatriz & Rimmer, Lawrence & Cadman, Tim & Mackey, Brendan, 2022. "Capturing multiple forest ecosystem services for just benefit sharing: The Basket of Benefits Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    11. Kadam, Parag & Dwivedi, Puneet & Karnatz, Caroline, 2021. "Mapping convergence of sustainable forest management systems: Comparing three protocols and two certification schemes for ascertaining the trends in global forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    12. Wang, Quan-Jing & Sun, Yi-Hong, 2022. "The impact of governmental ideology on forest preservation: Evidence from cross-country data," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    13. Nikolina Markota Vukic & Mislav Ante Omazic & Ana Aleksic, 2019. "Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy and Reporting: Overview of Practice in Selected European Countries," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 17(2-B), pages 355-367.
    14. Gilles Grolleau & Lisette Ibanez & Naoufel Mzoughi & Mario Teisl, 2016. "Helping eco-labels to fulfil their promises," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(6), pages 792-802, August.
    15. Sikka, Prem, 2011. "Accounting for human rights: The challenge of globalization and foreign investment agreements," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 22(8), pages 811-827.
    16. Herman Lelieveldt, 2020. "Out of tune or well tempered? How competition agencies direct the orchestrating state," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 465-480, July.
    17. Peter Konhäusner, 2021. "Crowdsourcing in Sustainable Retail—A Theoretical Framework of Success Criteria," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-21, February.
    18. Jose‐Manuel Prado‐Lorenzo & Isabel Gallego‐Alvarez & Isabel M. Garcia‐Sanchez, 2009. "Stakeholder engagement and corporate social responsibility reporting: the ownership structure effect," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 94-107, March.
    19. Wang, Sen & Wilson, Bill, 2007. "Pluralism in the economics of sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 743-750, April.
    20. Lee, Donna J. & Adams, Damian C. & Kim, C.S., 2009. "Managing invasive plants on public conservation forestlands: Application of a bio-economic model," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 237-243, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:13:y:2011:i:5:p:328-337. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.