Forest Policy and Economics | 2019

The participation of non-industrial private forest owners in forest certification programs: The role and effectiveness of intermediary organisations

 
 

Abstract


Abstract Group forest certification programs are a relatively new policy tool designed to enhance the inclusion of small-holder foresters in forest certification systems. However, our understanding of the institutional arrangements that facilitate the participation of small-holder foresters in certification programs is limited. We assessed the role and effectiveness of intermediary organisations in promoting the participation of Non-Industrial Private Forest Owners (NIPFOs) in a forest management certification program. We focused on the Eastern Ontario Model Forest (EOMF) – an intermediary organization in Canada – which facilitates the certification of NIPFOs in a group certification program. We employed a mixed method approach involving questionnaires, document review, semi-structured interviews, and direct observations. Our findings show that the EOMF s role in the certification of NIPFOs falls under three broad categories and program implementation phases. These are program design and implementation (early-phase), routine administrative and organisational work (take-off phase), and organisational and financial sustainability (long-term phase). Across the different phases of the program, attributes of the EOMF that enhanced its effectiveness were its capacity to (a) build social capital and run the certification at relatively low cost, (b) optimize the program to provide services required by landowners, and (c) innovate to respond to stakeholder demands. However, poor market benefits, instability in donor funding and perceived inequity in group dynamics limit the EOMF s effectiveness. Intermediaries are important not only to reduce the challenges that limit the participation of small-holders in certification but also in optimizing certification to better respond to the needs and interests of small-holder operators.

Volume 100
Pages 154-163
DOI 10.1016/J.FORPOL.2018.12.006
Language English
Journal Forest Policy and Economics

Full Text