Forest Stewardship Council and Responsible Wood certification in the integrated pest management in Australian forest plantations

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Lemes, Pedro G.
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Zanuncio, José C., Jacovine, Laércio A.G., Wilcken, Carlos F. [UNESP], Lawson, Simon A.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102541
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/233196
Resumo: Certification programs may include market access benefits for those business that have certified voluntarily, but there are also other consequences, such as the ban on the use of certain chemical pesticides imposed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) that can negatively affect integrated pest management. The Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) was created in response to FSC standards and includes national certification schemes such as the Responsible Wood (RW), previously known as the Australian Forestry Standard (AFS). The objective of this study was to evaluate the impacts of FSC and RW/PEFC certification on practices of integrated pest management from the perspective of Australian forest growers. Questionnaires were emailed to all organizations in Australia with forest plantations certified by FSC and/or RW/PEFC. The questionnaire addressed the importance of forest pest groups, pest control techniques, chemical pesticides (insecticides and herbicides) in derogation; the advantages and disadvantages of integrated pest management related to the certification; and satisfaction with certification in relation to pest management. The two insecticides in derogation were considered unnecessary by most of Australian growers. FSC promoted more changes in integrated pest management than RW. Half the FSC-certified companies stated that they had greater costs associated with integrated pest management to adequately meet certification. RW-certified growers were more satisfied than FSC-certified ones, but both groups stated that they would maintain certification in a scenario without further insecticide derogation. The main changes in pest management for FSC-certified companies were with preventive techniques that reduce the use and dependence on insecticides. The environmental and social side of FSC prevailed in these changes. Raising certification rigor can increase costs, making certification impracticable, forcing companies to adopt less restrictive schemes or simply not certify.
id UNSP_733cac3dae3df999d357a3cc8326fcb9
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/233196
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Forest Stewardship Council and Responsible Wood certification in the integrated pest management in Australian forest plantationsAustralian forestry standardForest entomologyPEFCPesticidesStakeholdersSustainable forestryCertification programs may include market access benefits for those business that have certified voluntarily, but there are also other consequences, such as the ban on the use of certain chemical pesticides imposed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) that can negatively affect integrated pest management. The Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) was created in response to FSC standards and includes national certification schemes such as the Responsible Wood (RW), previously known as the Australian Forestry Standard (AFS). The objective of this study was to evaluate the impacts of FSC and RW/PEFC certification on practices of integrated pest management from the perspective of Australian forest growers. Questionnaires were emailed to all organizations in Australia with forest plantations certified by FSC and/or RW/PEFC. The questionnaire addressed the importance of forest pest groups, pest control techniques, chemical pesticides (insecticides and herbicides) in derogation; the advantages and disadvantages of integrated pest management related to the certification; and satisfaction with certification in relation to pest management. The two insecticides in derogation were considered unnecessary by most of Australian growers. FSC promoted more changes in integrated pest management than RW. Half the FSC-certified companies stated that they had greater costs associated with integrated pest management to adequately meet certification. RW-certified growers were more satisfied than FSC-certified ones, but both groups stated that they would maintain certification in a scenario without further insecticide derogation. The main changes in pest management for FSC-certified companies were with preventive techniques that reduce the use and dependence on insecticides. The environmental and social side of FSC prevailed in these changes. Raising certification rigor can increase costs, making certification impracticable, forcing companies to adopt less restrictive schemes or simply not certify.Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)Instituto de Ciências Agrárias Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Av. Universitária, 1000, UniversitárioDepartamento de Entomologia/BIOAGRO Universidade Federal de ViçosaDepartamento de Engenharia Florestal Universidade Federal de ViçosaDepartamento de Proteção Vegetal Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”Forest Industries Research Centre Faculty of Arts Business and Law University of the Sunshine Coast, 90 Sippy Downs DrDepartamento de Proteção Vegetal Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”CAPES: BEX 11710/13-6Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV)Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)University of the Sunshine CoastLemes, Pedro G.Zanuncio, José C.Jacovine, Laércio A.G.Wilcken, Carlos F. [UNESP]Lawson, Simon A.2022-05-01T05:29:34Z2022-05-01T05:29:34Z2021-10-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102541Forest Policy and Economics, v. 131.1389-9341http://hdl.handle.net/11449/23319610.1016/j.forpol.2021.1025412-s2.0-85108645767Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengForest Policy and Economicsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-04-30T18:07:33Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/233196Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-04-30T18:07:33Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Forest Stewardship Council and Responsible Wood certification in the integrated pest management in Australian forest plantations
title Forest Stewardship Council and Responsible Wood certification in the integrated pest management in Australian forest plantations
spellingShingle Forest Stewardship Council and Responsible Wood certification in the integrated pest management in Australian forest plantations
Lemes, Pedro G.
Australian forestry standard
Forest entomology
PEFC
Pesticides
Stakeholders
Sustainable forestry
title_short Forest Stewardship Council and Responsible Wood certification in the integrated pest management in Australian forest plantations
title_full Forest Stewardship Council and Responsible Wood certification in the integrated pest management in Australian forest plantations
title_fullStr Forest Stewardship Council and Responsible Wood certification in the integrated pest management in Australian forest plantations
title_full_unstemmed Forest Stewardship Council and Responsible Wood certification in the integrated pest management in Australian forest plantations
title_sort Forest Stewardship Council and Responsible Wood certification in the integrated pest management in Australian forest plantations
author Lemes, Pedro G.
author_facet Lemes, Pedro G.
Zanuncio, José C.
Jacovine, Laércio A.G.
Wilcken, Carlos F. [UNESP]
Lawson, Simon A.
author_role author
author2 Zanuncio, José C.
Jacovine, Laércio A.G.
Wilcken, Carlos F. [UNESP]
Lawson, Simon A.
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV)
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
University of the Sunshine Coast
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Lemes, Pedro G.
Zanuncio, José C.
Jacovine, Laércio A.G.
Wilcken, Carlos F. [UNESP]
Lawson, Simon A.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Australian forestry standard
Forest entomology
PEFC
Pesticides
Stakeholders
Sustainable forestry
topic Australian forestry standard
Forest entomology
PEFC
Pesticides
Stakeholders
Sustainable forestry
description Certification programs may include market access benefits for those business that have certified voluntarily, but there are also other consequences, such as the ban on the use of certain chemical pesticides imposed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) that can negatively affect integrated pest management. The Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) was created in response to FSC standards and includes national certification schemes such as the Responsible Wood (RW), previously known as the Australian Forestry Standard (AFS). The objective of this study was to evaluate the impacts of FSC and RW/PEFC certification on practices of integrated pest management from the perspective of Australian forest growers. Questionnaires were emailed to all organizations in Australia with forest plantations certified by FSC and/or RW/PEFC. The questionnaire addressed the importance of forest pest groups, pest control techniques, chemical pesticides (insecticides and herbicides) in derogation; the advantages and disadvantages of integrated pest management related to the certification; and satisfaction with certification in relation to pest management. The two insecticides in derogation were considered unnecessary by most of Australian growers. FSC promoted more changes in integrated pest management than RW. Half the FSC-certified companies stated that they had greater costs associated with integrated pest management to adequately meet certification. RW-certified growers were more satisfied than FSC-certified ones, but both groups stated that they would maintain certification in a scenario without further insecticide derogation. The main changes in pest management for FSC-certified companies were with preventive techniques that reduce the use and dependence on insecticides. The environmental and social side of FSC prevailed in these changes. Raising certification rigor can increase costs, making certification impracticable, forcing companies to adopt less restrictive schemes or simply not certify.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-10-01
2022-05-01T05:29:34Z
2022-05-01T05:29:34Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102541
Forest Policy and Economics, v. 131.
1389-9341
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/233196
10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102541
2-s2.0-85108645767
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102541
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/233196
identifier_str_mv Forest Policy and Economics, v. 131.
1389-9341
10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102541
2-s2.0-85108645767
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Forest Policy and Economics
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1803047010059681792