Forest Stewardship Council and Responsible Wood certification in the integrated pest management in Australian forest plantations
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
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:29462024-08-05T20:41:45.027326Repositório 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_ |
1808129234708725760 |