4.5 Article

Does forest certification enhance livelihood conditions? Empirical evidence from forest management in Kilwa District, Tanzania

Journal

FOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS
Volume 74, Issue -, Pages 49-61

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.11.001

Keywords

Forest resources; Household economy; Green economy; Forest governance; Mixed methods; Theory of change

Funding

  1. Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation (CCIAM) Programme in Tanzania

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) forest management certification standards have been promoted to contribute to community livelihood conditions. However, little has been done to evaluate it quantitatively. Employing theory of change, this study assesses and compares empirical evidence of the influence of the FSC forest management certification approach to enhance livelihood conditions in Kilwa, Tanzania, by using economic valuation methods and governance indicators. This is achieved through a comparative study of villages with certified community forests (FSC) under community based forest management and those without (non-FSC). Results show that annual average household forest income from FSC-certified forests is significantly higher than that of households in non-FSC-certified forests. With reference to rule compliance as an indicator of good governance, implementation of forest bylaws in villages managing FSC-certified forests is significantly more effective than villages in non-FSC-certified forests. These findings provide an insight into the influence of forest certification in enhancing livelihood conditions and that the incorporation of FSC standards into forest policies may lead to more enhancement of livelihood conditions. These findings serve as a baseline for further research on the effects of forest certification at both spatial and temporal scales. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available