世界森林认证的发展现状及对中国森林认证的启示

森林认证是一种基于对森林产品市场贸易的监管达到保护森林资源和提高森林管理的机制。自从20世纪90年代初第一个森林认证体系（FSC认证体系）问世以来,世界上已有50多个森林认证体系,这些认证体系对世界森林开展了不同形式的认证工作,目前已被认证的森林面积超过300×104 km2。中国第一个森林认证始于2002年,但发展较为缓慢。本文在分析世界森林认证现状的基础上,对中国的森林认证提出了几点建议。     

关于建立我国森林认证体系的思考

鉴于我国目前建立森林认证体系的必要性和紧迫性,提出在建立我国森林认证体系的过程中,必须吸收森林经营单位和非政府组织参加;我国森林认证体系应高标准,严要求,分步走;尽量做到与国外森林认证体系互认;对国外森林认证机构在我国开展森林认证在现阶段应采取扶持与鼓励政策;对我国出口木质林产品考虑改革现有出口退税政策的建议。     

森林认证实施现状与趋势分析

森林认证自提出以来便在全球获得了快速发展, 其中以森林管理委员会的FSC体系和森林认证认可计划(PEFC)影响最大。文中在分析主要森林认证体系的基础上, 通过研究FSC和PEFC的实施情况, 指出目前森林认证在全球范围内的发展趋势:森林认证的实施集中在发达国家, 之后在向发展中国家转移过程中出现了减缓甚至停滞的趋势。     

森林认证与黑龙江森工林区的可持续发展

本文讨论了森林认证与森工林区可持续发展的关系，介绍了森林认证的基本情况，认为森林认证是市场经济下促进森工林区可持续发展的有效机制。研究、引入、创建符合森工林区可持续发展要求的森林认证体系意义重大。     

世界森林认证体系评估与比较

对目前世界上正在运作的10个全球和国家森林认证体系进行了简单的介绍、评估和比较，在此基础上提出了我国发展森林认证的建议。     

英国接受5种森林认证体系

据热带木材组织（ITTO）2007年1月26日报道，英国木材专业技术中心（CPET）对全世界5个不同的森林认证体系进行严格评估后，宣布接受这些认证系统。这5个森林认证体系为：加拿大标准协会（CSA）、森林管理委员会（FSC）、森林认证认可体系（PEFC）、可持续林业倡议（SFI）和马来西亚木材认证委员会（MTCC）。该决定使政府部门确信，     

森林认证综述

简要介绍了森林认证的概念、森林认证体系内涵与特征、主要森林认证体系和认证程序,对森林认证投入与产出情况、国内外森林认证现状与认证产品市场进行了分析。从政府采购政策和ENGO的作用两个方面分析了森林认证的原动力;阐述了森林认证发展态势和面临的挑战。     

加拿大2003年森林认证发展迅速

加拿大2003年的认证森林面积增加了1倍，达到5600万hm^2。其认证体系主要有：林业委员会(FSC)体系、     

森林认证现状与发展趋势

通过分析最新的有关森林认证的研究资料,综述了森林认证产生的背景和起源、现状、认证体系及进展.森林认证是20世纪90年代初逐步发展起来的由环境非政府组织和民间组织发起、作为促进森林可持续经营的一种市场机制.目前共有两大全球认证体系(森林管理委员会(FSC)和ISO14001环境管理体系),两大区域认证体系(泛欧森林认证体系(PEFC)与泛非森林认证体系(PAFC))和10多个国家的认证体系正在运作.森林认证将是全球林业经营的主要模式.     

环保团体抗议英国政府接受存在问题的森林认证体系

2006年12月，英国咨询机构木材专业技术中心（CPET）对森林管理委员会（FSC）、加拿大标准协会（CSA）、可持续林业倡议（SFI）、森林认证认可体系（PEFC）、马来西亚木材认证委员会（MTCC）和澳大利亚森林标准（AFS）6个不同的森林认证体系进行严格评估后，宣布接受这些认证体系。该决定使得英国政府部门确信，通过这6个不同森林认证体系认证的木材来源都是可靠的。[第一段]     

中葡非木质林产品认证标准比较

中国森林认证体系与葡萄牙森林认证体系均为PEFC认可的森林认证体系,中葡2国是通过PEFC认证的非木质林产品经营单位数量最多的2个国家。文中对中葡2国的森林认证体系、非木质林产品认证相关标准及认证程序进行了比较,发现2国认证体系在标准结构、认证程序、认证不符合项的整改时间、证书的有效期方面存在差异,但认证标准在内容上均有相对应的条款;研究结果可为中国森林认证体系的改进以及非木质林产品经营单位选择认证体系及认证机构提供参考。     

Comparing management schemes for forest certification and timber-legality verification: Complementary or competitive in indonesia?

Indonesian small-scale forest holders are facing a dilemma due to the implementation of a mandatory national timber-legality verification scheme and an internationally popular forest certification scheme. The problems arise from limited financial, technical, and administrative information concerning the most preferred scheme and the “imperfection of such a scheme” for long-term business needs. Using the Forest Certification Assessment Guide (FCAG) this paper identifies the characteristics of four third-party forest certification schemes currently working in Indonesia, namely FSC, PEFC, LEI, and SVLK. An online questionnaire was used to survey a wide range of respondents about the future development of contested schemes and those preferred by small-scale forest holders. Our findings show that although FSC scheme obtained the highest score and is considered the best scheme according to the FCAG, small-scale forest holders prefer SVLK scheme, which had the lowest FCAG score because of its mandatory nature and available subsidies. Statements by the four schemes’ proponents, which delegitimize other schemes, reveal they are in competition especially in winning market acceptance and local adaptability. Finally, we suggest proponents enhance aspects where their schemes are lacking and contrive a comparable certification scheme in order to induce willingness to be certified.     

主要森林认证体系标准制定程序比较研究

针对主要森林认证体系标准制定程序进行比较研究,为制定符合我国国情和林情的森林认证标准提供借鉴。本文选择了森林管理委员会体系、森林认证认可计划体系、加拿大标准化协会体系和美国可持续林业倡议体系作为研究对象。研究结果表明,森林管理委员会体系标准制定程序的利益方参与性和透明度都较高,其他3个体系标准制定程序的利益方参与性不足,透明度较差。     

Why Brazilian companies are certifying their forests?

The paper examines the two forest certification schemes in Brazil, the Brazilian Program of Forest Certification (Cerflor) and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), from the private sector perspective. The main focus is to test the relevance of three mechanisms—market, learning, and signaling—suggested by Overdevest and Rickenbach (2006), to explain forest certification adoption by Brazilian companies. Furthermore, companies' familiarity with certification systems, external influences on pursuing forest certification, and companies' intention to recertify their forests are investigated. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) suggests that signaling and learning mechanisms lead to better and more transparent forest management, explaining the movement towards certification, but market incentives do not play an important role in the adoption of forest certification. An importance and performance analysis (IPA) demonstrates that companies do not see any return in terms of a better price for certified products; however, certificate holders indicated overall high satisfaction with market access. Interestingly, a high performance was found for non-economic benefits such as public confidence, improvement of forest management and practices, improvement of management systems and performance, self-discovery of non-conformance, and better public, landowner, and supplier communication. International consumers and shareholders were considered the most important groups influencing companies to seek certification and FSC was reported to be the most familiar scheme. Generally, companies were pleased with certification and indicated their intention to recertify.     

Adaptive risk management for certifiably sustainable forestry

The past decade has seen a global surge in forest management certification, with over 200 million hectares of the world's forest now certified as sustainably harvested. Because forests are some of the most species-rich environments on earth and more than 90% of the world's forests occur outside formal protected area systems, forest management certification will be one of the pervasive influences on global biodiversity for the foreseeable future. We find that current forest certification schemes are largely deficient because they fail to demand: (i) measurable management objectives for biodiversity, (ii) formal risk assessment of competing management options that integrate impacts on biodiversity, (iii) monitoring that directly addresses management performance requirements and a clear plan for how monitoring information will be used to make better management decisions, and (iv) ongoing research targeted toward practices that enhance biodiversity in managed landscapes. We argue that the credibility of certification schemes hinges on their ability to dictate scientifically defensible management systems for biodiversity conservation. We present a framework for adaptive risk management (ARM) of biodiversity that is both responsibly proactive and diligently reactive and recommend its incorporation in all certification schemes. We highlight the need for substantial government and agency investment in fostering ARM.     

森林认证的现状与发展趋势

森林认证出现于20世纪90年代初,10年来,森林认证在全球范围内取得了快速的发展。文中介绍了森林认证的起源和发展现状,指出了森林认证的发展趋势,并对我国开展森林认证提出了建议。     

非木质林产品认证发展现状

对比现有的非木质林产品认证标准,分析当前非木质林产品认证现状,提出对我国发展非木质林产品认证的几点建议,包括完善非木质林产品认证标准、推进非木质林产品认证标准的国际互认、优先发展有市场前景产品的认证和加强对非木质林产品认证的宣传等。