1 / 85

Project Sponsor

Project Sponsor. Wood Supply Research Institute. Value Assessment of Certified Logger Programs Preliminary Report Gary E. Mullaney October 24, 2018. The Vision (3 minutes). Objective. Test the value proposition of Master Logger Certification Emphasize actual benefits.

shen
Download Presentation

Project Sponsor

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Project Sponsor Wood Supply Research Institute

  2. Value Assessment of Certified Logger Programs Preliminary Report Gary E. Mullaney October 24, 2018

  3. The Vision (3 minutes)

  4. Objective • Test the value proposition of Master Logger Certification • Emphasize actual benefits

  5. Taxonomy for “Value of Certification” Research * Knapp & Associates, Princeton, NJ

  6. For Later Research * Knapp & Associates, Princeton, NJ

  7. Definition of Master Logger Certification Geographic Scope

  8. Definition • Certification • “Extra Mile”, in addition • Somestates • 10 to 15 years • Modest # producers • Training • Mostly SFI driven • Allstates • Nearly 25 years • Most producers

  9. Definition / criteria • Performance standards • Firmscertified • Initial 3rd party audit • Periodic 3rd party audits

  10. IN: Five Programs ME and NH are in one program under the Trust to Conserve NE Forestlands

  11. OUT: Two programs under review KY and TN are in one program under the University of Kentucky

  12. OUT: Three states with Forest Practices Acts Lack significant distinction between MLC and training. Virtually all the producers have bothtraining and Certification. This is possible because the states do the audits, a different model.

  13. Process • National and state program coordinators • Pilot data collection program in Wisconsin* • Interviews by experienced foresters • Mostly by telephone • Some consultants and small landowners by web form * Don Peterson assisted.

  14. Participant count • Small Landowners: • Association – Maine Woodland Owners w/recent harvest • Other – forest tax law participant (MI, WI) w/recent harvest

  15. Stakeholder Perceptions for the Five Programs Combined

  16. Level of awareness – logger training

  17. Level of awareness – Master Logger Certification

  18. Level of awareness – MLC • The industry players in the program states are well aware of MLC • Small landowners not in associations have generally not heard of it

  19. Overall value perception In your view, how has the Master Logger Program affected the overall timber industry in your state?

  20. Overall value to the industry in your state

  21. Overall value to the industry in your state • Only loggers have aggregate positive view (1.07) • Small landowners are a close second at 1.00, or “breakeven” • Others are just short of “Somewhat valuable”, landing in “no significant effect”

  22. Overall value to the industry in your state

  23. Overall value to the industry in your state “Hasn’t made any real difference yet…..” • 40% of procurement managers • 25% of landowners and consultants

  24. Understanding the difference

  25. Understanding the difference • “Positioning” as a higher standard has been effective • Only about 1 in 5 fail to cite the higher standard as a defining characteristic

  26. Understanding the difference

  27. Understanding the difference • Audits were mentioned by only a third • although mills were more aware • Audits are • not central to the messaging? • not highly visible? • Confused with other field checks? • state BMP checks, SFI audits, Maine CLP

  28. For those who saw the program as valuable, which actual benefits did they most often confirm? Where’s the value?

  29. Response weighting for individual benefits “I get work referred to me that I would not hear about otherwise. As a result, I don’t have to spend as much effort looking for or bidding on jobs.” Transformed to a zero to 100 scale

  30. Highest rated benefits by loggers

  31. Most cited benefits for MLs • The 4 most endorsed benefits have to do with heightened professionalism • They relate to self-image and image in the community • Close fit between the stated ML program goals and the motivation of participating loggers

  32. Lowest rated benefits by loggers

  33. Least cited benefits for loggers • Very low agreement with “I get a premium for wood I deliver” • A little better, but still low, for “preference during quotas” • No preference on state / county lands* *Missouri is an exception

  34. Which benefits are rated in the middle by MLs?

  35. Middle cited benefits for loggers • Some degree of preference from • Small private landowners • Mills with strong FSC interest • Insurance discounts not a majority

  36. Mills (n=16)

  37. Mills cited benefits • Only consistent BMPs stands out as most often confirmed • Little distinction between the other benefits • Mills responses were dispersed, not concentrated

  38. Large Landowners (n=21)

  39. Large landowner cited benefits • Consistent BMPs once again the highest agreement • Qualityof work and environmental care • More consensus than for mills

  40. Consultants (n=38)

  41. Consultant cited benefits • Job quality and environmental performance of MLs stand out for consultants • Same perception as large landowners

  42. Small landowners (n=26)

  43. Small landowner cited benefits • Job quality and environmental performance clearly affirmed • Same as large landowners and consultants

  44. Most valued benefits • Loggers • Pride, recognition, professionalism • Modest increases in opportunity • Landowners and consultants • Job quality and environmental care • Mills • Unclear

  45. All programs combined: Two more questions

  46. Is there a “Premium” for MLs?

  47. Premium? • Surprisingly consistent • Definitely a minority view (about 1 of 4)

  48. Tested three degrees of preference • Exclusive • We work exclusively with MLs. • Preference • We prefer MLs, but will work with any logger that meets our standards. • No Preference • We do not have a preference based on ML status. Rate everyone on performance.

  49. We prefer MLs, but will work with any logger that meets…

  50. Preference • Significant indicator of certification program effectiveness • Half of small landowners and consultants (who are aware of the program) do prefer MLs • In contrast only a third of mills and large landowners

More Related