Certification Schemes and the Impacts on Forests and Forestry

Abstract

Certification schemes have emerged in recent years to become a significant and innovative venue for standard setting and governance in the environmental realm. This review examines these schemes in the forest sector where, arguably, their development is among the most advanced of the sustainability labeling initiatives. Beginning with the origins, history, and features of schemes, the review synthesizes and assesses what we know about the direct effects and broader consequences of forest certification. Bearing in mind underlying factors affecting producers' decisions to certify, direct effects are examined by describing the uptake of schemes, the improvements to management of audited forests, and the ameliorative potential of certification for landscape-level concerns such as deforestation and forest protection. In assessing broader consequences, we look beyond the instrument itself to detail positive and negative unintended consequences, spillover effects, and longer-term and slow-moving effects that flow from the emergence of the certification innovation.

We Can't See the Forest for the TreesThe Environmental Impact of Global Forest Certification Is Unknown

“…While a majority of studies cautiously conclude that certification has some positive impacts (Sverdrup-Thygeson et al 2008, Cubbage 2010, Gulbrandsen 2005, Gullison 2003, Newsom and Hewitt 2005, Newsom et al 2006, Nussbaum and Simula 2004, Rametsteiner and Simula 2003, Van Kuijk et al 2009, WWF 2005, most researchers agree that additional research is needed, and that information on the effectiveness of certification standards on the ground is lacking (Auld et al 2008, Ozinga 2004, Peña-Claros et al 2009). Clark and Kozar (2011), authors of a meta-analysis on the impact of forest certification on sustainable forest management practices, conclude: "Despite their existence for more than a decade, little is known about how well forest certification systems achieve their SFM [sustainable forest management] goals.…”

“…Building on earlier literature reviews (Auld et al 2008, Karmann and Smith 2009, Clark and Kozar 2011, we have examined over 40 academic and 50 policy-oriented assessments of forest certification standards. We have studied assessments from both the natural and the social sciences.…”

Impacts of nonstate, market-driven governance on Chilean forests

“…Most ex-post evaluations of NSMD governance in the forestry sector have focused on the legitimacy of the decisionmaking process rather than on the environmental outcomes of the regime (18). Clear assessments of the environmental impacts of this new form of environmental governance are lacking (8,16,19,20), due in part to the short history of NSMD governance and confounding effects of broader market dynamics and government policies (9). Previous assessments generally failed to meet basic standards of rigor such as comparison with a credible control (21).…”

Eco-certification of Farmed Seafood: Will it Make a Difference?

“…The environmental and social criteria for compliance in the inclusive schemes are generally less strict than in the ''gold standard'' type, but may instead include a larger share of the sector. Experiences from other commodities have shown that schemes with less stringent criteria tend to attract a larger group of producers (Auld et al 2008;Kalfagianni and Pattberg 2013). The aim of eco-certification of aquaculture could thus either be to guide toward strong environmental sustainability by promoting the best performers and production systems, and/or to work as a tool to improve practices for a larger share of the sector.…”