Ingrid Visseren-Hamakers, Wageningen University – Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, The Netherlands

Philipp Pattberg, VU University Amsterdam – Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), The Netherlands

In the face of systemic transformations of the earth system and mounting evidence that a number of planetary boundaries have already been crossed [1], effective and equitable governance is becoming a key challenge for academics and policy makers. [2] It is widely accepted that problem solving has to be pursued at all levels of the political system, from local to global, and beyond the confines of the state and public policies.

In this context, sustainability certification is often hailed as a panacea for various environmental externalities, and is becoming an institutionalized governance approach to sustainable development. Certification standards have been developed for a wide variety of resources, including fisheries, timber, coffee and palm oil, aiming to improve their social and/or environmental performance. In this context, certification is regarded as one of the primary drivers of private or hybrid (public-private) market-based sustainability governance. [3]

However, the effectiveness of certification standards is increasingly contested. While the case of marine fisheries certification is a recent prominent example [4], we contend, however, that the problem is much broader. In other areas, such as forestry, the effectiveness of certification is also increasingly debated. It seems that after the substantive increase in certification over the last two decades, the time has now come to critically reflect on the real and measurable added value of certification for the sustainability transition.

Global forest certification standards, like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Certification Schemes (PEFC) are among the oldest sustainability standards worldwide. Despite this relatively long experience with forest certification, no systematic global assessment of forest-related standards has been performed until today. The available knowledge is scattered and incomplete.

Building on earlier literature reviews, we have examined existing academic and policy-oriented assessments of forest certification standards. [5] Reviewing this literature, we identify the following key challenges: (a) Substantially improving the current knowledge base on the effectiveness of (forest) certification standards requires to go beyond desk-based assessments. (b) To fully comprehend the governance effects of (forest) certification standards, it is necessary to analyze the broader environmental, economic and social impacts beyond standard-uptake (the number of producers becoming certified) and compliance. (c) To place (forest) certification standards in the broader context of current transformations of global environmental governance from state-based to private and hybrid forms of governance [6], more attention should be directed towards the political nature of existing assessments and the hidden agendas of the actors involved. Consequently, we argue that a global unified assessment of sustainability certification standards is urgently required.

The paper reality of forest certification

Despite the relatively large number of evaluations that have been published on the effectiveness of forest certification, the most striking observation is the fact that the large majority of studies are desk-studies. We only found one recent scientific field study that measures the effectiveness of forest certification on the ground. [7]

All other studies reviewed for this forum incorporate only indirect evidence from the field. A popular research method in this context is studying the published audit reports, which include so-called Corrective Action Requests, the issues on which the forest manager has to improve in order to become or remain certified. As a consequence, however, this method directs attention towards the FSC, since it publishes more information on individual audits than its direct competitor, the PEFC. [8] Another handful of publications is predominantly based on interviews and/or questionnaires among forest managers, and incorporates only indirect information on actual on-the-ground impacts. [9]

While a number of studies [10] compare different certification schemes, little is known about the differences among the standards on the ground. Our review also shows that exact sciences and social sciences hardly ever collaborate in forest certification evaluations, although forest certification incorporates economic, social and ecological issues, necessitating a multi-disciplinary approach.

While a majority of studies cautiously conclude that certification has some positive impacts [11], most researchers agree that additional research is needed, and that information on the effectiveness of certification standards on the ground is lacking [12].

Effects beyond compliance

Besides a few exceptions [13], studies that have looked at the effectiveness of certification standards in and beyond forestry focus on questions of standard-uptake, rule-imple¬mentation, compliance, and the institutional complementarities between international and domestic settings of certification [14]. Analyses focusing on the rate of stan¬dard-up¬take and rule-compliance run the risk of concluding that certification standards as examples of transnational rules and norms are epiphenomenona and can largely be neglected in accounts of world politics.

Resembling many of the assumptions encountered in the international re¬gimes literature on effectiveness and compliance of intergovernmental treaties, asking questions about rule-implementation and compliance seems to be a justified and straightforward approach. [15] However, this strategy has a number of weaknesses.

First, the focus on the direct effects deriving from certification standards potentially overlooks sub¬stantial effects that are normative, cognitive, structural as well as unintended, which go significantly beyond rule-imple¬menta¬tion and compliance issues. As a result of this blind spot, scholars may system¬atically underestimate the impor¬tance of certification standards in world politics. And second, as a consequence of this narrow view, the question of variation in effectiveness of (forest) certification standards has largely been con¬fined to the question of firm-level choices when accounting for different standard-uptakes and growth rates, while the answer may lay elsewhere. [16]

To overcome this limitation of previous assessments, research efforts should prioritize the following aspects: (i) measuring the effectiveness of certification standards at local (i.e. Forest Management Unit), landscape and national levels; (ii) including both direct and indirect effects of certification as well as analyzing the unintended consequences with regard to economic, social and environmental indicators; (iii) comparing the effectiveness of different standards within and across geographical regions; (iv) the realization that the effectiveness of certification cannot be assessed without taking national and sub-national legislation into account; and (v) the question of how to separate the influences of certification standards from other factors, such as macro-economic currents or governmental policy.

The politicized nature of assessments

During the last two decades, organizations involved in the forestry debate have developed into two broad coalitions, either supporting the FSC or the rival PEFC scheme. While most environmental and social NGOs as well as several industry actors favor FSC, forest owners and the majority of the industry – often backed-up by national governments – prefer the PEFC. Over the years, these coalitions have been involved in a paralyzing ‘trench war’, in which they compete for dominance of ‘their’ scheme. [17]

It is important to realize that these actors use sustainability evaluations to support their own arguments. A significant part of the evaluation literature therefore cannot be seen as objective. These policy-oriented assessments include evaluations by NGOs, industry associations, research institutes, consultancies, governments and, finally, by the standard organizations themselves. While NGO assessments predominantly focus on shortcomings and failures of certification in specific regions [18] or compare different certification standards [19], industry assessments aim to show the commonalities among the schemes [20]. The overviews provided by the certification schemes themselves advocate the sustainability of their own standard. [21]

Of particular interest are governmental assessments of the different standards that inform governmental procurement policies. [22] Many governments have set targets for buying sustainably produced timber, and therefore require an objective ‘yardstick’ to decide which schemes comply with the government’s definition of sustainable forest management. In the UK and in the Netherlands, for example, government advisory bodies decided in 2010 that both the FSC and PEFC meet their sustainability requirements (although there is still an appeal against this decision in the Netherlands). With these government assessments, market-based governance instruments receive formal governmental recognition, thereby further politicizing certification.

Conclusion

Overall, we have to conclude that with the overwhelming number of desk-studies, a paper reality has been created in which the effectiveness of forest certification seems well known. Some of the desk-studies are, at the most, based on indirect evidence from the field. These studies, however, do not systematically assess the impact of certification on the ground, such as the long-term impacts on biodiversity. We therefore must agree with those researchers who have concluded that “We simply don’t know” [23] whether forest certification is sustainable.

An increasing number of actors is depending on sustainability certification, including governments, international organizations, corporations, and civil society. Market-based instruments are currently often preferred over governmental policy. [24] Therefore it is of prime importance to remedy the existing shortcomings in our knowledge base on the sustainability of certification. Our analysis of forest certification also raises questions about the knowledge base of the sustainability of certification schemes for other products. We contend that the problem of a paper reality extends well beyond forest certification.

In sum, accurate assessments of the overall environmental, social and economic effectiveness and unintended consequences of forest certification standards are urgently needed. These assessments should include contributions from both the natural and social sciences. The research is necessary to inform the debates on the effectiveness of forest certification standards and government procurement policies. It can also contribute to the ongoing debate on the risks, opportunities, and consequences of the current institutionalization of sustainability certification as the main alternative to state-based problem solving. It is high time for a global assessment of sustainability certification.

Notes