Publication: Evaluation of the impacts of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification of natural forest management in the tropics: a rigorous approach to assessment of a complex conservation intervention
Evaluation of the impacts of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification of natural forest management in the tropics: a rigorous approach to assessment of a complex conservation intervention
| dc.contributor.author | Romero, C. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Sills, Erin O. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Guariguata, M.R. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Cerutti, P.O. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Lescuyer, G. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Putz, F. E. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:58:13Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:58:13Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/1040 | |
| dc.title | Evaluation of the impacts of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification of natural forest management in the tropics: a rigorous approach to assessment of a complex conservation intervention | en |
| dcterms.abstract | After more than 20 years and substantial investments of time and money, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification of tropical forest management is due for a stringent impact evaluation. For any social, ecological, and economic outcomes to be attributed to FSC certification, rival explanations need to be ruled out. We recognize that different types of knowledge about FSC impacts derived from information gathered through a range of methods can satisfy the evidence-needs of different stakeholders. But this paper describes a roadmap based on rigorous methods to assess whether FSC certification delivers on its expected outcomes and the underlying mechanisms through which changes can be attributable to FSC. To this end, background studies that provide contextual knowledge related to implementation of FSC certification are proposed to account for any positive self-selection biases and to capture the temporal dynamics of certification including changes in the sociopolitical and economic contexts that influence certification decisions. | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Open access | |
| dcterms.bibliographicCitation | Romero, C., Sills, E.O., Guariguata, M.R., Cerutti, P.O., Lescuyer, G. and Putz, F.E., 2017. Evaluation of the impacts of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification of natural forest management in the tropics: a rigorous approach to assessment of a complex conservation intervention. International Forestry Review, 19(4), pp.36-49. | en |
| dcterms.issued | 2017 | |
| dcterms.language | en | |
| dcterms.license | CC-BY-4.0 | en |
| dcterms.type | Journal Article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
| fsc.focus.forestType | Natural Forest | |
| fsc.focus.forestZone | Tropical | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.funderType | Mixed sources | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.coverage.geographicLevel | Region | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | No | |
| is.evaluation.notes | This paper describes a roadmap based on rigorous methods to assess whether FSC certification delivers on its expected outcomes and the underlying mechanisms through which changes can be attributable to FSC.' Strong focus on methodology, demonstrating shortcomings of much of the certification impacts research being done to date and suggesting better ways. It also lists a number of impediments to robust evaluation of FSC that are quite political; i.e. donor fatigue, or the fear of stakeholders to end up with potentially 'unwanted' results. Strong plea for 'independent research'. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Both whether an FMU opts to try for FSC certification and whether it achieves that goal are both likely related to factors that also influence the outcomes of interest, which are the quality and extent of forest cover, the well-being of local populations, timber profits and their distribution, and governance issues. Thus, in order to estimate counterfactual outcomes, a certified FMU cannot simply be compared with any non-certified FMU. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | And because involvement in certification is an on-going process and not a one-time choice, decisions made over time by FMUs along the certification continuum need to be documented and related to the nature of FSC implementation processes in a given country. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | In addition to expected improvements in management practices, certified firms reportedly have enhanced learning and transparency, increased public confidence and social acceptance, social welfare improvement, and greater environmental responsibility (Araujo et al. 2009, Cubbage et al. 2010, Vidal and Kozak 2008). | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | There are various reasons why FSC remains to be evaluated rigorously with independently collected field data. First of all,rigorous evaluation was not planned for when the intervention was designed, which means that baseline data were not collected before its implementation and specification of the mechanisms of change and factors that might affect selfselectionwere not considered (Craigie et al. 2015). Even with perfect foresight, it would remain difficult to disentangle the effects of FSC certification from many potential confounding factors. The counterfactual method approach to impact evaluation, which is relatively new in conservation, can help elucidate impacts, but it is challenging to implement well (Andam et al. 2008, Ferraro et al. 2011, Miteva et al. 2012, Pfaff and Robalino 2012, Pfaff et al. 2013). | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Even with the thorough background research we describe, it will be challenging to differentiate between FSC's direct and indirect impacts. For example, the three-pillared structure of the FSC, with its social, business, and environmental chambers, as well as its equal representation of the global “north” and “south,” are much-mimicked. Similarly, although the FSC was certainly not the first to initiate thirdparty audits, by doing so it influenced the design of other conservation interventions. Even more broadly, the FSC helped gain credence for conservation based on sustainable forest management, which will be a challenging impact to measure. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Given the costs of evaluations and the high stakes, evaluators should be independent and unbiased researchers withoutpreferences about the outcomes of the assessment (GAO 2009, Gertler et al. 2011, Perrin 2012, PROFOR and FAO 2011, Stern et al. 2012). This need for independence is widely recognized in policy circles but is often a challenge because the parties most interested in having an intervention evaluated are often those who are most closely involved. Demonstrated independence of the evaluation process can also enhance the probability of utilization of the knowledge gained and thus boost its potential to influence policies and actions (Bamberger 2009). | |
| is.evidenceSubType | Descriptive information - contextual and operational | |
| is.evidenceType | Descriptive information | |
| is.extent.number | 2 | |
| is.extent.volume | 19 | |
| is.focus.products | #NAME? | |
| is.focus.sdg | SDG 15 - Life on Land | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Social | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| is.focus.sustainIssue | Forests and other ecosystems | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Audits and assurance | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Deforestation and forest protection | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
| is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
| is.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1505/146554817822295902 | |
| is.identifier.fscdoi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international607 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.item.reviewStatus | Peer reviewed | |
| is.journalName | International Forestry Review |