Publication:
Standardizing sustainable development? The Forest Stewardship Council's plantation policy review process as neoliberal environmental governance

dc.contributor.authorKlooster, D.
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-23T18:57:41Z
dc.date.available2022-01-23T18:57:41Z
dc.identifier.urihttps://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/967
dc.titleStandardizing sustainable development? The Forest Stewardship Council's plantation policy review process as neoliberal environmental governanceen
dcterms.accessRightsPublic
dcterms.accessRightsLimited access
dcterms.issued2010
dcterms.languageen
dcterms.typeJournal Article
dspace.entity.typePublication
fsc.evidenceCategoryFSC impact-related
fsc.focus.forestTypePlantation
fsc.focus.sustainDimensionPolitical, legal, systemic
fsc.subjectEcological Impacts
fsc.subjectForests
fsc.subjectSocial Impacts
fsc.subjectCertification
fsc.subjectEconomic Impacts
fsc.subjectUSA
fsc.subjectCanada
fsc.subjectNorth America
fsc.topic.politicalGovernance
fsc.topic.politicalNon-State Market Regulation
is.availability.fullTextFull text available
is.contributor.memberForest Stewardship Council
is.coverage.geographicLevelGlobal
is.evaluation.collectionLiterature review
is.evaluation.counterfactsNo
is.evaluation.quotesTrans-nationally-scaled, multi-stakeholder product certification systems are emerging as important elements of neoliberal environmental governance.
is.evaluation.quotesIn the case of the FSC process for review of plantation standards, a globalized certification projectunexpectedly maintains important venues for democratic participationand the initial recommendations resulting from this processcall for increased attention to social issues. However, calls to drasticallyincrease the proportion of certifications going to communitygroups were dropped, calls from some groups to cease or curtailthe certification of plantations were not heeded, and support forthe FSC is diminished in some quarters.
is.evaluation.quotesThis article examines The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) process to revise tree plantation certification standards.First, it considers the political process surrounding standard-setting and argues that tensionsbetween rigor, legitimacy, and acceptability restrain the political struggles over standards within voluntary,multi-stakeholder environmental governance organizations. It proffers findings at odds with theexpectation that mainstreaming diminishes the rigor of social and environmental standards.
is.evaluation.quotesIt took the FSC nearly 3 years to negotiate the final set of criteriaand indicators. According to an observer and advocate (Conroy,2007, p. 84), the result was not necessarily the scientifically best,environmentally strongest, or socially the most ideal set of standards.It was, however, the strongest set of standards that couldbe developed politically, with balanced representation of economic,social, and environmental interests.
is.evaluation.quotesThe FSC adopted a plantation review process that was explicitlyparticipatory, engaging social, environmental and economic stakeholdersin an international review.
is.evaluation.quotesInclusive participation is a central feature of the FSC system, and a clearpart of the strategy to maintain external legitimacy.
is.evidenceTypeSynthesis paper
is.extent.pages117-129
is.extent.volume41
is.focus.sectorsAgriculture
is.focus.sectorsForestry
is.focus.systemElementMandE outcomes and impacts
is.focus.systemElementMandE performance monitoring
is.identifier.codeImpacts
is.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.02.006
is.identifier.fscdoihttp://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international400
is.identifier.schemeNameForest Stewardship Council
is.identifier.schemeTypeVoluntary Sustainability Standards
is.item.reviewStatusPeer reviewed
is.journalNameGeoforum
Download
Collections