An agenda for assessing and improving conservation impacts of sustainability standards in tropical agriculture
dc.contributor.author | Milder, Jeffrey C. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Arbuthnot, Margaret | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Blackman, Allen | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Brooks, Sharon E. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Giovannucci, Daniele | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Gross, Lee | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Kennedy, Elizabeth T. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Komives, Kristin | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Lambin, Eric F. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Lee, Audrey | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Meyer, Daniel | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Newton, Peter | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Phalan, Ben | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Schroth, Götz | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Semroc, Bambi | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Rikxoort, Henk Van | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Zrust, Michal | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2015-04-02T15:12:47Z | |
dc.date.available | 2016-05-10T20:26:28Z | en |
dc.date.issued | 2015-04 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Milder, Jeffrey C.; Arbuthnot, Margaret; Blackman, Allen; Brooks, Sharon E.; Giovannucci, Daniele; Gross, Lee; Kennedy, Elizabeth T.; Komives, Kristin; Lambin, Eric F.; Lee, Audrey; Meyer, Daniel; Newton, Peter; Phalan, Ben; Schroth, Götz ; Semroc, Bambi; Rikxoort, Henk Van; Zrust, Michal (2015). "An agenda for assessing and improving conservation impacts of sustainability standards in tropical agriculture." Conservation Biology 29(2): 309-320. | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0888-8892 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1523-1739 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/110892 | |
dc.description.abstract | Sustainability standards and certification serve to differentiate and provide market recognition to goods produced in accordance with social and environmental good practices, typically including practices to protect biodiversity. Such standards have seen rapid growth, including in tropical agricultural commodities such as cocoa, coffee, palm oil, soybeans, and tea. Given the role of sustainability standards in influencing land use in hotspots of biodiversity, deforestation, and agricultural intensification, much could be gained from efforts to evaluate and increase the conservation payoff of these schemes. To this end, we devised a systematic approach for monitoring and evaluating the conservation impacts of agricultural sustainability standards and for using the resulting evidence to improve the effectiveness of such standards over time. The approach is oriented around a set of hypotheses and corresponding research questions about how sustainability standards are predicted to deliver conservation benefits. These questions are addressed through data from multiple sources, including basic common information from certification audits; field monitoring of environmental outcomes at a sample of certified sites; and rigorous impact assessment research based on experimental or quasi‐experimental methods. Integration of these sources can generate time‐series data that are comparable across sites and regions and provide detailed portraits of the effects of sustainability standards. To implement this approach, we propose new collaborations between the conservation research community and the sustainability standards community to develop common indicators and monitoring protocols, foster data sharing and synthesis, and link research and practice more effectively. As the role of sustainability standards in tropical land‐use governance continues to evolve, robust evidence on the factors contributing to effectiveness can help to ensure that such standards are designed and implemented to maximize benefits for biodiversity conservation.Una Agenda para Evaluar y Mejorar los Impactos de Conservación de los Estándares de Sustentabilidad sobre la Agricultura TropicalResumenLos estándares de sustentabilidad y de certificación sirven para diferenciar y proporcionar reconocimiento de mercado a los bienes producidos de acuerdo con las buenas prácticas sociales y ambientales e incluyen típicamente a las prácticas para proteger a la biodiversidad. Dichos estándares han tenido un rápido crecimiento, incluso en comodidades de la agricultura tropical como el cacao, el café, la palma de aceite, la soya y el té. Dado el papel de los estándares de sustentabilidad en influenciar el uso de suelo en zonas críticas de biodiversidad, deforestación e intensificación agrícola, mucho podría ganarse de los esfuerzos para evaluar e incrementar la indemnización de conservación de estas estrategias. Para este fin, diseñamos una estrategia sistemática para monitorear y evaluar los impactos de conservación de los estándares de sustentabilidad agrícola y para usar la evidencia resultante para mejorar la efectividad de dichos estándares con el tiempo. La estrategia está orientada a partir de un juego de hipótesis y preguntas de investigación correspondientes sobre cómo los estándares de sustentabilidad están pronosticados para entregar beneficios de conservación. Estas preguntas se abordan a partir de datos de múltiples fuentes, incluyendo información común básica de auditorías de certificación; monitoreo en campo de resultados ambientales en una muestra de sitios certificados; e investigación de evaluaciones rigurosas de impacto con base en métodos experimentales o casi experimentales. La integración de estas fuentes puede generar datos de series de tiempo que son comparables a lo largo de sitios y regiones y proporcionan retratos detallados de los efectos de los estándares de sustentabilidad. Para implementar esta estrategia, proponemos colaboraciones nuevas entre la comunidad de investigadores de la conservación y la comunidad de estándares de sustentabilidad para desarrollar indicadores comunes y protocolos de monitoreo, fomentar la síntesis y el compartir los datos y enlazar con mayor efectividad la investigación y la práctica. Conforme el papel de los estándares de sustentabilidad en la gobernación del uso de suelo continúa con su evolución, la evidencia fuerte de los factores que contribuyen a la efectividad puede ayudar a asegurar que dichos estándares son diseñados e implementados para maximizar los beneficios para la conservación de la biodiversidad. | en_US |
dc.publisher | Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | en_US |
dc.publisher | Yale University Press | en_US |
dc.subject.other | evidence‐based conservation | en_US |
dc.subject.other | biodiversity | en_US |
dc.subject.other | certification | en_US |
dc.subject.other | evaluation | en_US |
dc.subject.other | monitoring | en_US |
dc.subject.other | voluntary sustainability standards | en_US |
dc.subject.other | biodiversidad | en_US |
dc.subject.other | certificación | en_US |
dc.subject.other | conservación con base en evidencias | en_US |
dc.subject.other | evaluación | en_US |
dc.subject.other | monitoreo | en_US |
dc.subject.other | normas voluntarias de sostenibilidad | en_US |
dc.title | An agenda for assessing and improving conservation impacts of sustainability standards in tropical agriculture | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Ecology and Evolutionary Biology | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Science | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110892/1/cobi12411.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/cobi.12411 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Conservation Biology | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Laurance W. F., J. Sayer, and K. G. Cassman. 2014. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29: 107 – 116. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | COSA (Committee on Sustainability Assessment). 2014. The COSA measuring sustainability report: coffee and cocoa in 12 countries. COSA, Philadelphia. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Eberlein, B., K. W. Abbott, J. Black, E. Meidinger, and S. Wood. 2014. Transnational business governance interactions: conceptualization and framework for analysis. Regulation & Governance 8: 1 – 21. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Elferink, E., G. Kuneman, A. Visser, and E. van der Wal. 2012. Sustainability performance assessment of farming practices: guidelines for developers of quantitative monitoring tools. Available from http://www.saiplatform.org/activities/alias/SPA (accessed December 2013). | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Ferraro, P. J., and S. K. Pattanayak. 2006. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology 4 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Field to Market. 2013. Fieldprint calculator. Available from http://www.fieldtomarket.org/fieldprint‐calculator (accessed December 2013). | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Foley, J. A., et al. 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478: 337 – 342. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Garnett, T., et al. 2013. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: premises and policies. Science 341: 33 – 34. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Giovannucci, D., O. von Hagen, and J. Wozniak. 2014. Corporate social responsibility and the role of voluntary sustainability standards. Pages 359–384 in C. Schmitz‐Hoffmann, M. Schmidt, B. Hansmann, and D. Palekhov, editors. Voluntary standards systems—a contribution to sustainable development. Springer, Berlin. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | ISEAL Alliance. 2010. Assessing the impacts of social and environmental standards systems v1.0: ISEAL code of good practice. ISEAL Alliance, London. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Cashore, B., G. Auld, and D. Newsom. 2004. Governing through markets: forest certification and the emergence of non‐state authority. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Levin, J. 2012. Profitability and sustainability in palm oil production: analysis of incremental financial costs and benefits of RSPO compliance. WWF, Washington, D.C. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Margoluis, R., C. Stem, V. Swaminathan, M. Brown, A. Johnson, G. Placci, N. Salafsky, and I. Tilders. 2013. Results chains: a tool for conservation action design, management, and evaluation. Ecology and Society 18: 22. Available from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss3/art22/. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Pullin, A. S., and T. M. Knight. 2003. Support for decision making in conservation practice: an evidence‐based approach. Journal for Nature Conservation 90: 83 – 90. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Pretty, J., et al. 2010. The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 8: 219 – 236. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Potts, J., M. Lynch, A. Wilkings, G. Huppe, M. Cunningham, and V. Voora. 2014. The state of sustainability initiatives review 2014. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg and International Institute for Environment and Development, London. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Newton, P., H. N. Alves‐Pinto, and L. F. Guedes Pinto. 2014. Certification, forest conservation, and cattle: theories and evidence of change in Brazil. Conservation Letters DOI: 10.1111/conl.12116. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Newton P., A. Agrawal, and L. Wollenberg. 2013. Enhancing the sustainability of commodity supply chains in tropical forest and agricultural landscapes. Global Environmental Change 23: 1761 – 1772. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Miteva, D. A., S. K. Pattanayak, and P. J. Ferraro. 2012. Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: What works and what doesn't? Oxford Review of Economic Policy 28: 69 – 92. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Mascia, M., S. Pailler, M. L. Thieme, A. Rowe, M. C. Bottrill, F. Danielsen, J. Geldmann, R. Naidoo, A. S. Pullin, and N. D. Burgess. 2014. Commonalities and complementarities among approaches to conservation monitoring and evaluation. Biological Conservation 169: 258 – 267. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Blackman, A., and J. Rivera. 2011. Producer‐level benefits of sustainability certification. Conservation Biology 25: 1176 – 1185. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Bonsucro. 2011. Bonsucro production standard, version 3.0. Available from http://bonsucro.com/site/production‐standard (accessed December 2013). | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Brown, S., and D. Zarin. 2013. What does zero deforestation mean ? Science 342: 805 – 807. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Zrust, M., et al. 2013. HCV threat monitoring protocol. Zoological Society of London, London. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Wollenberg, E., L. Merino, A. Agrawal, and E. Ostrom. 2007. Fourteen years of monitoring community‐managed forests: learning from IFRI's experience. International Forestry Review 9: 670 – 684. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Unilever. 2010. Unilever Sustainable Agriculture code. Available from http://www.unilever.com/aboutus/supplier/sustainablesourcing (accessed December 2013). | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | UNEP‐WCMC. 2011. Review of the biodiversity requirements of standards and certification schemes. CBD Technical Series No. 63. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Tscharntke, T., J. C. Milder, G. Schroth, Y. Clough, F. DeClerck, A. Waldron, R. Rice, and J. Ghazoul. 2014. Conserving biodiversity through certification of tropical agroforestry crops at local and landscape scales. Conservation Letters DOI: 10.1111/conl.12110. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Thomas, M., E. Baer, B. Semroc, and J. Sonenshine. 2012. C.A.F.E. practices results assessment, fiscal years 2011–2012. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Sutherland, W. J., et al. 2009. One hundred questions of importance to the conservation of global biological diversity. Conservation Biology 23: 557 – 567. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Steering Committee of the State‐of‐Knowledge Assessment of Standards and Certification. 2012. Toward sustainability: the roles and limitations of certification. RESOLVE, Washington, D.C. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | SEARRP (South East Asia Rainforest Research Programme). 2012. SEnSOR: an integrated multi‐disciplinary research programme for sustainability. Available from http://www.searrp.org/sensor (accessed February 2014). | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.