Show simple item record

An agenda for assessing and improving conservation impacts of sustainability standards in tropical agriculture

dc.contributor.authorMilder, Jeffrey C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorArbuthnot, Margareten_US
dc.contributor.authorBlackman, Allenen_US
dc.contributor.authorBrooks, Sharon E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGiovannucci, Danieleen_US
dc.contributor.authorGross, Leeen_US
dc.contributor.authorKennedy, Elizabeth T.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKomives, Kristinen_US
dc.contributor.authorLambin, Eric F.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLee, Audreyen_US
dc.contributor.authorMeyer, Danielen_US
dc.contributor.authorNewton, Peteren_US
dc.contributor.authorPhalan, Benen_US
dc.contributor.authorSchroth, Götzen_US
dc.contributor.authorSemroc, Bambien_US
dc.contributor.authorRikxoort, Henk Vanen_US
dc.contributor.authorZrust, Michalen_US
dc.date.accessioned2015-04-02T15:12:47Z
dc.date.available2016-05-10T20:26:28Zen
dc.date.issued2015-04en_US
dc.identifier.citationMilder, 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.issn0888-8892en_US
dc.identifier.issn1523-1739en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/110892
dc.description.abstractSustainability 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.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.publisherYale University Pressen_US
dc.subject.otherevidence‐based conservationen_US
dc.subject.otherbiodiversityen_US
dc.subject.othercertificationen_US
dc.subject.otherevaluationen_US
dc.subject.othermonitoringen_US
dc.subject.othervoluntary sustainability standardsen_US
dc.subject.otherbiodiversidaden_US
dc.subject.othercertificaciónen_US
dc.subject.otherconservación con base en evidenciasen_US
dc.subject.otherevaluaciónen_US
dc.subject.othermonitoreoen_US
dc.subject.othernormas voluntarias de sostenibilidaden_US
dc.titleAn agenda for assessing and improving conservation impacts of sustainability standards in tropical agricultureen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEcology and Evolutionary Biologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110892/1/cobi12411.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/cobi.12411en_US
dc.identifier.sourceConservation Biologyen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLaurance 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.citedreferenceCOSA (Committee on Sustainability Assessment). 2014. The COSA measuring sustainability report: coffee and cocoa in 12 countries. COSA, Philadelphia.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEberlein, 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.citedreferenceElferink, 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.citedreferenceFerraro, 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.citedreferenceField to Market. 2013. Fieldprint calculator. Available from http://www.fieldtomarket.org/fieldprint‐calculator (accessed December 2013).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFoley, J. A., et al. 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478: 337 – 342.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGarnett, T., et al. 2013. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: premises and policies. Science 341: 33 – 34.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGiovannucci, 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.citedreferenceISEAL 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.citedreferenceCashore, 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.citedreferenceLevin, 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.citedreferenceMargoluis, 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.citedreferencePullin, 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.citedreferencePretty, 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.citedreferencePotts, 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.citedreferenceNewton, 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.citedreferenceNewton 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.citedreferenceMiteva, 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.citedreferenceMascia, 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.citedreferenceBlackman, A., and J. Rivera. 2011. Producer‐level benefits of sustainability certification. Conservation Biology 25: 1176 – 1185.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBonsucro. 2011. Bonsucro production standard, version 3.0. Available from http://bonsucro.com/site/production‐standard (accessed December 2013).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrown, S., and D. Zarin. 2013. What does zero deforestation mean ? Science 342: 805 – 807.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZrust, M., et al. 2013. HCV threat monitoring protocol. Zoological Society of London, London.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWollenberg, 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.citedreferenceUnilever. 2010. Unilever Sustainable Agriculture code. Available from http://www.unilever.com/aboutus/supplier/sustainablesourcing (accessed December 2013).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUNEP‐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.citedreferenceTscharntke, 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.citedreferenceThomas, 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.citedreferenceSutherland, 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.citedreferenceSteering 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.citedreferenceSEARRP (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.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

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.