Ecosystem service information to benefit sustainability standards for commodity supply chains

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Volumn 1355, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 77-97

  Chaplin Kramer, Rebecca ^a   Jonell, Malin ^b   Guerry, Anne ^a   Lambin, Eric F ^a   Morgan, Alexis J ^c   Pennington, Derric ^d   Smith, Nathan ^e   Franch, Jane Atkins ^e   Polasky, Stephen ^f  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c World Wildlife Fund   (Canada)

^d WORLD WILDLIFE FUND   (United States)

^e Food and Agriculture Division   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Certification; Corporate; Ecological effectiveness; Evaluation; Implementation; Outcomes

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURE; AQUACULTURE; ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMMUNITY CARE; COMPLIANCE (PHYSICAL); CONSERVATION BIOLOGY; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY; EVALUATION STUDY; FOOD; FORESTRY; HUMAN; INFORMATION SERVICE; KNOWLEDGE BASE; LAND USE; MARINE ENVIRONMENT; MOLECULAR ECOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; SCIENCE; STANDARDIZATION; WATER SUPPLY; ANIMAL; COMMODIFICATION; NATURAL RESOURCE; PROCEDURES; PROGRAM EVALUATION; STANDARDS;

ANIMALS; COMMODIFICATION; ECOSYSTEM; HUMANS; NATURAL RESOURCES; PROGRAM EVALUATION; WATER SUPPLY;

EID: 84946745841     PISSN: 00778923     EISSN: 17496632     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1111/nyas.12961     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Rothkopf, D. 2012. 'Inside Power, Inc. Taking Stock of Big Business vs. Government' February 27, 2012. Accessed October 7, 2015. Foreignpolicy.com. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/27/inside_big_power_inc.
2. Kareiva, P., B. McNally, S. McCormick, et al. 2015. Improving global environmental management with standard corporate reporting. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112: 7375-7382.
3. Unilever. 2014. Unilever sustainable sourcing: targets and performance. Accessed 10/27/15. https://www.unilever.com/sustainable-living/the-sustainable-living-plan/reducing-environmental-impact/sustainable-sourcing/
4. RSPO. 2014. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil Annual Communications of Progress. Accessed October 7, 2105. http://www.rspo.org/members/acop.
5. O'Rourke, D. 2014. The science of sustainable supply chains. Science 344: 1124-1127.
6. Carpenter, S.R. et al. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106: 1305-1312.
7. Daily, G.C. et al. 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7: 21-28.
8. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and human well being. A framework assessment. A Report of the Conceptual Framework Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. http://pdf.wri.org/ecosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf.
9. Ruckelshaus, M. et al. 2015. Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol. Econ. 115: 11-21.
10. Guerry, A.D. et al. 2015. Natural capital informing decisions: from promise to practice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112: 7348-7355
11. TNC. 2015. Upper Tana-Nairobi Water Fund Business Case. Nairobi, Kenya: The Nature Conservancy.
12. WWF. 2015. A better road to Dawei. Accessed 10/27/15. http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/pubs/wwfmmr_betterroadtodawei.pdf.
13. Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. 2015. Spatial patterns of agricultural expansion impact biodiversity and carbon storage. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112: 7402-7407.
14. Mulligan, M. 2012. WaterWorld: a self-parameterising, physically-based model for application in data-poor but problem-rich environments globally. Hydrol. Res. 44: 748-769.
15. Lehmann, A. et al. 2015. Filling the gap between Earth observation and policy making in the Black Sea catchment with enviroGRIDS. Environ. Sci. Policy 46: 1-12.
16. Tallis, H. et al. 2012. A global system for monitoring ecosystem service change. Bioscience 62: 977-986.
17. Sharp, R. et al. 2015. InVEST 3.2 User's Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford. Accessed October 7, 2015. www.naturalcapitalproject.org/InVEST.
18. Villa, F. et al. 2014. A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PLoS One 9: e91001.
19. Peh, K.S.-H. et al. 2013. TESSA: a toolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem services at sites of biodiversity conservation importance. Ecosyst. Serv. 5: 51-57.
20. Bagstad, K.J., D.J. Semmens, S. Waage & R. Winthrop . 2013. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 5: 27-39.
21. Gassman, P.W., M.R. Reyes, C.H. Green & J.G. Arnold . 2007. The soil and water assessment tool: historical development, applications, and future research directions. Trans. ASABE 50: 1211-1250.
22. Gulbrandsen, L.H. 2014. Dynamic governance interactions: evolutionary effects of state responses to non-state certification programs. Regul. Gov. 8: 74-92.
23. Lambin, E.F. et al. 2014. Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Glob. Environ. Change 28: 129-140.
24. Parkes, G. et al. 2010. Behind the signs-a global review of fish sustainability information schemes. Rev. Fish. Sci. 18: 344-356.
25. Washington, S. & L. Ababouch . 2011. Private Standards and Certification in Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/clc/195752.
26. Kalfagianni, A. & P. Pattberg . 2013. Fishing in muddy waters: exploring the conditions for effective governance of fisheries and aquaculture. Mar. Policy 38: 124-132.
27. Potts, J. et al. 2014. The State of Sustainability Initiatives Review 2014. London: International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg and International Institute for Environment and Development.
28. MSC. 2014. Marine Stewardship Council Global Impacts Report. https://www.msc.org/documents/environmental-benefits/global-impacts/msc-global-impacts-report-2014.
29. RSPO. 2015. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oi-impacts. Accessed October 7, 2015. http://www.rspo.org/about/impacts.
30. Jonell, M., M. Phillips, P. Rönnbäck & M. Troell . 2013. Eco-certification of farmed seafood: will it make a difference? Ambio 42: 659-674.
31. 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.
32. Polasky, S., E. Nelson, E. Lonsdorf, et al. 2005. Conserving species in a working landscape: land use with biological and economic objectives. Ecol. Appl. 15: 1387-1401.
33. Polasky, S. et al. 2008. Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biol. Conserv. 141: 1505-1524.
34. Nelson, E. et al. 2008. Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a landscape. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 105: 9471-9476.
35. Ekroos, J., O. Olsson, M. Rundlöf, et al. 2014. Optimizing agri-environment schemes for biodiversity, ecosystem services or both? Biol. Conserv. 172: 65-71.
36. Jang, T. et al. 2013. Model for prioritizing best management practice implementation: sediment load reduction. Environ. Manage. 51: 209-224.
37. Pennington, D. et al. 2015. Estimating the full costs of meeting pollution reduction targets. Working Paper. Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
38. White, C., B.S. Halpern & C.V. Kappel . 2012. Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109: 4696-4701.
39. Griffin, R. et al. 2015. Incorporating the visibility of coastal energy infrastructure into multi-criteria siting decisions. Mar. Policy 62: 218-223.
40. Rassweiler, A., C. Costello & D.A. Siegel . 2012. Marine protected areas and the value of spatially optimized fishery management. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109: 11884-11889.
41. Hansen, M.C. et al. 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342: 850-853.
42. Friedl, M.A. et al. 2010. MODIS Collection 5 global land cover: algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets. Remote Sens. Environ. 114: 168-182.
43. UNEP-WCMC. 2015. Ocean data viewer. Accessed October 7, 2015. http://data.unep-wcmc.org.
44. Ruesch, A. & H. Gibbs . 2000. New IPCC tier-1 global biomass carbon map for the year laboratory, 2000. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennesee) (2008). Accessed October 7, 2015. http://cdiac.ornl.gov.
45. Köchy, M., R. Hiederer & A. Freibauer . 2015. Global distribution of soil organic carbon - part 1: masses and frequency distributions of SOC stocks for the tropics, permafrost regions, wetlands, and the world. Soil 1: 351-365.
46. Tachikawa, T., M. Hato, M. Kaku & A. Iwasaki . 2011. The characteristics of ASTER GDEM version 2, IGARSS, July 2011. Accessed October 7, 2015. Available for download at: http://www.jspacesystems.or.jp/ersdac/GDEM/E/1.html.
47. NOAA. 2015. Bathymetric Data Viewer. National Centers for Environmental Information. https://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/bathymetry. Accessed October 7, 2015.
48. ISRIC. 2015. World soil information-data download. Accessed October 7, 2015. http://www.isric.org/data/data-download.
49. Hijmans, R.J. et al. 2015. WorldClim-global climate data. Accessed October 7, 2015. http://www.worldclim.org.
50. Li, Z., P. Li, B. Tang & Q. Vu . 2015. Global 1-km Sea Surface Temperature (G1SST). NASA JPL OurOcean Portal. Accessed October 7, 2015. http://ourocean.jpl.nasa.gov/SST.
51. Polasky, S., H. Tallis & B. Reyers . 2015. Setting the bar: standards for ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112: 7356-7361.
52. Smith, W.C. et al. 2015. Potential conservation outcomes of large-scale compliance with Bonsucro sustainability standards. Working Paper. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; Luc Hoffman Institute, WorldWildlife Fund, Gland, Switzerland.
53. Heupel, E. & P.J. Auster . 2013. Eco-labeling seafood: addressing impacts to vulnerable seafloor species, communities, habitats and ecosystems in data-poor regions. Mar. Policy 38: 8-15.
54. Ward, T.J. 2008. Barriers to biodiversity conservation in marine fishery certification. Fish Fish. 9: 169-177.
55. Martin, S.M., T.A. Cambridge, C. Grieve, et al. 2012. An evaluation of environmental changes within fisheries involved in the marine stewardship council certification scheme. Rev. Fish. Sci. 20: 61-69.
56. Steering Committee of the State-of-Knowledge Assessment of Standards and Certification. 2012. Toward sustainability-the roles and limitations of certification. http://www.resolv.org/site-assessment/files/2012/06/Toward-Sustainability-report-summary-and-appendicesv2.pdf.
57. Blackman, A. & J. Rivera . 2011. Producer-level benefits of sustainability certification. Conserv. Biol. 25: 1176-1185.
58. Blackman, A. & J. Rivera . 2010. The evidence base for environmental and socioeconomic impacts of 'sustainable' certification. Discussion paper. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
59. Gulbrandsen, L.H. 2005. The effectiveness of non-state governance schemes: a comparative study of forest certification in Norway and Sweden. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. 5: 125-149.
60. Arbainsyah, H.H. de Iongh, W. Kustiawan & G.R. de Snoo . 2014. Structure, composition and diversity of plant communities in FSC-certified, selectively logged forests of different ages compared to primary rain forest. Biodivers. Conserv. 23: 2445-2472.
61. Blackman, A. & M.A.A. Naranjo . 2012. Does eco-certification have environmental benefits? Organic coffee in Costa Rica. Ecol. Econ. 83: 58-66.
62. Cerutti, P.O., L. Tacconi, R. Nasi & G. Lescuyer . 2011. Legal vs. certified timber: preliminary impacts of forest certification in Cameroon. Foreign Policy Econ. 13: 184-190.
63. Duchelle, A.E., K.A. Kainer & L.H.O. Wadt . 2014. Is certification associated with better forest management and socioeconomic benefits? A comparative analysis of three certification schemes applied to Brazil nuts in Western Amazonia. Soc. Nat. Resour. 27: 121-139.
64. Gutiérrez, N.L. et al. 2012. Eco-label conveys reliable information on fish stock health to seafood consumers. PLoS One 7: e43765.
65. Hartsfield, A. & D. Ostermeier . 2003. The view from FSC-certified land managers. J. Forest. 101: 32-36.
66. Hicks, R.L. & K.E. Schnier . 2008. Eco-labeling and dolphin avoidance: a dynamic model of tuna fishing in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 56: 103-116.
67. Jacobi, J. et al. 2014. Carbon stocks, tree diversity, and the role of organic certification in different cocoa production systems in Alto Beni, Bolivia. Agroforest. Syst. 88: 1117-1132
68. Jaffee, D. 2008. " ' Better, but not great': the social and environmental benefits and limitations of fair trade for indigenous coffee producers in Oaxaca, Mexico." In The Impact Fair Trade. R. Ruben, Ed.: 195-222. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
69. Johansson, J. & G. Lidestav . 2011. Can voluntary standards regulate forestry? Assessing the environmental impacts of forest certification in Sweden. Foreign Policy Econ. 13: 191-198.
70. Kukkonen, M., H. Rita, S. Hohnwald & A. Nygren . 2008. Treefall gaps of certified, conventionally managed and natural forests as regeneration sites for Neotropical timber trees in northern Honduras. Forest Ecol. Manage. 255: 2163-2176.
71. Martínez-Torres, M.E. 2008. "The Benefits and Sustainability of Organic Farming by Peasant Coffee Farmers in Chaipas, Mexico." In Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Fair Trade, Sustainable Livelihoods and Ecosystem in Mexico and Central America (Food, Health, and teh Environment). C.M. Bacon, V. Ernesto Méndez, S.R. Gliessman, D. Goodman & J.A. Fox, Eds.: 99-126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
72. Medjibe, V.P., F.E. Putz & C. Romero . 2013. Certified and uncertified logging concessions compared in Gabon: changes in stand structure, tree species, and biomass. Environ. Manage. 51: 524-540.
73. Melo, C.J. & S.A. Wolf . 2007. Ecocertification of Ecuadorian bananas: prospects for progressive North-South linkages. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 42: 256-278.
74. Moore, S.E., F. Cubbage & C. Eicheldinger . 2012. Impacts of forest stewardship council (FSC) and sustainable forestry initiative (SFI) forest certification in North America. J. Forest. 110: 79-88.
75. Nebel, G., L. Quevedo, J. Bredahl Jacobsen & F. Helles . 2005. Development and economic significance of forest certification: the case of FSC in Bolivia. Foreign Policy Econ. 7: 175-186.
76. Parrish, B.D., V.A. Luzadis & W.R. Bentley . 2005. What Tanzania's coffee farmers can teach the world: a performance-based look at the fair trade-free trade debate. Sustain. Dev. 13: 177-189.
77. Philpott, S.M., P. Bichier, R. Rice & R. Greenberg . 2007. Field-testing ecological and economic benefits of coffee certification programs. Conserv. Biol. 21: 975-985.
78. Quevedo, L. 2006. "Forest certification in Bolivia". In Confronting sustainability: forest certification in developing and transitioning countries. B. Cashore, F. Gale, E. Meidinger & D. Newsom, Eds: 303-336. New Haven, Connecticut. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Press.
79. Ruben, R., L. Clercx, D. Cepeda & T. de Hopp . 2008. "Fair Trade impact of banana production in El Guabo Association, Ecuador: a production function analysis." In The Impact of Fair Trade. R. Ruben, Ed.: 155-167. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
80. Rueda, X. & E.F. Lambin . 2013. Responding to globalization: impacts of certification on Colombian small-scale coffee growers. Ecol. Soc. 18: 21.
81. Rueda, X., N. Thomas & E. Lambin . 2015. Eco-certification and coffee cultivation enhance tree cover and forest connectivity in the Colombian coffee landscapes. Reg. Environ. Change 15: 25-33.
82. Sugiura, K., T. Yoshioka & K. Inoue . 2012. Effects of acquiring FSC forest management certification for Japanese enterprises using SmartWood Audits. J. Forest. Res. 23: 165-172.
83. Sverdrup-Thygeson, A., P. Borg & E. Bergsaker . 2008. A comparison of biodiversity values in boreal forest regeneration areas before and after forest certification. Scand. J. Forest. Res. 23: 236-243.
84. Takahashi, R. & Y. Todo . 2014. The impact of a shade coffee certification program on forest conservation using remote sensing and household data. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 44: 76-81.
85. Takahashi, R. & Y. Todo . 2013. The impact of a shade coffee certification program on forest conservation: a case study from a wild coffee forest in Ethiopia. J. Environ. Manage. 130: 48-54.
86. Tlusty, M.F. & H. Tausig . 2015. Reviewing GAA-BAP shrimp farm data to determine whether certification lessens environmental impacts. Rev. Aquacult. 7: 107-116.
87. Utting, K. 2009. Assessing the impact of fair trade coffee: towards an integrative framework. J. Bus. Ethics 86: 127-149.
88. Milder, J.C. et al. 2015. An agenda for assessing and improving conservation impacts of sustainability standards in tropical agriculture. Conserv. Biol. 29: 309-320.
89. Hole, D.G. et al. 2005. Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biol. Conserv. 122: 113-130.
90. Gockowski, J., V. Afari-Sefa, D.B. Sarpong, et al. 2013. Improving the productivity and income of Ghanaian cocoa farmers while maintaining environmental services: what role for certification? Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 11: 1-16.
91. Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer, A. Mas & L.S. Pinto . 2005. Biodiversity, yield, and shade coffee certification. Ecol. Econ. 54: 435-446.
92. Fischer, J. et al. 2014. Land sparing versus land sharing: moving forward. Conserv. Lett. 7: 149-157.
93. Phalan, B., M. Onial, A. Balmford & R.E. Green . 2011. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333: 1289-1291.
94. Savilaakso, S. et al. 2014. Systematic review of effects on biodiversity from oil palm production. Environ. Evid. 3: 4.
95. Tomei, J. et al. 2010. Soy production and certification: the case of Argentinean soy-based biodiesel. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 15: 371-394.
96. Hall, S.J., A. Delaporte, M.J. Phillips, et al. 2011. Blue Frontiers: Managing the Environmental Cost of Aquaculture. Penang, Malaysia. The WorldFish Center.
97. ISEAL. 2010. Assessing the Impacts of Social and Environmental Standards Systems v1.0. ISEAL Code of Good Practice. Accessesd 10/27/15. http://rsb.org/pdfs/M&E/P041_ISEAL_Impacts_Codev1.0.pdf.
98. Ghazoul, J., C. Garcia & C.G. Kushalappa . 2009. A concept for next-generation payment for ecosystem service schemes. Forest. Ecol. Manage. 258: 1889-1895.
99. Micheli, F. et al. 2014. A system-wide approach to supporting improvements in seafood production practices and outcomes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12: 297-305.