Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbsm21

Download by: [CIFOR - Center for Int Foresty Research] Date: 18 January 2017, At: 19:37

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, EcosystemServices & Management

ISSN: 2151-3732 (Print) 2151-3740 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbsm21

Timber certification as a catalyst for change inforest governance in Cameroon, Indonesia, andPeru

Sini Savilaakso, Paolo Omar Cerutti, Javier G. Montoya Zumaeta, Ruslandi,Edouard E. Mendoula & Raphael Tsanga

To cite this article: Sini Savilaakso, Paolo Omar Cerutti, Javier G. Montoya Zumaeta,Ruslandi, Edouard E. Mendoula & Raphael Tsanga (2017) Timber certification as acatalyst for change in forest governance in Cameroon, Indonesia, and Peru, InternationalJournal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 13:1, 116-133, DOI:10.1080/21513732.2016.1269134

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2016.1269134

© 2016 The Author(s). Published by InformaUK Limited, trading as Taylor & FrancisGroup.

Published online: 27 Dec 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 103

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Special Issue: Certifying Environmental Social Responsibility

Timber certification as a catalyst for change in forest governance inCameroon, Indonesia, and PeruSini Savilaakso a, Paolo Omar Ceruttib, Javier G. Montoya Zumaeta c, Ruslandid, Edouard E. Mendoulae

and Raphael Tsangae

aCenter for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia; bCenter for International Forestry Research, Nairobi, Kenya; cFaculty ofEconomic Sciences and Business, National University of the Peruvian Amazon, Iquitos, Peru; dDepartment of Biology, University ofFlorida, Gainesville, FL, USA; eCenter for International Forestry Research, Yaounde, Cameroon

ABSTRACTPolicy instruments targeting environmental, social, and economic sustainability cover bothlocal and global geographies and stem from both the public and private sectors. These policyinstruments do not work in silos but interact throughout the regulatory process. In this paperwe discuss interactions between public regulations and private certification that affect howforests are managed in three tropical countries: Indonesia, Cameroon, and Peru. We showhow the governance regime in each of the countries has evolved in response to environ-mental and social issues. We focus on the Forest Stewardship Council’s forest stewardshipcertification as it is the main global certification scheme in the tropical region and look at itsrole in attaining sustainability in timber production.

Case study results from Indonesia, Cameroon, and Peru indicate that certification influ-ences all stages of the policy process: agenda setting and negotiation; implementation, andmonitoring and enforcement. Results also suggest that certification introduces positivechanges in management practices and improves social and environmental performance.However, its influence in attaining broader-scale sustainability is limited by a low level ofuptake, notably in tropical countries where the costs of getting certified and maintainingcertification are high and the certification criteria are rather complex, as well as by some of itsinherent characteristics, as it can only solve problems at the forest management unit level.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 10 March 2016Accepted 14 November2016

EDITED BYMeine van Noordwijk

KEYWORDSCertification; environmentalissues; forest governance;legality; social issues;sustainable forestmanagement; tropics

1. Introduction

Concerns about deforestation and sustainability of theuse of forest resources can be traced back to 1980s(Fanzeres & Vogt 1999). Combined with the lack ofsuccess of the international community to adopt alegally binding global compact on the sustainable man-agement of the world’s forests led environmentalNGOs in the 1990s to push for the creation of anumbrella forest certification standards organization,later to become the Forest Stewardship Council(FSC) (Fanzeres & Vogt 1999, Synnott 2005; Auldet al. 2008). While early on the focus of sustainabilitywas largely on ecological impacts, e.g. deforestationand forest degradation, over time issues related tosocial welfare (e.g. livelihoods and poverty alleviation,access and benefit-sharing, indigenous rights andworkers’ rights) and economic development (e.g. inter-national trade and investment and resource transferfrom developed to developing countries) have alsobecome defining issues of sustainable forest manage-ment and good governance (Arts & Buizer 2009;McDermott et al. 2010). In this millennium, the roleof forests as providers of ecosystem services and bio-diversity has been highlighted (Millennium EcosystemAssessment 2003, 2005) and has shaped the discussion

around forests and sustainable forest management(Cadman et al. 2016).

Policy instruments targeting environmental, social,and economic sustainability relate local to globalscales and stem from both public and private sector.Public instruments include laws and regulations gen-erally enforced through command-and-control, aswell as policies that influence forests either directly(e.g. forest policy) or indirectly (e.g. trade policies) (ascited in Mather 2006; Lambin et al. 2014). Voluntaryinstruments by non-state actors include various cer-tification schemes and commodity roundtables (Auldet al. 2008; Lambin et al. 2014). The evolution ofinternational forest governance from its early focuson sustainability to legality and then to units ofcarbon stored has also given rise to new public–pri-vate governance instruments such as payments forenvironmental services (Wunder et al. 2008;McDermott 2014). In terms of governance, the FSC,as well as a growing number of other certificationschemes covering the trade in commodities otherthan timber (e.g. fish or agricultural crops), can bedefined as a private, non-state governance system,driven by international markets and consumers’choices, generally presented as an alternative to

CONTACT Sini Savilaakso s.savilaakso@cgiar.org Center for International Forestry Research, P.O. Box 0113 BOCBD, Bogor 16000, Indonesia

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT, 2017VOL. 13, NO. 1, 116–133http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2016.1269134

© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permitsunrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

traditional public, state-driven laws and regulations(Cashore et al. 2004; Lambin et al. 2014).

As of February 2016, the FSC had certified 187million ha of natural forests, of which around 20million ha are natural tropical ones. Manyacknowledge the positive impacts that the FSChas had on international standard setting sincethe 1990s, particularly the increased legitimacy ofthird-party-audited products on the world’s mar-kets, and on public policies in general (Overdevest& Zeitlin 2014). Scattered evidence also suggeststhat localized positive impacts exist in or aroundcertified forests (Durst et al. 2006; Espach 2006;Schulte-Herbrüggen & Davies 2006; Auld et al.2008; Van Kuijk et al. 2009; Damette & Delacote2011; Cerutti et al. 2011b; Nasi et al. 2012). Yet,there also seems to be agreement among practi-tioners that there still is insufficient empiricalevidence that changes in environmental andsocio-economic impacts are indeed occurring atthe expected scale and speed (e.g. Blackman &Rivera 2011; Romero et al. 2013; Visseren-Hamakers & Pattberg 2013).

However, FSC does not exist in a vacuum but onterritories where public and private policies on forestmanagement interact (the forest management unit),which makes it often difficult to establish a clear causalpath as to what impacts are attributable to specificprocess. Moreover, the policy instruments have largelythe same aims although with different sets of incen-tives, sanctions, and institutions. In a recent paper,Lambin et al. (2014) introduced a typology of interac-tions between different forest governance instruments.The three main interactions that can occur at differentstages of the regulatory process (agenda setting andnegotiation, implementation, and monitoring andenforcement) are complimentarity, substitution, andantagonism. Complimentarity means that two govern-ance systems mutually reinforce each other. For exam-ple, certification can fill policy gaps or certificationsystem can generate rewards for those actors whocomply to extra-legal standards, while a public regula-tion can sanction those actors who violate the law.Substitution occurs when another governance entityreplaces the private-led mechanism through policylearning or norm generation. The initial privatemechanism may maintain an informal role after aformal regulation takes over its function. Hence, sub-stitution and complementarity may overlap. Finally,when two governance systems are antagonistic theycan undermine each other at all stages of the policyand implementation processes.

Interactions occur and vary along a gradient that isdetermined by different scales, both spatial (e.g. local,national, or international) and temporal (e.g. agendasetting and negotiation, implementation or enforce-ment). Interactions along such gradient are also

influenced by the evolution of the public discourseabout any particular environmental or socio-economicissue. In the framework of this Special Issue, this isreferred to as the ‘policy issue cycle’ (Tomich et al.2004). The cycle starts with the initial attention givento one issue (e.g. deforestation) followed by initialpublic debate on cause–effect mechanisms. The debateleads to the discussion and implementation of potentialsolutions (e.g. certification to achieve responsibly man-aged forests) and finally to the evaluation of the solu-tions’ impacts and its possible improvement.

Based on these frameworks of analysis, in thispaper we discuss interaction between public govern-ance and certification in three tropical countries:Indonesia, Cameroon, and Peru and how the govern-ance regime in each of the countries has evolved inresponse to environmental and social issues. We alsoassess what type of impacts certification and publicpolicies have on the ‘swing potential’ of certified andnoncertified forest operations, i.e. the differencebetween the best and worst examples of current tim-ber harvesting and production practices (Davis et al.2013). Bad management practices can be the result ofa multitude of underlying factors, and we assesswhether certification as currently implemented inthe three sample countries is indeed improving pastpractices, for what reasons and through what inter-actions (if any) with public policies. Our assessmentis built on the following three propositions intro-duced in the framework paper of this Special Issue(Mithöfer et al. 2017): only provide partial solutionsfor ecosystem service and social problems.

(1) Public discourse on sustainability concernsand associated actions are part of an issue-attention cycle influencing progressionbetween stages.

(2) Pressures from the public evoke private sectorand governmental sustainability initiatives andshift standard systems.

(3) Sustainability initiatives, standard settings, andcertifications

We focus on the FSC’s certification scheme. Itis a performance-based, outcome-oriented stan-dard. It is focused on field performance of forestmanagement to achieve environmentally appropri-ate, socially beneficial, and economically viablemanagement of the world’s forests (FSC 2007).The paper is structured as follows. In the nextsection, we examine environmental and socialissues linked to timber production in the studycountries and public policy responses to them.We then compare government regulation andFSC certification before discussing the contribu-tion of certification in attaining sustainabilitythrough the propositions introduced. In the finalsection conclusions are given.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 117

2. Methods

The case studies are based on 38 interviews withparties involved directly in forest certification in thestudy countries; literature reviews of the forestryissues, forest policies, and certification in the studycountries; forest statistics reports provided by govern-ment officials; and field work conducted by theauthors in the study countries over number of years.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted withpeople involved in the certification process using aninterview guide provided in Annex 1. Interviews withforest companies, auditors, and certification consul-tants were focused on questions of what are the mostdifficult parts of FSC standard to be met and effortsrequired to fulfill them, which indicate the forestmanagement improvements in certified concessions.Interviews with NGOs were aimed to obtain informa-tion on their program, involvement, and roles inforest certification.

Sample selection was based on snowballing processwith the initial list of names based on the researchers’own knowledge of people with proven knowledge andinvolvement on the topic supplemented with namesobtained from experts. The sampling was guidedmainly by the goal of maximizing the amount ofinformation collected and the diversity of viewpoints.The interviews were primarily conducted in personand also through email and phone calls when inperson interview was not possible. The interviewswere conducted during January–August 2015.Information obtained during earlier interviews onFSC certification in 2013 and 2014 with same respon-dents was also used.

The interview data were compiled per country andthe main issues tabulated based on manual coding (seetables in the Annex 1). Further information on theissues was extracted from the interview data and theresponses summarized at country level. Finally, infor-mation obtained from interviews was triangulated withthe findings from literature review and experience ofauthors in forestry sector and forest certification.

3. Results

3.1. Environmental and social issues linked totimber production and public policy responses

3.1.1. PeruSince the 1980s in Peru, one of the main problemshas been that logging operations have been estab-lished in protected areas or zones identified as non-compatible (Table 1). Over the years this has led tonumerous conflicts between indigenous people andloggers (Bedoya Garland & Bedoya Silva-Santisteban2005). The government response was to establishdesignated harvesting areas under the forestry and

wildlife law (LFFS 2000) that came into force inyear 2000.

Another issue associated with the national forestrysector has been the overexploitation of valuable spe-cies such as mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla). Theoverexploitation led to drastic population decline tothe point that mahogany was included in theAppendix II1 of CITES by 2002 (Kometter et al.2004). Since 2007, Peru has established and strength-ened controls to keep within the extraction quotas,and the issue faded from the public discourse until2012, when the results of an investigation on har-vested species revealed flaws in the quota system (EIA2012 and Table 2).

Transport and trade of products from illegalsources also has deep roots in the sector, enabled byinstitutional weakness. Corruption of governmentofficials is one of the latent problems and has recentlybeen made visible through the Free Trade Agreement(FTA) with the United States. In the framework ofcommitments made under the FTA, PeruvianGovernment reestablished the Oversight Organismof Forestry Resources and Wildlife (OSINFOR) andendowed it with autonomy to exercise its functions,including monitoring and sanction competencies.Since 2008 when OSINFOR began functioning,43.5% of existing operations have been canceled orplaced under investigation because of suspected vio-lations of the LFFS (Finer et al. 2014). Another gov-ernment action was to launch the national strategyagainst illegal logging, presided by a representative ofthe Presidency of the Council of Ministers.

On the social side, limited participation of indi-genous communities in economic benefits from foresttrade in Peruvian Amazon has been highlighted(Bedoya Garland & Bedoya Silva-Santisteban 2005);(EIA 2012). In Peru there is a system calledhabilitación, described as an informal patronage sys-tem (Sears & Pinedo-Vasquez 2011). The laborerssign contracts for an advancement of merchandiseon credit in return for extracted timber but earn littlemore than subsistence returns. The system favorslabor abuses and works as a mechanism for enslave-ment of indigenous communities. In response, thereare government norms that emphasize the voluntarynature of work and recognize workers’ right to a fairremuneration.2 Furthermore, the Prior, Free, andInformed Consultation Law has been established toimprove legal conditions for indigenous people.

3.1.2. IndonesiaOver the period 1967–1998, public concern focusedprimarily on unsustainable logging practices and for-est fires (Table 3). They were addressed by the gov-ernment through a number of forest regulations andother efforts such as collaboration with other coun-tries to develop a model for sustainable logging

118 S. SAVILAAKSO ET AL.

practice or combating forest fire. Although forestfires are a classic periodical natural disaster associatedwith El-Nino (prolonged drought) events (Tacconi2003) they are believed to result from anthropogenicactivities related to forest clearance and degradation(Wooster et al. 2012). There have been concerns inIndonesia because of their intensity and their effectson human health, transportation, and loss of forestresources. Disastrous forest fires in 1982/1983, 1997/1998, and recently in 2015 were the largest forest fireevents in the country.

In the early 1990s, deforestation became an issue but,partly because of the unreliability of the data and poli-tical and economic reasons encouraging large forestindustry development (Maryudi, 2015), it was attribu-ted to shifting cultivation of local communities(Sunderlin & Resosudarmo 1997) and thus it did notget public attention. Only after 1998, illegal logging,deforestation, and conflict over forest land tenure havebeen givenmore attention (Table 3). All of the issues are

persistent (Table 4). Illegal logging is the only issueagainst which substantial regulatory steps have beentaken although implementation and enforcement chal-lenges still remain (Hoare & Wellesley 2014).

3.1.3. CameroonDeforestation and forest degradation have long beenconcerns related to Cameroon’s forestry sector(Table 5). In response to the concerns raised, thegovernment of Cameroon adopted in 1994 an innova-tive forestry law based on sustainable forest manage-ment approach that was enacted through a decree in1995 (Republic of Cameroon 1994, 1995). In the newmillennium, Cameroon has been in the headlinesbecause of illegal and unsustainable logging, with spe-cial focus dedicated to the negative impacts that large-scale logging concessions cause on the well-being oflocal populations. Further analyses clarified the pro-blem, indicating that there exist important differencesbetween illegal forest activities in logging concessionsvs. those carried out in artisanal, small-scale opera-tions. In fact, illegal logging stemmed largely from thesmall-scale logging operations but this is partially dueto government’s illegal suspension of their loggingtitles (Cerutti & Tacconi 2008). Despite the sustain-ability paradigm being incorporated into the 1994forest law, issues of illegality –which includes hunting,redistribution of forest taxes, and various types ofconflicts with communities neighboring logging con-cession – leading to forest degradation have persistedover time (Table 6).

Table 1. Main environmental and social issues and policy response to them in Peru.Year Issue Policy response Comments

Since 80s Logging operations inprotected areas, communalterritories, or otherincompatible areas

Set of a nationwide long term concessions systemoperated by private agents.

Mandatory management plans.

Long-term concessions and management plansamong novelties of Law 27,308 (LFFS) thatcame into force 2000

Since 90s Overexploitation of selectedspecies

Extraction quotas for mahogany established byCITES authorities in Peru since 2007.

Mandatory in situ verification when the POAincludes endangered species.

Peru ratified the CITES Convention in 1974

2001 Participation of communities Permits to communities is one of the accessmodalities for logging framed in the Law27,308 ().

Law No. 29785 (2011) Law on the Right to PriorConsultation of the Indigenous or NativePeoples.

Peru is signatory of the ILO Convention 169about indigenous people

2004 Transport and trade of timberfrom illegal sources

Setting of control points alongside rivers androads where timber pass through to marketsadministered by corresponding forestauthorities (regional governments orMINAGRI3).

Launch of a National Strategy Against IllegalLogging.

Assignment of monitoring and sanctioningcompetencies to OSINFOR.

As part of decentralization and regionalizationprocesses carried out by the nationalgovernment since 2001, forestry competencieswere transferred to Amazonian regionalgovernments

2005 Enforced work Labor aspects in the sector are regulated withnational general norms that remark willingnessto work and the right to perceive remuneration

Furthermore Peru is signatory of the ILOConventions 29 and 165 about enforced work

2008 Corruption of governmentfunctionaries

In 2008 launch of OSINFOR as the national agencyin charge of logging operations’ supervision.

Launch of National Anti-corruption Plan of theForestry and Wildlife Sector.

Launching of OSINFOR and the National Anti-corruption Plan were part of the US FTAcompromises

Table 2. Change in environmental and social issues over timein Peru.Issues 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

Logging in protected areas,communal territories, or otherincompatible areas

X X X X X

Overexploitation of selected species X X X XParticipation of communities X XEnforced work X XTransport and trade of timber fromillegal sources

X X X X X

Corruption of governmentfunctionaries

X X

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 119

3.2. Comparison of government regulation andFSC certification

3.2.1. PeruFor the comparison between national regulation andsustainability standards, the national FSC standard forforestmanagement that came into force in 2002was used(FSC 2001). Regarding the normative regime the LFFS

Table 3. Main environmental and social issues and policy response to them in Indonesia.Year Issue Policy response Comments

1980s and 1990s Unsustainable logging practice Polices related to silviculturesystems (1972; 1989; 1993;2009)

SFM standard for concessions(1993; 2003)

Other responses:● Collaborations with donor countries to develop SFM

model.● Support national certification system.

1982/1983 and1997/1998

Forest fire Policies related to forests andpeatland protection (1990;1992; 1999; 2004)

Policy on no fire for landclearing (2001)

Policy on big fines and criminalcharge for actors of forestfire (2001)

As a response to the forest and peatland fire in 2015, thegovernment of Indonesia established a new agency forpeatland restoration (Presidential decree no .1/2016)

1998 Illegal logging Policies related to forests andpeatland protection (1990;1992; 1999; 2004)

Presidential decree to combatillegal logging (2005)

SVLK and PHPL (2009) VPAwith EU (2013)

1999 Conflict over forest land tenure Basic forestry law (1999)The highest constitution courtdecision (2011; 2012)

2000s Deforestation and forestdegradation and carbonemission and biodiversity loss

RAN-GRK (2011)Moratorium on new licenses(2011; 2013)

SFM: sustainable forest management.

Table 4. Change in environmental and social issues over timein Indonesia.Issues 1994 1999 2004 2009 2013

Unsustainable logging x x x x xForest fires x x x x xDeforestation and forestdegradation

x x x x

Land tenure x x x xIllegal logging x x x

Table 5. Main environmental and social issues and policy response to them in Cameroon.Year Issue Policy response Comments

Since 1980s Deforestation and forest degradation New forest law in 1994 incorporatingsustainable forest managementapproach

To implement SFM, the forestry lawmandates the preparation of forestmanagement plans in all ForestManagement Units (FMU), butdelegates the specifics of the plans’preparation, approval, and controlprocesses to implementingregulations (decrees and guidelines)

1993 Multiuse of the forest domain, especiallymining activities in classified forests

Development of the zoning plan forSouthern Cameroon

Forest administration does not use theland use plan that can help manageforest interfaces/agriculture or forest/farm

1990s Unsustainable logging Suspension of small-scale logging titlesfrom 1999 to 2006 by ministerialregulation from the Ministry of Forestry.In 2006, another ministerial regulationbanned all exports of timber harvestedusing small-scale logging titles

Illicit act due to the hierarchical order ofnorms in place in Cameroon

1998 Illegal logging FLEGT-VPA signed in October 20102001 Main silvicultural parameters (such as

minimum cutting diameters, recoveryrates) to be applied within loggingconcessions (and to a lesser extent incommunity forests)

A 2001 decree mandating managementplans to be adopted in loggingconcessions and specifying how theplans have to be prepared

The 2001 decree has limitations andthere have been several attempts toimprove it, to no avail for themoment.

2002 Conflicts with communities on theestablishment of community forests

A 2002 decree granted local communitiesthe right of preemption to establish acommunity forest over other loggingtitles that might be established by theministry on their customary land

Some community forests have been wellmanaged, but there is anoverwhelming literature onmismanagement and negativeimpacts

120 S. SAVILAAKSO ET AL.

(2000) that was in force until recently and its respectiveregulations as well as other related legal instruments wereused. In addition to the FSC principles, approaches toverification of legal wood’s sources under national reg-ulation and the FSC scheme were analyzed. Results ofthis analysis are summarized in Table 7.

Overall, FSC standards have higher demands thannational regulation particularly regarding principles4, 5, 6, and 8. Also, an important aspect that hasemerged in recent years as a result of the LaceyAct’s impact in the United States has been theimplementation of measures to ensure that sourcesof wood are legal and sustainable. The United Statesis one of the leading importers of Peruvian wood.

Indeed, LFFS approved in 2011 and that is inprocess of implementation since November 2015has its origins in the internal conflicts that char-acterized signing of the FTA with United States(Stetson 2012). The demands of the NorthAmerican timber market led to include a specificannex about strategies to strengthen forest verifica-tion processes in Peru. As a result, upgrading andautonomy to OSINFOR were established, as well asthe establishment of policy guidelines againstnational forestry functionaries’ corruption, amongother measures.

3.2.2. IndonesiaIn the case of Indonesia, government regulation isbased on two standards, i.e. legality (SistemVerifikasi Legalitas Kayu-SVLK) and mandatoryforest management certification (PengelolaanHutan Produksi Lestari-PHPL). SVLK standard isa subset of the PHPL standard. All concessions inIndonesia should meet the PHPL standard oroptionally the SLVK standard for temporary timeperiod. The SVLK certificate is valid on for 3 yearsand after that period the concessions should applyand pass for the PHPL standard. The SVLK stan-dard requires that the forestry company shouldhave (1) a right to the land and harvest, (2) amanagement plan approved by a government offi-cial, (3) a legal document for timber transportation,(4) payment for timber royalties, (5) documentsassessing environmental and social impacts andthe monitoring result, (6) a safety system in theworkplace and fulfillment of worker rights such asemployment contracts, the right to form workerunions, and the exclusion of child workers.

The PHPL standard covers precondition, production,ecology, and social criteria. The precondition criteriainclude the indicators of the concession boundary deli-neation; the management commitment for implement-ing SFM; the system and the skilled staff to implementSFM; and the system for free, prior, and informed con-sent (FPIC) by local communities for all forest-manage-ment activities. Production criteria include themanagement plan and its implementation, sustainedyield, which interpreted that timber harvest should notexceed the government’s approved harvesting target, sil-viculture to maintain forest regeneration, implementingreduced impact logging (RIL), and sufficient budget toimplement SFM. Ecological criteria include set-asides forprotected areas, forest protection and patrolling, moni-toring the forest management impact on soil and water,and biodiversity (flora and fauna) assessment and man-agement. Social criteria include a clear boundary anddelineation between the concession and communityareas, a mechanism to respect customary rights, thecompany obligation to local communities, participationof local people in forest management and benefit sharingto local people, a conflict resolution mechanism, workerrights, and capacity building.

For the comparison between national regulationand sustainability standards, the international FSCstandard for forest stewardship version 5 (FSC2014b) was used. There are big gaps between thegovernment regulation and FSC standard (Table 8).FSC requires the change from timber exploitationto forest management, which means that long-termforest values should be considered. In addition,FSC also requires more accommodation of theneeds and desires of local communities.Governmental regulations and FSC requirementsare sometimes in conflict in regards to silviculture.RIL implementation, high conservation value for-ests (HCVFs)-related activities and communitydevelopment as well as social impact assessmentare among the most difficult criteria to meet.Even the best concessions in Indonesia need sub-stantial efforts, time, and costs to meet the FSCstandard (Ruslandi et al. 2014).

3.2.3. CameroonFor the comparison between national regulation andsustainability standards, the national FSC standardfor forest management was used (FSC 2012). Thestandard shares some of the indicators with legalrequirements that forest managers have to respectwhile operating in the country but contains severaladditional indicators (Table 9). Also, certificationgoes well beyond the legal technical prescriptionsrequired for management plans. For instance, severalmanagement plans had to be modified as a result ofthe FSC monitoring process, and minimum harvest-ing diameters increased (Cerutti et al. 2008).

Table 6. Change in social and environmental issues over timein Cameroon.Issues 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

Deforestation and forestdegradation

x x x x x

Multiuse of the forest domain x x x x xUnsustainable logging x x x x xIllegal logging x x x x

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 121

Table 7. Comparison between legal system and FSC certification in Peru.Legal system FSC

Principle 1: Compliancewith laws and FSCprinciples

Mandatory management plans.Taxes, fees, and other financial obligations should bepaid before logging.

Concessionaries and other forest’s users have to maintainforest’s integrity in their managed area.

Compliance with the CITES.

Additionally, operators have to demonstrate long-termwritten commitment with the SFM principles and todefine internal preventive actions aimed to protectoperation areas from violations and/or othernonauthorized activities

Principle 2: Rights andresponsibilities oftenancy and usage

The LFFS (2000) set three modalities for access areas aim toforests logging:

(1) Long-term concessions awarded to private enterprisesthrough open public contest.

(2) Permits to indigenous and peasant communities thatwant to carry out forestry operations inside their titledterritories.

(3) Authorizations to allow timber extraction in local for-ests by other rural populations.

Additionally, the national FSC standard requires that theinternal policies and actions to solve any claim orconflict that could emerge from use of forest resourcesare defined in a written document

All these modalities require approbation of managementplan (and corresponding fees) by the competent forestryauthority (regional government or MINAGRI) beforelogging operations are started.

Principle 3: Indigenouspeoples’ rights

Peru signed the ILO Convention 169 about indigenouspeople’s rights in 1993. However, only after the Law29,785 was enacted in 2011 it set the conditions for free,prior, and informed consultation process to indigenouscommunities in projects that could affect them. Yet,there are no outlines or guidelines about how thisprocess should be carried out in the frame of loggingoperations

Logging operations by indigenous communities shouldelaborate participative management plans. In case theseoperations are carried out by a third party, a contractmust be made to formalize this agreement.

Furthermore, FSC standards set conditions for relationshipsbetween communities and private operators including:respect to places with high ecological, economical, and/or religious values; rewarding mechanisms tocompensate usage of traditional knowledge and internalplatform in case conflicts could emerge.

Principle 4: Communityrelations and worker’srights

LFFS (2000) established that management plan shouldcontain a labor and community relationship program.

Labor is regulated through several mechanisms and normsbased on the ILO Conventions 29 and 165 againstenforced work and several specific laws that remark thewilling nature of work and the worker’s right to becompensated.

Furthermore, recently implemented Law 28,806 created agovernment platform (SUNAFIL) that gives oversight ofcompliance of worker’s rights in all sectors includingsocial and health benefits.

Communities around or inside the operation areas havepriority in case of employment or capacity building bythe enterprise.

Internal mechanisms for participation and communicationwith communities surrounding the operation areas.Existence of an internal regulation about industrialhealth. There is a preventive health plan that includesthe organization of a medical kit and an internalprotocol for emergencies.

Workers have adequate protection equipment for bothfield and industrial activities.

Principle 5: Optimize theforest’s benefits

No mandatory regulations about economic performance ofconcessionaries additional to compliance with fiscalobligations are included in the LFFS (2000)

The national FSC standards promote economic efficiency inlogging operations through:

– Elaboration and implementation of business plans thatset adequate production and marketing strategies inorder to reach economic profits.

– Availability of updated accounting information thatcould lead to take adequate business decisions.

– Minimization of waste wood during extraction andprocessing processes.

– Products diversification and integration with comple-mentary activities that could generate local benefits tocommunities surrounding.

Principle 6: Environmentalimpacts

An environmental assessment study is part of themanagement plan according to LFFS (2000). In order todo this, operations should define environmentalmanagement’s norms and activities and also acontingency plan

The national FSC standard sets measures in order tomaintain forest’s ecological and biological function suchas:

– To protect endangered species inside the logging area.This includes zoning of protected areas, limiting hunt-ing, and avoiding ‘barbasco’ for fishing.

– To implement a silvicultural plan that favor forest’sconservation of its vital ecological functions.

– To control erosion, reduce forest damage, and othermechanical disturbs through implementation ofreduced impact logging as well as construction andmaintenance of forestry paths, among othertechniques.

– Avoid chemical products for pest control and adequatemanagement of toxic residuals.

– To control usage of exotic introduced species and tolimit land cover changes to a small area of the totalconcession and to those areas not included in HCVF.

(Continued )

122 S. SAVILAAKSO ET AL.

4. Discussion

4.1. Interactions between certification and publicpolicies

In all the study countries, certification has influencedall stages of the policy process from the moment itentered the national arena: agenda setting and nego-tiation, implementation, and monitoring and enfor-cement. Over the years, FSC certification hasintroduced new concepts (such as HCVF) and influ-enced the development of national policies. Forexample, in Indonesia FSC certification and othervoluntary certifications have influenced the develop-ment of legality verification (SVLK) standard, third-party audit requirement and auditor perception ongood forest management practice or raising the bar ofthe SVLK/PHPL standard due to the better auditingskills of auditors obtained from the FSC certificationauditing training and experience. Similarly, FSC cer-tification has contributed to progress in forest gov-ernance by improving transparency and community

participation, public consultation, building trustamong stakeholders, and providing more space forNGOs and civil societies (Muhtaman & Prasetyo2006; Cerutti et al. 2014; Ruslandi et al. 2014).

FSC certification has also introduced changes inman-agement or monitoring practices that cover the socialand environmental issues faced by the countries over theyears. Such issues were largely mentioned in the existingpublic regulations (mainly stemming from the 1992 RioConference), but they were rarely enacted. This isbecause forest operations, although managed throughan approved management document, remained largelyfocused on timber extraction and on the control ofextraction rules for larger financial benefits. Broaderenvironmental and social issues were (and still are) notconsidered in the curricula of forest officials, and thusthey were not verified or monitored in daily operations.FSC certification has pushed those topics on the nationalagendas with the help of certification advocates such asNGOs and donor countries (see below). This is not to saythat the topics were immediately or entirely

Table7. (Continued).

Legal system FSC

Principle 7: Managementplanning and itsimplementation

Management planning comprised by two levels:

(1) General Forestry Management Plan (PGMF) with a40 years horizon. Gives the general framework forthe business strategic planning.

(2) Operative Annual Plans (POA) that sets businessactivities during each year.

PGMF can be modified based on the results of theOSINFOR’s periodical assessment or because of conces-sionary’s own initiative.

Guidelines for management plans were set through RJ109–2003-INRENA. Also, this norm allows that estimationof concession’s productive potential could be based onsecondary sources.

For elaboration of POAs detailed forestry inventories aremandatory. In addition to this, management plan shouldcontain a description of the silvicultural managementplan that will be implemented in the logging area and ajustification about harvesting rate both based onscientific evidence.

This evidence should come from data gathered inpermanent parcels inside the same operation area.Management plan should detail this aspect too andchanges on plans should be based on the findings.

Workers should have a summarized version of themanagement plan and are trained in order to assure itsimplementation.

Principle 8: Monitoringand assessment

Monitoring and assessment program consideringsustainable management indicators proposed in themanagement plan.

OSINFOR is the government agency in charge of oversightmanagement plans’ compliance. For this they performperiodical assessments to concessionaries each 5 years.

An internal monitoring and assessment system that allowsidentifying productive, biological, environmental, andsocioeconomic changes attributable to forestmanagement against a set of minimal indicatorproposed in the standard.

In addition, results of these assessments should be publicand taken into account in periodic reviews ofmanagement plans.

Principle 9: Maintenanceof high conservationvalues’ forests (HCVF)

There is no consideration of HCVs in the LFFS (2000) Peruvian FSC Standard did not develop any criteria for thisprinciple. However set that HCVF should be identifiedand measures to maintain or increment its values mustto be taken. In practice, each auditor developedindicators in order to assess compliance with thisprinciple

Legal sources verification According to its jurisdiction, regional governments orMINAGRI perform verification competencies on timber’ssources. For this they usually administer control pointsthat verify timber’s legality located in the main timberroutes nationwide. However, limited public budget forequipment and personal in charge of this functionconstraints effectiveness of public control.

On the other hand, as we mentioned before OSINFOR is themain government agency in charge of managementplans’ compliance through direct verification toconcessionaries each 5 years.

FSC set two standards for Controlled Wood (FSC-STD-40–005 y el FSC-STD-30–010) in order to demonstrate thattimber comes from legal sources. In this sense, indicatorsin these standards aim to verify that timber is not:

– Illegally logged

– Logged violating traditional and/or civil rights

– From HCVF threated by logging activities

– From areas where forest are turning to plantation orother non-forest uses.

– From genetically modified trees.Audits regarding compliance are performed periodi-cally by a third independent party. In Peru, there isonly one initiative (Chullachaqui SRL) with this modal-ity of the FSC certification.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 123

Table 8. Comparison between the government regulation (SVLK and PHPL) and FSC certification requirements in Indonesia.Legal system Implementation FSC

Principle 1: Compliancewith laws

Demonstrate legal entity and businessoperationof the organization.

Delineation of the forest management unit.Comply with silviculture rules.Comply with labor and environmental laws.Pay reforestation fees (DR) and forest royalties(PSDH).

Compensate local communities.Issuance of annual cutting permits and licenserenewals are conditional on legalcompliance,as determined by external auditors (SVLK).

Lack of enforcement ofgovernmental regulations,especially labor andenvironmental laws.

The required financialcompensation paid tolocal communities is lessthan what they requested.

In addition to complying with national andlocal laws, concessions should: recognizeand respect local community rules;negotiate and make an agreement onthe compensation fee for thecommunities; deal with FSC rules thatsometimes contradict nationalregulations (e.g. SILIN rules requireunsustainable logging intensities);provide evidence of balanced attentionto social, ecological, and productionissues; and, provide documentation forforest delineation and resolve anyrelated conflicts.

Principle 2: Workers’rights andemploymentconditions

Concessions should follow the labor law(UU 13/2003) and regulations related toworker health and safety

Government oversight ofimplementation of theseregulations was generallyweak or nonexistent.

No detailed guidelines tocomply with safetyprocedures.

Comply with all national regulations andinternational conventions related toworkers.

Proper safety equipment provided andutilized.

Adequate training and supervisionprovided and documented.

Principle 3: Indigenouspeoples’ rights

No recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights

Principle 4: Communityrelations

Concessions are required to develop socialprograms for local people (MoF Decree691/Kpts-II/1991)

This regulation was notenforced and largelyfailed to improvecompany–communityrelations.

The legal rights of localcommunities, includingindigenous people, arenot recognized. In manycases, unclear land tenureis a source of conflictsbetween concessions andcommunities.

Social baseline surveys and social impactassessments.

Help with community developmentprograms using participatory processes.

Monitor social impacts and evaluateprogram effectiveness.

Resolve land tenure and other rights issueson a case-by-case basis using proceduresdeveloped by the concession.

All activities that affect communities needto be preceded by communityconsultations with broad stakeholderparticipation.

Principle 5: Benefits fromthe forest

Reduced impact logging (RIL) is the MoF’sprincipal proxy for SFM in their mandatoryforest certification program (PengelolaanHutan Produksi Lestari -PHPL).

Prepare tree position maps and plan loggingroads, but these are only administrativerequirements.

Insufficient governmentalregulation to implementRIL.

Government regulations canbe satisfied with RILtraining and installationof demonstration plots.

Preharvest timber inventories and contourmapping.

Harvest plans reflect established standardsfor operations, environmentalprotection, and utilization.

Felling and bucking methods prioritizeworker safety, ensure efficiency, andminimize logging waste.

Efficient and low environmental impactskidding with planning and operationalcontrols down to the individual treelevel.

Deactivation activities (e.g. post-loggingroad and skid trail closure) to reduce soilerosion and restrict illegal access.

Construct and maintain logging roads so asto minimize soil erosion and facilitatelog transport.

Monitor compliance with RIL guidelinesand ensure company-wide utilization.

RIL training and supervision.Principle 6:Environmental valuesand impacts

Reduced impact logging(RIL) Social impact assessmentRisk assessment before site disturbingactivities

Principle 7: Managementplanning

10 years management planAnnual working planEnvironmental impact management plan

Public summary

Principle 8: Monitoringand assessment

Prepare environmental management andmonitoring plans (Analisis DampakLingkungan – AMDAL) for reduction andmonitoring of soil erosion, protection offlora and fauna, and communitydevelopment programs.

Prepare annual reports on planimplementation.

Little control onimplementation ofenvironmental plans.

Documents are prepared,but the implementationreports are seldom if everprepared; if prepared,there were no responsesfrom the relevantgovernmental agencies.

Integration of monitoring protocols andresults into forest management plans aswell as making public the results ofthese monitoring activities.

Infrastructure changes generally requiredfor fuel handling, recycling, and generalwaste management.

CoC.RIL evaluation.Publicly available.Mechanism to revise management plan.

(Continued )

124 S. SAVILAAKSO ET AL.

Table8. (Continued).

Legal system Implementation FSC

Principle 9: Highconservation values

No explicit regulations require biodiversityconservation at the concession level.Small portions of concessions should beset aside to protect genetic resources.

Set asides are not alwayslocated in places thatmaximize theirconservation value. Insteadun-loggable areas areoverrepresented.

Extensive training and substantialinvestments in external consultants arerequired for HCVF surveys anddevelopment of biodiversitymanagement plans.Other required HCVF-related activitiesinclude stakeholder consultations andincorporation of habitat protection andmonitoring into planning andoperational procedures.

Principle 10:Implementation ofmanagement activities

Comply with TPTI (MoF Decree 485/Kpts/II/1989 and MoF Decree P.11/Menhut-II/2009)

Research indicates thatsustainability is unlikelyunder TPTI, especially withSILIN.

Intensive growth and yield monitoring isrequired.

Harvest levels should be revised based onmonitoring results.

Logging intensities should be reduced andlogging cycles lengthened.

Implement appropriate silviculture.Promote natural regeneration and nativespecies.

Minimize logging waste.Prohibit GMO.Minimize the application of pesticides andfertilizer.

Conserve environmental values

Source: Adapted from Ruslandi et al. (2014)

Table 9. Comparison between national regulations and the national FSC standard in Cameroon.Legal system FSC

Principle 1:Compliance withlaws

Principle 2: Workers’rights andemploymentconditions

The rights and living conditions of laborers are generallysecured by the Ministry of labor which is often far from theemployees and often has no control over the treatment ofworkers in terms of salaries and living conditions

Principle 3:Indigenouspeoples’ rights

Indigenous people’s rights are guarantee by the law. NTFPscollection (including hunting bushmeat) is authorizedinside logging concessions but only for personalconsumption and if collection (or hunting) occurs withtraditional means

The implementation of the FSC standard led to facilitating.NTFP processing and trade by local people outside thelogging concessions, but it remains difficult for loggingcompanies to regulate access to their concessions; accessto NTFPs are governed by customary rules both in andoutside the FMUs and are almost never controlled by thelogging companies, overwhelmed by the task.

Principle 4:Communityrelations

Limited support of multi-stakeholder platform Certification pushes company to maintain a permanentchannel of communication with local communities,notably through the establishment of ad hoc committeesthat aims at preventing conflicts

Principle 5: Benefitsfrom the forest

The law provides benefits from the forest royalties to localresidents

Given the failure of the legal system in redistributingroyalties, certified companies often prefer to set up ad hocredistributive schemes

Principle 6:Environmentalvalues and impacts

Principle 7:Managementplanning

Most concessions are managed through an approvedmanagement plan. Yet, the quality and the implementationof those plans remain wanting, especially because theministry does not allocate the necessary means to the on-the-ground controls

Certification goes wellbeyond the legal technical prescriptions required formanagement plans. For instance, several managementplans had to be modified as a result of the FSC monitoringprocess, and minimum harvesting diameters increased

Principle 8:Monitoring andassessment

The 2001 decree on management plans does not require post-harvest inventories which are very important in themonitoring of the long-term impacts of the managementplans

Principle 9: Highconservation values

Although the concept of ‘protection areas’ (series deprotection) is embedded in the preparation of managementplans, this is more restricted than HCVF, and normally refersto standard protection measures (e.g. distance from rivers)and does not require the identification of specific highconservation values

In the certified FMUs, some activities are undertaken by thecompanies to ensure the protection of areas of highconservation values, thanks to the regular controls byexternals audits

Principle 10:Implementation ofmanagementactivities

The 2001 decree on management plans de facto transferredto private operators all activities in forest management,without providing the necessary means or capacities to theministry to control, verify and monitor their effectiveimplementation

Implementation of management activities is controlled byexternal audits

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 125

implemented across the board, and indeed many differ-ences still exist between certified and noncertified con-cessions in regard to implementation of regulatoryrequirements, but there is no doubt that forest officialsin selected countries are more at ease today with con-cepts such as redistribution of benefits, social inclusions,conflict resolution, or HCVF than they were a decadeago, when certification was not as diffused as today.

When the interactions between certification andgovernment regulations are analyzed, several scenariosappear. First, certification has often a complementaryrole in that it covers several environmental and socialissues that remain outside the scope of public forestmanagement and governance, such as biodiversity con-servation, social inclusion and community relations,and benefit-sharing mechanisms as part of the compa-nies’ financial obligations vis-à-vis the state and com-munities. For instance, results indicate that gaps stillexist in how national regulations tackle issues related toHCVs. In those cases, certification pushes logging com-panies to extend the scope of their legal obligations.

In other cases, government regulation and certifica-tion assign responsibilities that should be related to onesingle issue to different people or institutions, creatingpotential conflicting situations. For example, inIndonesia forest boundary delineation is the govern-ment’s responsibility but concessionaires are requiredto document efforts to resolve boundary disputes.There is also some overlap of complementarity and sub-stitution regarding some of the norms. For example, inPeru indigenous peoples’ rights and FPIC are part of thestate regulation.

On several occasions certification is substituted bygovernment regulation on paper but remains com-plementary in practice as a result of poorly or weaklyimplemented laws because of vested interests by pub-lic officials and lack of means or capacities by oftenunderstaffed public institutions. For instance, benefit-sharing mechanisms between logging companies andthe local populations are often included in nationalregulations, but rarely implemented as in the case ofCameroon and Indonesia. Or as in Peru, in anattempt to overcome logging in protected areas(PAs) or other ‘no-go’ places, a zoning requirementwas included in the forestry law but government hasdifficulties to verify that information provided inmanagement plans is accurate and that the harvestingoperations are performed in the corresponding plot.In certification, this problem is presumably preventedor at least alleviated through the third-party verifica-tion. In such cases, certification becomes a substitutefor ineffective public policies, as hoped for by theproponents of private governance and forest certifi-cation in particular (e.g. Cashore et al. 2004), and asalso already noted in other parts of the world (e.g.Espach 2006).

4.2. Pressures from the public evoke privatesector and governmental sustainability initiativesand shift standard systems

In the study countries, NGOs have reflected attention tosustainability concerns confirming the first and secondpropositions but there are differences between issues.Regarding some of them, such as the threat to orangu-tans due to deforestation in Indonesia, the pressure hascome especially from NGOs in the North through tar-geted media campaigns (Greenpeace 2010) whereasother issues have been more localized and remainedthe concern of national NGOs and media, e.g. over-exploitation of mahogany in Peru (EIA 2012). NGOshave also been active stakeholders in promoting certifi-cation along with donor countries. This has been espe-cially the case regarding sites of high public interest ashypothesized in the first proposition. For example, inPerumore than half of the certified forests are located inthe Madre de Dios department, one of the areas withseveral conservation initiatives due to its high biodiver-sity levels (Catenazzi et al. 2013).

Although some of the social and environmentalissues persist from year to year, the majority of themhave been addressed subsequently in government reg-ulations. Yet, the initial response may take a long timeand require a push from ‘outside’ as the example of Perushows (Figure 1). In Peru, the push has come not onlyfrom NGOs promoting certification but also from theUnited States, which signed a FTA with Peru in 2006(PTPA 2006). The PTPA contains an Annex on ForestSector Governance that includes concrete steps tostrengthen forest sector governance and combat illegallogging and illegal trade in timber andwildlife products.In a similar fashion it is hoped for that the VoluntaryPartnership Agreement (VPA) signed betweenCameroon and EU will strengthen the forest sectorgovernance and decrease illegal logging.

Importing countries may further create a push forcertification through public procurement policies asthere is evidence on their positive effect on increas-ing market share for verified legal and sustainabletimber (Brack 2014). This is particularly the case inEurope where countries have become more andmore sensitive to environmental considerations(Delvingt 2010). Directive 2004/18/EC of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council issued inMarch 2004 provides an opportunity for publicauthorities to take into account environmental andsocial considerations in public procurement criteria.For example, the Dutch Government aims to pro-cure 100% of its needs from sustainably harvestedtimber (TPAC 2015). The creation of green publicprocurement gives thus a competitive advantage tooperators involved in the certification.

As public policies have evolved over the years sohas certification (FSC 2014a, Synnott 2005). New

126 S. SAVILAAKSO ET AL.

concepts have been introduced in the aim to attainsustainability, e.g. the HCVs, and new standards cre-ated, e.g. standard for small or low intensity managedforests (SLIMF). As the certification standard evolvesfrom its already high starting point, the changes aremore marginal rather than leaps whereas, especiallyin countries with rudimentary forestry law, the mini-mum requirements may change drastically throughinteraction with certification. The difference mayremain on the timing of such changes, as certificationby its nature is an ever-improving process, whilepublic policies and regulations may have very slowimproving paces. Yet, on the long run, this evolutionof government regulations and its linkage with certi-fication has the potential to raise the bar and alsoreduce the ‘swing potential’ between noncertified andcertified forest operations (Figure 2) as also noted in

other countries (e.g. Eba’a Atyi 2006). Furthermore, itcan foster achievement for FSC certification by non-certified companies (Ruslandi et al. 2014).

4.3. Sustainability initiatives, standard settings,and certification only provide partial solutions forecosystem service and social problems

Overall, there is evidence that certification is indeedimproving practices in some certified concessions inthe three study countries. For example, based onthe comparisons of before and after certification orbetween certified and uncertified concessions, FSCcertified concessions in Indonesia were reported tochange from conventional rather destructive loggingpractices to RIL, improved their conservation andenvironmental (e.g. soil erosion) management as

National anti-

corruption plan

Law on FPIC5

Extraction quotas

FTA and enforcement of

existing regulations

FTA6

and enforcement of

existing regulations

Corruption

OSINFOR7

Forestry and wildlife law (LLFS)

CITES1

ratified

2010200090s80s74

Logging in

protected

areas

Overexploitation

of selected

species Community

participation

Illegal trade

Enforced

work

FSC2

entry

PTPA4FSC

NTFP3

Figure 1. Environmental and social issues linked to timber production in Peru and public policy responses to them over time.1 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.2 First Forest Stewardship Councilcertification.3 FSC’s Non-timber Forest Product standard adopted in Peru.4 PTPA.5 Free, prior, and informed consent.6 Freetrade agreement with the United States.7 In the framework of commitments made under the FTA, Peruvian Governmentreestablished the Oversight Organism of Forestry Resources and Wildlife (OSINFOR).

The ideal sustainability curve

Time

Certification

Public policies

Sw

ing

po

te

ntia

l

Ma

na

ge

me

nt o

ptio

ns

After certification scheme has

influenced public policiesBefore certification scheme

has influenced public policies

Su

sta

ina

bil

ity

Figure 2. The evolution of certification and public policies over time in relation to ideal sustainability and their influence onswing potential at two different time points: before certification scheme has influence on public policy and after it.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 127

well as worker safety welfare (Griscom et al. 2014;Ruslandi et al. 2014). In addition, the certified con-cessions were also reported to have better commu-nity relations and increased transparency indecision-making and stakeholder participation. Itis doubtful that these improvements would haveoccurred without certification as the forest manage-ment practices of the companies engaged in certifi-cation were among the best in Indonesia at thebeginning of the certification process (Ruslandiet al. 2014). Similarly in the Peruvian case, FSCcertification has improved environmental manage-ment and social performance of the certified com-panies (Trujillo 2014). Also in the Congo Basinseveral positive outcomes have been noted in certi-fied concessions when compared with noncertifiedconcessions: better working and living conditions,improved participation, and decision-makingthrough active local institutions, existence of bene-fit-sharing mechanism, and more equitable distribu-tion of benefits (Cerutti et al. 2014). Theseimprovements can be traced back to the periodwhen the company decided to engage in certifica-tion and thus are unlikely to have occurred withoutcertification. Similarly in Indonesia, training in RILand other aspects related to certification started atthe very early stages (Ruslandi et al. 2014). Hence,our case studies are in contradiction with the pro-position that engagement with certification proce-dures primarily increases and improves the level ofdocumentation and management articulation,before it changes management practices on theground. Paperwork is surely increased with certifi-cation, but most of it is the direct sign that pro-cesses and practices changed from the past.

However, the role of certification in resolving someenvironmental and social issues and attaining sustain-ability is limited by several factors. First, there is acontradiction between the scale of the issues and certi-fication: the concessions resolve problems at forestmanagement unit level which provides very limitedresponse to issues such as deforestation. This is rein-forced by the extent of certified areas, especially intropics where FSC has very limited uptake (Marx &Cuypers 2010). Although certified areas have increasedin the study countries recently, they still represent onlyabout 5% of the total area under production inIndonesia and Peru and about 14% in Cameroon.

Also, the cost of certification can be a significantbarrier of entry into certification system (Bass et al.2001; Gale 2006; Dauvergne & Lister 2012; SteeringCommittee of the State-of-Knowledge Assessment ofStandards and Certification 2012). In our study coun-tries financial assistance for certification has helped toadvance the amount of area certified but the costs ofmaintaining certification have remained. In Peru, the

maintenance of certification has been unstable duringthe period 2003–2013 because certified operationshave relied mainly on the financial support of devel-opment projects that have partially or fully subsidizedthe costs of certification and because the ability ofthese operations to establish long-term commercialrelationships with certified timber buyers is limited(Isminio 2014; Trujillo 2014). In a recent study,Trujillo (2014) identified four reasons why operationscould not maintain the certification during2005–2014 period: (1) low economic-financial capa-city; (2) limited access to certified timber markets; (3)low productive diversification and technologicaldevelopment; and (4) legal and institutional instabil-ity and informality of the sector.

Furthermore, it seems that even the companiesengaged in certification lack in capacity to implementthe certification requirements. For example, in Peruthere is limited knowledge inside enterprises abouttechnical and operational aspects associated with FSCcertification, lack of scientific evidence on ecologyand silviculture that contributes to make adequatedecisions during logging operations, and difficultiesto interpret the standard (Trujillo 2014).Furthermore, for those companies that do engage incertification, the lack of capacity further increases thecosts. For example, in Indonesia most concessionslack the capacity to carry out required HCV assess-ments. Hiring specialists to overcome the lack ofinternal capacity increases the costs of certificationas, e.g. in Indonesia daily rates to conduct biodiver-sity surveys and HCVF assessments vary betweenUSD 250 and 650 (Ruslandi et al. 2014).

Considering the limiting factors it is not a surprisethat companies engaged in certification in our studycountries are mainly larger companies interested inaccess to or already operating in the markets of Europe,North America, Japan, and South Korea. Regardless ofthe country, the companies are first and foremost moti-vated by economic considerations related to access tofunds and assurance to markets (e.g. legality require-ments and responsible sourcing) (Cerutti et al. 2011a;Ruslandi et al. 2014; Trujillo 2014). Indeed, there is arisk-management element as in Peru certification islinked to corporate social responsibility and environ-mental sustainability and in Indonesia and Cameroonit is seen as a way to increase professionalism in manage-ment and to improve corporate reputations. The find-ings show that larger companies are more likely tocapture public attention and are therefore more likelyto act on sustainability concerns but with the caveat thatthe companies operate in international markets. At localor national markets certification may not add value andeven certified timber may not be sold as such (Isminio2014; Trujillo 2014). This can be because prices in localand national markets that don’t require certification are

128 S. SAVILAAKSO ET AL.

better for given species and thus, offer an incentive tochannel some of the certified timber through these con-ventional chains (Pérez 2009; Trujillo 2014).

Despite limited direct influence currently, thereare processes that may increase certification’s appealin the future and hence its contribution in attainingsustainability in the use of forest resources. One isthe rise of PES schemes (including REDD+)(Costanza et al. 2006; Boyd & Banzhaf 2007; vander Meer et al. 2007; Stanton et al. 2010; De Groot2011). For example, in Peru compliance ofMaderacre with FSC standards prepared it to fulfillVCS and CCB Gold requirements while aiming toparticipate in a local REDD+ initiative (Entenmann2012). Second is the lack of safeguards associatedwith REDD+ schemes (Jagger et al. 2012). FSC cer-tification already includes globally used minimumenvironmental and social standards with guidanceon processes such as FPIC that are in the center ofREDD+. However, it should be noted that REDD+is a highly contested arena as there are many otheractors involved in developing the safeguards(McDermott et al. 2012; McDermott 2014). Thirdis the rise of corporate responsibility (Waage &Kester 2013). With demonstrated positive impactscertification could work as a tool to guaranteeresponsible forest management and to mitigateinvestment risk. Fourth, FSC is currently developingnew tools explicitly targeting ecosystem services andrelated promotional claims. Finally, certification maybe used to attract financing. In Peru, compliancewith FSC standards gives forestry operations advan-tage to form productive alliances and to access fundsand other commercial opportunities (Trujillo 2014).

5. Conclusions

Through comparisons between national regulationsand FSC standards of Indonesia, Cameroon, andPeru, this paper explored different types of interactionsthat occur along different stages of policy process. Theimpact of the governance instruments in addressingsocial and environmental issues was also assessed.

Based on the study countries, certification influencesall stages of the policy process. Although most concernsover particular social and environmental issues havebeen addressed in public regulations over time, albeitsometimes with considerable time lag, certification hasremained complementary in practice. Hence, certifica-tion has become a substitute for ineffective public poli-cies due to ineffective implementation of governmentregulations. At the same time certification has keptintroducing new concepts thus improving the ideal ofsustainable forest management over time. Therefore, it isnot surprising that the requirements of FSC certificationexceed the legal requirements in all the study countries.

There is some evidence that FSC certification hasimproved environmental management and social per-formance of the certified companies. In sites of highpublic interested as well as for companies likely tocapture public attention, certification has been a strate-gic step toward risk management. Despite some evi-dence of positive impacts at Forest Management Unit(FMU) level, certification has had limited effectivenessin reducing deforestation and forest degradation, theoriginal concerns to which certification was a response,due to the limited scale certification has been adopted inthe study countries. Thus, the focus of several countrieshas shifted to other instruments and legality verificationhas emerged as the new leading policy instrument tocombat illegal logging and forest degradation.

Acknowledgments

We thank the two anonymous reviewers whose commentsimproved this manuscript. This work was supported by theCGIAR Research Programme on ‘Forests, Trees andAgroforestry: Livelihoods, Landscapes and Governance’ ledby the Center for International Forestry Research in partner-ship with Bioversity International, the International Centerfor Tropical Agriculture, and the World Agroforestry Centre.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Appendix II lists species that are not necessarily nowthreatened with extinction but that may become sounless trade is closely controlled.

2. DS 003–97-TR, Ordered Unique Text of the DL 728,Law of Productivity and Labor Competitiveness.

3. In the cases of most Peruvian Amazonian departments(San Martin, Loreto, Ucayali, Madre de Dios,Amazonas), forestry competencies were given to regio-nal government as part of Decentralization’s Law imple-mentation. However, other Peruvian departments suchin Coast or Sierra, MINAGRI or SERFOR the nameaccording the next LFSS, keep these competencies thatare exerted by its local representatives.

ORCID

Sini Savilaakso http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8514-8105Javier G. Montoya Zumaeta http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5059-4036

References

Arts B, Buizer M. 2009. Forests, discourses, institutions: adiscursive-institutional analysis of global forest govern-ance. For Policy Econ. 11:340–347.

Auld G, Gulbrandsen LH, McDermott CL. 2008.Certification schemes and the impacts on forests andforestry. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 33:187–211.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 129

Bass S, Thornber K, Markopoulos M, Roberts S, Grieg-GranM. 2001. Certification’s impacts on forests, stakeholdersand supply chains. London (UK): IIfEa Development.

Bedoya Garland E, Bedoya Silva-Santisteban A. 2005. Eltrabajo forzoso en la extracción de la madera en laAmazonía peruana ILO Working Papers, InternationalLabour Organization. Switzerland.

Blackman A, Rivera J. 2011. Producer-Level Benefits ofSustainability Certification. Conservation Biol. 25:1176–1185.

Boyd J, Banzhaf S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? Theneed for standardized environmental accounting units.Ecol Econ. 63:616–626.

Brack D. 2014. Promoting Legal and Sustainable Timber:Using Public Procurement Policy. London (UK): CHouse.

Cadman T, Maraseni T, Ma HO, Lopez-Casero F. 2016.Five years of REDD+ governance: The use of marketmechanisms as a response to anthropogenic climatechange. For Policy Econ. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.03.008

Cashore B, Auld G, Newsom D. 2004. Governing Throughmarkets. Forest certification and the emergence of non-state authority. New Haven & London: Yale UniversityPress.

Catenazzi A, Lehr E, May RV. 2013. The amphibians andreptiles of Manu National Park and its buffer zone,Amazon basin and eastern slopes of the Andes, Peru.Biota Neotropica. 13:269–283.

Cerutti PO, Assembe Mvondo S, German L, Putzel L. 2011a.Is China unique? Exploring the behaviour of Chinese andEuropean firms in the Cameroonian logging sector.International Forestry Review. 13:23-34

Cerutti PO, Lescuyer G, Tsanga R, Kassa SN, MapangouPR, Mendoula EE, Missamba-Lola AP, Nasi R, EckebilPPT, Yembe RY. 2014. Social impacts of the ForestStewardship Council certification: an assessment inthe Congo basin Bogor. Indonesia: Center forInternational Forestry Research (CIFOR).

Cerutti PO, Nasi R, Tacconi L. 2008. Sustainable forestmanagement in cameroon needs more than approvedforest management plans. Ecol Soc. 13:36.

Cerutti PO, Tacconi L. 2008. Forests, illegality, and liveli-hoods: the Case of Cameroon. Society and NaturalResources. 21:845-853

Cerutti PO, Tacconi L, Nasi R, Lescuyer G. 2011b. Legal vs.certified forest management: preliminary impacts of for-est certification in Cameroon. For Policy Econ. 13:184–190.

Costanza R, Wilson M, Troy A, Voinov A, Liu S,D’Agostino J. 2006. The value of New Jersey’s ecosystemservices and natural capital. New Jersey (NJ): NJDoE.

Damette O, Delacote P. 2011. Unsustainable timber har-vesting, deforestation and the role of certification. EcolEcon. 70:1211–1219.

Dauvergne P, Lister J. 2012. The prospects and limits ofeco-consumerism: shopping our way to less deforesta-tion?. Organ Environ. 23:132–154.

Davis SC, Boddey RM, Alves BJR, Cowie AL, George BH,Ogle SM, Smith P, Van Noordwijk M, Van Wijk MT.2013. Management swing potential for bioenergy crops.GCB Bioenergy. 5:623–638.

De Groot K 2011. Payments for environmental services(PES) from tourism. A realistic incentive to improvelocal livelihoods and sustain forest landscapes in VietNam’s northern highlands [MSc thesis]. Bogor,Indonesia.

Delvingt W. 2010. Les certifications forestières: outils depromotion de la légalité et de la gestion forestière dur-able. Parcs Et Réserves. 65:1.

Durst PB, McKenzie PJ, Brown CL, Appanah S. 2006.Challenges facing certification and eco-labelling of forestproducts in developing countries. Int For Rev. 8:193–200.

Eba’a Atyi R. 2006. Forest certification in Gabon. In:Cashore B, Gale F, Meidinger E & Newsom D (eds.)Confronting sustainability: forest certification in develop-ing and transitioning countries. New Haven (CT): YaleSchool of Forestry & Environmental Studies; p. 443–475.

EIA. 2012. La máquina lavadora. cómo el fraude y lacorrupción en el sistema de concesiones están des-truyendo el futuro de los bosques de perú. UK.

Entenmann S. 2012. Actividades REDD+ en el Perú.Análisis de proyectos piloto de REDD+ en los departa-mentos de Madre de Dios y San Martín, con especialenfoque en sus implicancias sobre la biodiversidadPROFONANPE & Institute of LandscapeManagement. Freiburg University, Lima, Peru &Freiburg, Germany.

Espach R. 2006. When is sustainable forestry sustainable?The Forest Stewardship Council in Argentina and Brazil.Global Environ Politics. 6:55–84.

Fanzeres A, Vogt KA. 1999. Roots of forest certification: itsdevelopmental history, types of approaches, and statis-tics. In: Vogt DJ, Larson BC, Gordon JC & Fanzeres A(eds.) Forest certification: roots, issues, challenges, andbenefits. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; p. 379.

Finer M, Jenkins CN, Sky MA, Pine J. 2014. Loggingconcessions enable illegal logging crisis in the PeruvianAmazon. Sci Rep. 4:4719.

FSC. 2001. Forest management certification standards forwood products from forests in the Peruvian Amazon.FSC-STD-PER-06-2001 Peru Natural. Bonn (Germany):Forest Stewardship Council.

FSC. 2007. Strengthening Forest Conservation,Communities and Markets. The Global Strategy of TheForest Stewardship Council. Bonn (Germany): FSCouncil.

FSC. 2012. Forest Stewardship Standard for the Republic ofCameroon. FSC-STD-CAM-01-2012 Cameroon Naturaland Plantations. Bonn (Germany): FS Council.

FSC. 2014a. The Forest Stewardship Council at 20 Years.Bonn (Germany): FS Council.

FSC. 2014b. FSC Principles and Criteria for ForestStewardship FSC-STD-01-001 V5-1 EN. Bonn(Germany): FS Council.

Gale F. 2006. The political economy of sustainable devel-opment: lessons of the forest stewardship council experi-ence. In: Second Oceanic conference on internationalstudies. Available from: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/kitkat/

Greenpeace. 2010. Available from http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/kitkat/.[Accessed 23.3.2015].

Griscom B, Ellis P, Putz FE. 2014. Carbon emissions perfor-mance of commercial logging in East Kalimantan,Indonesia. Glob Chang Biol. 20:923–937. Mar. Epub 2013Sep 2.

Hoare A, Wellesley L. 2014. Illegal Logging and RelatedTrade The Response in Indonesia. A Chatham HouseAssessment. London (UK): C House.

Isminio M. 2014. Tipología de las Unidades de ManejoForestal y Dinámicas de Certificación FSC del ManejoForestal en el Perú. Reporte preliminar. Center forInternational Forestry Research. Indonesia.

130 S. SAVILAAKSO ET AL.

Jagger P, Lawlor K, Brockhaus M, Gebara MF, Sonwa DJ,Resosudarmo IAP. 2012. REDD+ safeguards in nationalpolicy discourse and pilot projects. In: Angelsen A,Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD & Verchot LV (eds.)Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices. Bogor(Indonesia): CIFOR.

Kometter RF, Martinez M, Blundell AG, Gullison RE,Steininger MK, Rice RE. 2004. Impacts of unsustainablemahogany logging in Bolivia and Peru. Ecol Soc. 9:1.

Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P, Rueda X, Blackman A, Borner J,Cerutti PO, Dietsch T, Jungmann L, Lamarque P, ListerJ, et al. 2014. Effectiveness and synergies of policy instru-ments for land use governance in tropical regions.Global Environmental Change. 28:129-140.

Law No. 29785 (2011) - Law on the Right to PriorConsultation of Indigenous or Native Peoples recognisedin ILO Convention 169. Peru.

LFFS (2000) Law No. 27398.The Forestry and Wildlife Law.Peru

Marx A, Cuypers D. 2010. Forest certification as a globalenvironmental governance tool: what is the macro-effec-tiveness of the Forest Stewardship Council? Regul Gov.4:408–434.

Maryudi A, Nawir AA, Permadi DB, Purwanto RH, PratiwiD, Syofi'i A, Sumardamto P. 2015. Complex regulatoryframeworks governing private smallholder tree planta-tions in Gunungkidul District, Indonesia. Forest Policyand Economics.59:1–6.

Mather AS. 2006. Land-use policies. In: Geist HJ, editor.Our earth’s changing land: an encyclopedia of land-useand land-cover change, vol 2. Westport (London):Greenwood Press; p. 375–379.

McDermott CL. 2014. REDDuced: From sustainability tolegality to units of carbon—the search for commoninterests in international forest governance. Environ SciPolicy. 35:12–19.

McDermott CL, Coad L, Helfgott A, Schroeder H. 2012.Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: actors,interests and ideas. Environ Sci Policy. 21:63–72.

McDermott CL, Humphreys D, Wildburger C, Wood P,Marfo E, Pacheco P, Yasmi Y. 2010. Mapping the coreactors and issues defining international forest governance.In: Rayner J, Buck A, Katila P (eds.). Embracing complex-ity: Meeting the challenges of international forest govern-ance A global assessment report Prepared by the GlobalForest Expert Panel on the International Forest Regime.Vienna: IUFRO; p. 19–35.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems andHuman Well-being: A Framework for Assessment.Washington (DC): WR Institute.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems andHuman Well-being: Synthesis. Washington (DC): WRInstitute.

Mithöfer D, Van Noordwijk M, Leimona B, Cerutti PO.2017. Certify and shift blame, or resolve issues?Environmentally and socially responsible global tradeand production of timber and tree crops. Int JBiodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag. 13:72–85.

Muhtaman DR, Prasetyo FA. 2006. Forest certification inIndonesia. In: Cashore B, Gale F, Meidinger E, NewsomD (eds.)Confronting sustainability: forest certification indeveloping and transitioning countries. New Haven (CT):Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.

Nasi R, Billand A, Vanvliet N. 2012. Managing for timberand biodiversity in the Congo Basin. For Ecol Manage.268:103–111.

Overdevest C, Zeitlin J. 2014. Assembling an experimen-talist regime: transnational governance interactions inthe forest sector. Regulation & Governance. 8:22-48.

Pérez O. 2009. Adelantos y progreso alcanzado en materias depolíticas de compra de madera. Estudio de caso Perú.International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Japan.

PTPA. 2006. The United States - Peru Trade PromotionAgreement.

Republic of Cameroon. 1994. Loi No 94/01 du 20 janvier1994 portant régime des forêts, de la faune et de lapêche. Republic of Cameroon.

Republic of Cameroon. 1995. Décret No 95-53-PM du 23août 1995 fixant les modalités d’application du régimedes forêts. Republic of Cameroon.

Romero C, Putz FE, Guariguata MR, Sills EO, Cerutti PO,Lescuyer G. 2013. An overview of current knowledgeabout the impacts of forest management certification: aproposed framework for its evaluation. Bogor(Indonesia): Center for International Forestry Research(CIFOR).

Ruslandi KA, Romero C, Putz FE. 2014. Forest StewardshipCouncil Certification of natural forest management inIndonesia: Required improvements, costs, incentives,and barriers. In: Pia Katila, Glenn Galloway, Wil deJong, Pablo Pacheco, Gerardo Mery (eds.)Forests underpressure: Local responses to global issues. Finland:IUFRO-WFSE.

Schulte-Herbrüggen B, Davies G. 2006. Wildlife conserva-tion and tropical timber certification. London (UK):Zoological Society of London.

Sears RR, Pinedo-Vasquez M. 2011. Forest policy reformand the organization of logging in Peruvian Amazonia.Dev Change. 42:609–631.

Stanton T, Echavarria M, Hamilton K, Ott C. 2010. State ofWatershed Payments: an Emerging Marketplace.Washington DC: Ecosystem Marketplace

Steering Committee of the State-of-Knowledge Assessmentof Standards and Certification. 2012. Toward sustain-ability: the roles and limitations of certification.Washington (DC): United States of America IRESOLVE.

Stetson G. 2012. Oil politics and indigenous resistance inthe peruvian amazon: the rhetoric of modernity againstthe reality of coloniality. J Environ Dev. 21:76–97.

Sunderlin WD, Resosudarmo IAP. 1997. Laju danPenyebab Deforestasi di Indonesia: PenelaahanKerancuan dan Penyelesaiannya. Bogor (Indonesia):CfIFR (CIFOR).

Synnott T. 2005. Some notes on the early years of FSC.Available from: https://ic.fsc.org/our-history.17.htm

Tacconi L. 2003. Fires in Indonesia: causes, costs and policyimplications.. Bogor (Indonesia): CfIFR (CIFOR).

Tomich TP, Chomitz K, Francisco H, Izac A-MN,Murdiyarso D, Ratner BD, Thomas DE, VanNoordwijk M. 2004. Policy analysis and environmentalproblems at different scales: asking the right questions.Agric Ecosyst Environ. 104:5–18.

TPAC 2015.Timber Procurement Assessment Committee.Available from: http://www.tpac.smk.nl/32/home.html

TPAC. 2015. Timber Procurement Assessment Committee[Online]. Available: http://www.tpac.smk.nl/32/home.html [Accessed 28.3.2015].

Trujillo M. 2014. Análisis de progresos en la certificaciónforestal fsc, restricciones y desafíos en concesiones fore-stales de la amazonia peruana. Lima (Peru).Proambiente/GIZ.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 131

Van Kuijk M, Putz FE, Zagt R. 2009. Effects of forestcertification on biodiversity. Wageningen (Holland):Tropenbos International.

Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Pattberg P. 2013. We can’t see theforest for the trees - the environmental impact of globalforest certification is unknown. Gaia. 22:25–28.

van der Meer PJ, Schmerbeck J, Hooda A, Bairaktari C,Bisht NS, Gusain MS, Singh CJ, Naithani A, Saxena A,Olsthoorn AFM, De Groot RS. 2007. Assessment ofEcosystem Goods and Services from Forests in India,The Netherlands, and Germany. WU Alterra, ForestResearch Institute, Waldbau Silviculture Institute.

Waage S, Kester C. 2013. Measuring and ManagingCorporate Performance in an Era of ExpandedDisclosure. San Francisco (CA): BSR.

Wooster MJ, Perry GLW, Zoumas A. 2012. Fire, droughtand El Niño relationships on Borneo (Southeast Asia) inthe pre-MODIS era (1980–2000). Biogeosciences. 9:317–340.

Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S. 2008. Taking stock: A com-parative analysis of payments for environmental servicesprograms in developed and developing countries. EcolEcon. 65:834–852.

132 S. SAVILAAKSO ET AL.

Annex 1. Interview guide for the country casestudies: Indonesia, Peru, and Cameroon

BackgroundThe focus of the country case studies is on how publicregulation and certification play out at national level. Theinterest is in FSC certification as a governance instrumentand how the governance system (including public regula-tion) has evolved in each country over time. The researchquestions below are organized under four different sectionsthat describe (1) country’s forestry sector and (2) environ-mental and social problems, (3) governance response tothem, and finally (4) the logging company perspective.

Research questions:1. Description of the country’s forestry sector

2. Swing potential–What are environmental and social problems within thecommodities’ current production system at countrylevel?

∘ Specific problems (tangible things instead of climatechange, i.e. what is the actual problem climate changebrings)

∘ Time frame since around the beginning of 90s ascertification was established then.

– Have the problems changed over time? That is, dosome problems persist over time or are they dealt with andare not problems anymore?

3. Global value chains– To what extent do sustainability standards go beyondregulation?

– And how do they do so dynamically over time (whatnew concepts emerge) and why?

– Does public regulation follow or lead? When andhow?

– What is known about the current mandatory andvoluntary standards in offering management consid-erations that aid or inhibit the potential of the com-modities’ production system to overcomeenvironmental and social concerns?(In other words: Can the current regulations andvoluntary standards help to overcome environmen-tal and social concerns? Which concerns? How?)

4. Issue cycle– Are sustainability standards an insurance mechanism

of firms against reputational risk of malpractices? (Loggingcompanies)

– If so, what room is there for standards as part of thevalue addition?

– For which indicators (FSC criteria) would this hold?

Certificationschemename

Year ofcertificationscheme’smove intothe country

Publicactorsinvolved

PrivateactorsInvolved Investors

Amountinvested

FSCAny other. . .

The yearwhen

certificationenteredcountry Midpoint

2014 (orthe mostrecent

year dataavailable)

Area under the commodity (ha)Area certified (ha)Annual production (volume)Annual production (value)Export (volume)Export (value)Annual production of certifiedproduce (volume)

Annual production of certifiedproduce (value)

Export volume of certifiedproduce (volume)

Export volume of certifiedproduce (value)

Major destination markets ofthree biggest companiesproducing certified timber(destination plus volume)

Major destination markets ofthree biggest companiesproducing certified timber(destination and value)

Commodity contribution to GDP(% of GDP)

Exports of commodity as % oftotal exports

Year Issue Policy response

. . .

. . .

. . .

Issues 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

Issues (following FSCprinciples and addingothers if not addressed bycertification)

Characterizelegal (BAU)frameworksystem

Characterize certifiedsystem

For example, Principle 1:Compliance with laws

The laws of thecountry mustbe respected

Same

. . .. . . .. . . ..For example, Principle 7:Management planning

Managementplan approvedbygovernment

Plan approved + controlof harvestingdiameters,regeneration . . .

. . .. . . .. . . ..

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 133