Forest Policy and Economics 70 (2016) 91–98

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Policy and Economics

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / fo rpo l

Forest Stewardship Council certification for forest ecosystem services:An analysis of stakeholder adaptability

Wanggi Jaung a,b,⁎, Louis Putzel b, Gary Q. Bull a, Robert Kozak c, Chris Elliott a,d

a Dept. of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canadab Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesiac Dept. of Wood Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canadad Climate and Land Use Alliance, California, USA

⁎ Corresponding author at: Dept. of Forest ResourcesMaColumbia, Vancouver, Canada.

E-mail address: w.jaung@alumni.ubc.ca (W. Jaung).1 “Expanding FSC certification to Ecosystem Service

accessed 23 April 2016 from http://forces.fsc.org.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.0041389-9341/Crown Copyright © 2016 Published by Elsevie

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 20 November 2015Received in revised form 14 May 2016Accepted 8 June 2016Available online xxxx

There aremany studies indicating the linkages of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) forestmanagement certifica-tion to forest ecosystem services (FES). The primary focus of the research was the FSC system's impacts on FESmanagement. What is unique about this study is that it evaluates the adaptability of key FSC stakeholders interms of their ability to incorporate FES. We surveyed 270 FSC stakeholders to quantify the capacity of FSC certi-fication bodies (e.g., auditors) to audit FES delivery, the preferences of FSC enabling partners (e.g., FSC nationalnetworks) to provide training, and the experiences and expectations of FSC certificate holders (e.g., forestowners) to manage and sell FES. The study results indicate that the stakeholder adaptability was high for biodi-versity conservation, carbon storage, and provision of non-timber forest products, medium forwatershed protec-tion services, and low for ecotourism and agricultural products. Thismay help FSC establish priorities for capacitydevelopment for FES.

Crown Copyright © 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Forest certificationForest Stewardship Council (FSC)Forest ecosystem servicesCertification of forest ecosystem services

1. Introduction

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) forest certification schemewas developed in the early 1990s to reduce illegal deforestation andbiodiversity loss (Cashore et al., 2006; Elliott and Schlaepfer, 2001;Kozak et al., 2004). Since its emergence, there have been expectationsthat FSC forest certification could support the delivery of valuable forestecosystem services (FES), including carbon storage, biodiversity conser-vation, watershed protection, ecotourism, and soil protection (Bass andSimula, 1999; Barry et al., 2012; Kiker and Putz, 1997; Rametsteiner andSimula, 2003). As a result, the FSC has recently launched pilot tests1 toexpand its scope from timber to FES management.

The complexity and scope of FES limit FSC's potential expansion toFES (Meijaard et al., 2011, 2014). Many studies have examined the link-ages of the FSC to FES, but no study analyzes the capacity of FSC stake-holders to adapt to the particular requirements of certifying FES. Theexpansion of FSC to FES requires the capacity of FSC certification bodiesto audit FES delivery, the preferences of FSC enabling partners to pro-vide training in FES provisions, and the experiences and expectations

nagement, University of British

s,” Forest Stewardship Council,

r B.V. All rights reserved.

of FSC certificate holders to manage and sell FES. The study definesthese capacities as FSC stakeholder adaptability to a scheme incorporat-ing FES. The stakeholder adaptability is examined against various FES.

2. Literature review

A number of studies identify the linkage of FSC forest certification tobiodiversity conservation, non-timber forestry products (NTFPs), waterquality or quantity management, soil protection, and ecotourism.Among these, discrepancies emerge due to the use or consideration ofdifferent criteria (e.g., compliance to standards vs. on-the-ground im-pacts), different spatial scales (e.g., standards applicable internationallyvs. at the national level), different economic contexts (developing vs.developed countries), and different expectations (e.g., those of biolo-gists vs. sociologists). These discrepancies not only make it difficult tocompare results from one study to the next; they are also indicative ofa degree of complexity in expanding the FSC system to FES.

Studies addressing the linkages of FSC certification to biodiversityconservation include analyses of FSC standards (Cauley et al., 2001;Gullison, 2003; Ioras et al., 2009; McDermott et al., 2008; Merger etal., 2011; Roberge et al., 2011), Corrective Action Requests (CARs)from certification bodies (Masters et al., 2010; Newsom et al., 2006),stakeholder surveys (Moore et al., 2012), and mixed methods and re-views (Kuijk et al., 2009; Nasi et al., 2012; Putz and Romero, 2001;Sheil et al., 2010). However,many studies are not completely consistent

Table 1Key FSC stakeholders and potential roles in FES certification.

Certification market Key FSC stakeholders Potential roles in FES certification

Supply (a) FSC certification bodies:Certification bodies accredited by the FSC

→ Potentially audit FES

(b) FSC enabling partners:FSC network partners, WWF-GFTN network, and Greenpeace

→ Potentially promote certification and train forest owners' capacity to manage FES

Demand (c) FSC certificate holders:Forest owners holding FSC forest management certification

→ Potentially manage and sell FES

Table 2Survey participants and origins.

FSC stakeholders and origins No. of participants Response rates

(a) FSC certification bodies 39 32.23%International 16Europe 14Latin America 4Asia 3US/Canada 2

(b) FSC enabling partners 43 36.72%Europe 15Asia 10Africa 6Latin America 5US/Canada 3International 3Oceania 1

(c) FSC certificate holders 188 15.46%Europe 58Latin America 48US/Canada 35Asia 32Africa 8Oceania 6Unknowna 2

Total 270

a Participants skipped socio-demographic questions.

92 W. Jaung et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 70 (2016) 91–98

due to the limitations of FSC's own requirements for addressing thecomplexity of measuring, managing, and monitoring biodiversity,(Bennett, 2001; Ghazoul, 2001; Sheil et al., 2010), which usually followtailor-made protocols that vary from ecosystem to ecosystem.

A number of studies address the certified production ofNTFPs, whichare already covered by the FSC system. In 1999, the FSC board of direc-tors approved development of case-by-case standards for NTFPs (Pierceet al., 2008). Consequently, various NTFPs have been certified under theFSC, including chicle latex, Brazil nuts, palm hearts, and maple syrup(Duchelle et al., 2014; Pierce et al., 2008; Shanley et al., 2008). WhileFSC NTFPs standards may benefit producers and support biodiversityconservation, several studies highlight challenges affecting uptake.These include a lack of global markets for some products, and the factthat there is no corresponding chain-of-custody certification for NTFPsto ensure products actually originate from certified forests. Competitionwith organic or Fairtrade certification schemes is also cited as a factorthat reduces demand for FSC certified NTFPs (Duchelle et al., 2014;Pierce et al., 2008; Schmitt et al., 2008).

Services related to water quality or quantity are evaluated throughanalyses of FSC's certification standards (McDermott et al., 2008;Roberge et al., 2011; Stupak et al., 2011), CARs analyses (Newsom etal., 2006), an FSC stakeholder survey (Tikina et al., 2008), and an ecolog-ical study of FSC certified forests (Dias et al., 2015). However, van Damet al. (2010) consider the FSC standards too general to adequately assesswater quality or quantity compared to agricultural certificationschemes. Some of these studies also recognize the FSC system's poten-tial to contribute to soil management (Newsom et al., 2006; Stupak etal., 2011; van Dam et al., 2010). However, no study measures the FSC'sactual impacts on soil improvement, and they only draw conclusionsbased on compliance to the standards.

Carbon storage has not been assessed as an outcome of FSC interna-tional standards (Gan and Cashore, 2013;Merger et al., 2011) nor of FSCcertification in the US (Foster et al., 2008). However, Medjibe et al.(2013) find a probable reduction in carbon emissions in FSC-certifiedforests in Indonesia based on ground measurements. Several studiesdiscuss the potential use of FSC certification in management of aREDD+ scheme (Medjibe et al., 2013; Pettenella and Brotto, 2012;Putz and Romero, 2012). Some carbon credits in voluntary marketsare already certified by the FSC (Goldstein et al., 2014). These credits ex-trapolate based on standards compliance to certify the credits, ratherthan certifying actually quantified forest carbon.

Ecotourism-related services have not yet been covered in studies offorest certification (Harshaw et al., 2007; Sheppard et al., 2004), thoughit ismentioned that FSC international standards address conservation ofcultural values, while some FSC national standards address delivery ofscenic beauty and opportunities for outdoor recreation. However, FSCstandards do not address these ecosystem services explicitly, nor dothey link the association of these values with tourism.

Despite these studies, there is littlewritten of relevance to FSC stake-holders' adaptability to the incorporation of FES. In order for the FSC sys-tem to incorporate FES, stakeholders engaged in certification must becapable of adapting to requirements of certifying FES. Adaptability tochanging opportunities and innovations is a quality of many successfulorganizations and businessmodels. The effectiveness and cost efficiencyof adapting are also affected by differentiated specialization, technology,market conditions, and stakeholder expectation and awareness (McKee

et al., 1989; Mori et al., 2016; Tuominen et al., 2004; Valentin et al.,2012). While FES represent a field of potential opportunities for certifi-cation, incorporation of FES faces challenges, such as scientific knowl-edge gaps and a need for scientific but simple FES standards (Meijaardet al., 2011, 2014). These opportunities and challenges are likely to af-fect FSC stakeholders' adaptability to FES, but to what degree is still un-known. This study contributes to filling the knowledge gap byevaluating and comparing key FSC stakeholders' adaptability to the in-corporation of various FES into certification.

3. Methods

3.1. FSC stakeholder adaptability

We analyzed key FSC stakeholders' self-assessed adaptability to re-quirements of certifying forest ecosystem services (FES) by conductinga series of online surveys. The surveys asked participants to rate elevenFES defined by the Millennium Ecosystem assessment (MA, 2005) interms of nine indicators reflecting adaptability.

Three key FSC stakeholder groups were identified and surveyed aspotential stakeholders of an expanded FSC certification scheme forFES, including: FSC certification bodies, FSC enabling partners, and FSC cer-tificate holders (Table 1). In order to analyze their adaptability, four on-line surveys were designed and administered following the TailoredDesign Method (Dillman, 2011). Identified stakeholders were invitedto the surveys via email. Contact emailswere collected from stakeholderwebsites, survey participants, and FSC. The surveys were administratedwith the online survey tool Survey Money. As a result, a total of 270 re-spondents joined the surveys (Table 2).

FSC certification bodies were those accredited by the FSC scheme togrant and administer forest management certification. Their data were

Table 3FES framework.Adapted from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005).

Categories FES

Regulating services 1. Water quality (watershed protection)2. Water quantity (watershed protection)3. Water risk (watershed protection)4. Carbon storage5. Biodiversity conservation

Cultural services 6. Scenic beauty (ecotourism)7. Cultural experience (ecotourism)8. Biodiversity experience (ecotourism)

Supporting services 9. Soil conservationProvisioning services 10. Agriculture goods

11. Non-timber forest products (NTFPs)

93W. Jaung et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 70 (2016) 91–98

collected by the first survey fromMarch 12 to 26, 2012 with a responserate of 32.23%. The response ratewas estimated as the number of surveyparticipants divided by the number of email invitations. The surveywasconducted in English as the auditors were expected to have sufficientproficiency in English.

FSC enabling partners included representatives of FSC national net-works, WWF's Global Forest & Trade Network (WWF-GFTN), andGreenpeace. The WWF-GFTN and Greenpeace were identified as FSCenabling partners because the survey of FSC national networks indicat-ed that these organizations support FSC national networks. These en-abling partners (e.g., WWF's GFTN) play significant roles in buildingforest owners' capacity to achieve the FSC forest management certifica-tion (see also Nussbaum and Simula, 2013; Putzel et al., 2012) so thatthey were considered as potential capacity builders for certification ofFES. Data of FSC enabling partners were collected through the secondand third surveys. The second survey was conducted with the FSC net-work partners from April 16 to 30, 2012. The third survey was conduct-ed with WWF-GFTN and Greenpeace from July 10 to August 30, 2012.The response rate from the surveys of the enabling partners was36.72% representing 33 countries. The surveys were conducted in En-glish as the survey targetswere international organizations. High surveyparticipation was achieved from the FSC network partners and WWF-GFTN thanks to support from the FSC and WWF.

FSC certificate holderswere forest owners holding FSC forestmanage-ment certification. The FSC also has a chain of custody (CoC) certifica-tion scheme to ensure the integrity of certified wood product supplychains. However, the CoC schemewas excluded from the study becausewood product supply chains are not directly involvedwith FESmanage-ment ormarkets. In contrast, holders of the FSC forestmanagement cer-tification represent the current FSC certification market as well aspotential sellers of FES since production forests contain various FES(Bauhus et al., 2010). Data of FSC certificate holders were collected bythe fourth survey from July 9 to August 3, 2012 with a response rateof 15.46% representing 57 countries. Some of the forest owners wereconsidered to have lowproficiency in English so thatmultiple languageswere used in the survey to encourage their participations, including:Chinese, English, French, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese,Spanish, and Vietnamese. When participants came from countries

Table 4Framework to analyze FSC stakeholder adaptability.

FSC stakeholders Adaptability indicators Descrip

(a) FSC certification bodies (1) Auditing deliveries of FES Analyz(b) FSC enabling partners (2) Training in legal aspect of FES

(3) Training in setting FES baseline(4) Training in FES quantification(5) Training in monitoring FES provision

Identify

(c) FSC certificate holders (6) Experience in protecting FES(7) Expected sale value of FES(8) Experience in selling FES(9) Experience with FES certification

Analyz

whose official languages are not any of these languages, the English ver-sion of the survey was used.

Eleven FES were taken from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(Assessment, 2005) for the study (Table 3) (MA, 2005). Commonly uti-lized in ecosystem services studies (Fisher et al., 2009), the MA listgroups services into four categories: regulating services, cultural ser-vices, supporting services, and provisioning services.Watershed protec-tion and ecotourism consist of three sub-serviceswhichwere combinedin the survey of FSC certificate holders to ensure a higher response rate.Agricultural goods were included in the survey because some of them(e.g., tea and coffee) also qualify as NTFPs (MA, 2005; Shanley et al.,2008).

A total of nine indicators were established by the study and evaluat-ed by the key FSC stakeholders (Table. 4). Different indicators were uti-lized to survey different stakeholder groups considering their own rolesin the FSC system. Survey participants were asked to rate their prefer-ences for each of the services in relation to given indicators. FSC certifi-cation bodies were asked to rate each of the eleven FES for which theyhad auditing capacity (Indicator 1). FSC enabling partners were askedto indicate their preferences for each service for which they were will-ing to offer technical training to forest owners. Technical training wasdivided into training on legal aspects related to FES (Indicator 2), train-ing in setting baselines for provision of the services (Indicator 3), train-ing in quantification of the services (Indicator 4), and training inmonitoring the services (Indicator 5). FSC certificate holders wereasked to indicate their experiences in protecting FES (Indicator 6), ex-pectations of future sales potential of the services (Indicator 7), experi-ences in selling the services (Indicator 8), and experiences withecosystem services certification (Indicator 9). These expectations andexperiences of FSC certificate holders reflect the level of capacity inthe FSC system to adapt to FES certification.

3.2. Data analysis

The collected data were analyzed in terms of key FSC stakeholders'adaptability and individual indicators. First, the stakeholder adaptabilitywasmeasured through indication of their preferences against Indicators1 to 9. The adaptability was analyzed as supply-side, demand-side, andoverall capacity. Supply-side adaptability was estimated by summingrated results from FSC certification bodies and FSC enabling partners.The demand-side adaptability was examined by summing results fromFSC certificate holders. The overall FSC stakeholder adaptability was es-timated based on counts of two of the highest and lowest normalizedvalues of FES in each indicator. For the normalization, the rated values'norm vectors, or the Euclidean distances, were used since it allowsobtaining positive values for all normalized values, unlike z-scorebased normalization (Abdi, 2010). With the normalization, FES withthe highest normalization values (or support scores) were countedacross the nine indicators to identify the corresponding FES that aresupportive of the FSC stakeholders' adaptability. The FES with the low-est normalization values (or penalty scores) were also counted acrossthe nine indicators to identify these services involved with some weak

tions

ing FES that are currently auditable by certification bodiesing FES preferred by the networks based on partners' capacity to train forest owners

ing FES based on past experience and future expectations of FSC certificate holders

Fig. 1. Supply-side adaptability from FSC certification bodies and FSC enabling partners.

94 W. Jaung et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 70 (2016) 91–98

adaptability. Later, the overall adaptability was calculated bysubtracting the penalty scores from support scores.

Second, the individual indicators were analyzed by drawing a radarchart per indicator based on the normalized value of the FES. Each ofthe nine radar charts compared the degrees to which these indicatorsrepresent positive or negative levels of stakeholder adaptability.

The analysis relies on three assumptions. First, it assumes that eachof the nine indicators equally contributes to FSC stakeholders' adaptabil-ity to the incorporation of FES, since it was not feasible to calculate theweight of each indicator's contribution to the development of FES certi-fication. Second, the analysis assumes that the second highest and low-est values would still have impacts on the stakeholder adaptability inaddition to the first values. As a result, it utilized two of the highestand lowest values from the normalization from each indicator whenthe support and penalty scores were estimated for each of FES. Third,the study assumes that, because of the key roles these stakeholdergroups play in the FSC system, the aggregated results reflect the adapt-ability of the whole FSC system to the incorporation of particular FES.

4. Results

4.1. FSC stakeholder adaptability

FSC stakeholder adaptability to forest ecosystem services (FES) isdemonstrated as supply-side, demand-side, and overall adaptability.The supply-side adaptability represents the self-assessed capacity ofFSC certification bodies and FSC enabling partners (Fig. 1). On average,biodiversity conservation, non-timber forest products (NTFPs), and

Fig. 2. Demand-side adaptability

carbon storage scored high per this rating. FSC enabling partners' will-ingness to offer training in setting baselines for FES provision receivedthe highest votes, while their willingness to offer training in legal as-pects of FES obtained the lowest votes among the five indicators. It im-plies that the FSC enabling partner's preferences to work on legalaspects of FES is more challenging than the technical measurement ofFES, including setting baselines and quantification of services. The resultof self-assessed auditing capacity also indicates that certification bodiesrated their capacity lower than the FSC enabling partners.

The demand-side adaptability shows the self-assessed adaptability ofFSC certificate holders to the incorporation of FES (Fig. 2). On the de-mand-side, the rated results against the four indicators were averaged.Biodiversity conservation,watershedprotection, and carbon storage ob-tained the three highest values among FES. Among the four indicators,FSC certificate holders' experience in protecting FES obtained a distinc-tively higher vote than the other indicators. It signals a high likelihoodthat these FES are already delivered in their FSC certified forests. How-ever, relatively low values were associated with sales experience, ex-pected sales, and certification experience. These low values signal thatFSC certificate holders expect relatively weak demand for these FES,even though the services are available in their forests.

The overall adaptability shows the key FSC stakeholders' adaptabilitybased on the overall, support, and penalty scores (Fig. 3). The supportand penalty scores were calculated by summing normalized values ofthe FES across the nine indicators (Table 5). Overall scores resultedfrom subtracting penalty scores from support scores. Overall scores in-dicated that the stakeholder adaptability was favorable to incorporatebiodiversity conservation (score: 7), carbon storage (4), and NTFPs

from FSC certificate holders.

Fig. 3. Overall adaptability from FSC certification bodies, FSC enabling partners, and FSC certificate holders.

95W. Jaung et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 70 (2016) 91–98

(3). On the other hand, the adaptability was weak for cultural experi-ence for ecotourism (−7), agriculture products (−5), and scenic beau-ty for ecotourism (−4). The sub-services under watershed protectionfell in a neutral score range (1 to −1), suggesting that the adaptabilitywas neither supportive nor disadvantageous to these FES.

4.2. Individual indicator radar charts

Normalized values of the FES per each indicator are illustrated withradar charts. The radar charts are grouped based on the FSC stakeholdergroups. Indicator 1 indicates the auditing capacity of FSC certificationbodies. Indicators 2 to 5 illustrate the training preferences of FSC en-abling partners. Indicators 6 to 9 show the demand capacity of FSC cer-tificate holders.

First, FSC certification bodies' capacity to audit FES yielded high scoresfor NTFPs and agricultural products (Fig. 4). NTFPs and agriculturalproducts yielded the highest values. These values suggest that certifica-tion bodies' current audit capacity is relatively higher for provisioningservices based on the MA list (Table 3). The high value attached to agri-cultural products was a distinctive result, reflecting the fact that certifi-cation bodies are closely working with agricultural certificationschemes such as organic certification. On the other hand, the normaliza-tion values attached to watershed protection and ecotourismwere low,indicating a relativelyweak self-assessed capacity of certification bodiesto audit those FES.

Table 5Normalized values of FES across nine adaptability indicators.

FES FSC CBs FSC enabling partners

(1) Auditingcapacity

(2) Legaltraining

(3) Baselinetraining

(4) Quantifi.training

(5)train

Water_qual 0.11 0.18 0.28 0.20 0.23Water_quan 0.09 0.12 0.25 0.17 0.17Water_risk 0.09 0.14 0.21 0.17 0.21Carbon 0.23 0.28 0.35 0.36 0.29Biodiversity 0.25 0.50 0.46 0.46 0.45Ecotour_scene 0.09 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.14Ecotour_cultur 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.12Ecotour_biodiv 0.14 0.30 0.21 0.34 0.25Soil 0.21 0.22 0.31 0.25 0.29Agriculture 0.41 0.18 0.12 0.17 0.12NTFPs 0.46 0.36 0.26 0.39 0.35

Notes:

• Two of the highest (bold italic) and lowest (underline) normalized values were counted forscores” of FES. When multiple services had equal values, all of them were marked.

• For the indicators of FSC certificate holders (6–9), the values are identical for water_qual, wacause watershed protection and ecotourism represented their sub-services in the survey.

Second, FSC enabling partners' preferences related to Indicators 2 to 5(Fig. 5) yielded rather similar shapes in the radar charts, indicating rel-atively homogeneous capacity over the four indicators. The normaliza-tion values were generally high for biodiversity conservation, NTFPs,and carbon storage. On the other hand, the values were generally lowfor agricultural products, ecotourismwith scenic beauty and cultural ex-perience, and watershed protection for improving water quantity andreducing water-related risks.

Third, FSC certificate holders' capacity against Indicators 6 to 9 yieldeddiverse shapes of radar charts (Fig. 6). Biodiversity conservation andcarbon storage generally had high values, while agricultural productsreceived very low values. These results reflect the fact that the most ofthe forest owners with the FSC certificate were likely not engagedwith farm businesses.

5. Discussion

Our results reveal that the key FSC stakeholders' adaptability wasrelatively high for biodiversity conservation, carbon storage, andNTFPs, medium for watershed protection services, and low for ecotour-ism and agricultural goods. Of course, the strong and low adaptabilitydoes not preclude the FSC's potential to adapt certification to these par-ticular forest ecosystem services (FES). Rather, to do so, theywould firstrequire various robust feasibility tests, such as market demand for FSC-certified FES. They would also need to overcome challenges such as the

FSC certificate holders

Monitoringing

(6) Protectingexperience

(7) Expectedsale

(8) Saleexperience

(9) Certificationexperience

0.51 0.37 0.25 0.430.51 0.37 0.25 0.430.51 0.37 0.25 0.430.27 0.54 0.58 0.450.62 0.54 0.42 0.590.21 0.37 0.41 0.260.21 0.37 0.41 0.260.21 0.37 0.41 0.260.42 0.26 0.07 0.350.06 0.10 0.14 0.060.26 0.26 0.48 0.26

each service across the nine indicators in order to estimate “support scores” and “penalty

ter_quan, and water_risk and for ecotour_scence, ecotour_cultur, and ecotour_biodiv be-

Fig. 4. Adaptability indicator self-assessed by FSC certification bodies.

96 W. Jaung et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 70 (2016) 91–98

need for developing simple but scientific standards to manage FES(Meijaard et al., 2011, 2014). Despite these limitations, the study resultsstill support, by extension, a comparison of multiple FES in terms of theadaptability within the FSC system. The comparison supports preparingfeasibility tests for certification of a supported selection of FES.

The results of the study can be explained by the effects of two fac-tors: (1) the FSC's internal system and (2) external forest carbon mar-kets. The FSC's internal system influences the results in that FES alreadycovered by the FSC's international principles and criteria are likely toscore high because they are already to some degree outcome targetsof the certification scheme. The principles and criteria directly addressbiodiversity conservation, watershed protection, soil conservation, andNTFPs (FSC, 2012). It is therefore not surprising that these FES generallywere associatedwith higher scores than those not directly addressed by

Fig. 5. Adaptability indicators self-ass

the principles and criteria, with some exceptions (e.g., carbon) (Table6). The high score attached to biodiversity conservation can be ex-plained not only by the FSC principles and criteria (Cauley et al., 2001;Gullison, 2003; Ioras et al., 2009; McDermott et al., 2008; Merger etal., 2011; Roberge et al., 2011) but also by the fact that the FSC was ini-tially developed specifically to address biodiversity loss (Cashore et al.,2006; Elliott and Schlaepfer, 2001; Rametsteiner and Simula, 2003).The high score of NTFPs can be explained by the fact that NTFPs are al-ready integrated into the FSC system, such as the FSC Brazil nuts stan-dards in Brazil and Peru (Duchelle et al., 2014; Shanley et al., 2008).Watershed and soil protections also achieved higher scores than eco-tourism. The result is supported by studies that recognize the benefitsof FSC's management in terms of watershed and soil protections(McDermott et al., 2008; Roberge et al., 2011; Stupak et al., 2011) andby studies that address the FSC's lack of attention to scenic beauty, rec-reation, and tourism (Harshaw et al., 2007; Sheppard et al., 2004).

We expect that results would be affected by external forest carbonmarkets as well. Carbon storage is not explicitly covered by the FSC's in-ternational principles and criteria (Gan and Cashore, 2013;Merger et al.,2011; vanDamet al., 2010), but it obtained a high overall score. It is truethat some FSC national standards implicitly address forest carbon (e.g.,FSC Canada Maritime and FSC Australia standards) (Stupak et al.,2011). However, we consider the high score was mainly affected bythe FSC stakeholders' business experience with carbon projects, partic-ularly those of certification bodies and forest owners: some FSC-accredited certification bodies already audit forest carbon projects(e.g., Rainforest Alliance); some studies demonstrate the FSC's potentialconnections with forest carbon projects, such as a REDD+ schemes(Medjibe et al., 2013; Pettenella and Brotto, 2012; Putz and Romero,2012); and some carbon credits in voluntary carbonmarkets are alreadycertified by the FSC forest certification (Goldstein et al., 2014). Addition-ally, the data required to estimate carbon storage are relatively morereadily available than are the cases with many other FES variables(Layke, 2009).

essed by FSC enabling partners.

Fig. 6. Adaptability indicators self-assessed by FSC certificate holders.

Table 6FES in FSC international principle and criteria.Source: FSC (2012).

FES Overalladaptabilityscores

FSC criteria (C)

Biodiversityconservation

7 C6.4/C6.6/C6.8/C9.1-1/C9.1-2/C9.1-3/C10.10

Carbon storage 4NTFPs 3 C10.11Water quality(watershed)

1 C6.7/C9.1-4/C9.1-5/C10.10

Water risk(watershed)

0 C9.1-4

Water quantity(watershed)

−1 C6.7/C9.1-4/C9.1-5/C10.10

Soil conservation −2 C9.1/C10.10Biodiversityexperience(ecotourism)

−2

Scenic beauty(ecotourism)

−4

Agricultural −5

97W. Jaung et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 70 (2016) 91–98

The resultswould provide indications of criteria to determine poten-tial scope of the specific FES that would be supported by greater stake-holder adaptabilitywhen FSC expands to cover FESmanagement. As FESencompass the range of benefits of sustainable forest management, FSChas made various efforts to examine its potential to incorporate FES,such as the ForCES project and analysis of FSC impacts on FESmanagement.2 Because many factors would affect successful expansionof certification to FES, various criteria must be applied to analyze feasi-bility. One criterion is FSC stakeholders' adaptability to incorporatingFES. FSC stakeholders are a key component of the FSC system, and build-ing their capacity would entail considerable costs. Thus, a potentialstrategy to reduce the costs would be to focus first on FES for whichthe stakeholders already demonstrate a higher degree of adaptability.

The study has certain limitations. First, the self-assessed adaptabilitycontains potential biases, such as over- or under- estimates of perceivedcapacities. The limitation is also embedded in the nature of self-admin-istered online surveys. Thus, the measurement of more accurate adapt-ability would require standardized tests based on face-to-faceinterviews, field-based ecological studies, and verification of capacitiesvia third-party data and reports. Second, stakeholder adaptability is sub-ject to change in the future, for example, through any capacity buildingon FES or a change in stakeholders. Expanding carbon markets have al-ready changed stakeholder adaptability, as demonstrated by the highadaptability score associated with carbon. FSC supporters (e.g.,Greenpeace) are also changeable. Third, stakeholders of ecosystem ser-vices projects (e.g., payments for environmental services) might havedifferent adaptability compared to key FSC stakeholders. Last but notleast, high-scoring adaptability would support certification develop-ment but do not guarantee successful expansions of the FSC system torelevant FES because the expansions should still overcome many chal-lenges, such as expected low demand for certified ecosystem services,and limited scientific understanding of these services (Meijaard et al.,

2 “The FSC Ecosystem Services Programme,” Forest Stewardship Council, accessed 23April 2016 from https://ic.fsc.org/en/our-impact/program-areas/ecosystemservices.

2011, 2014). These limitations also imply demand for further in-depthfeasibility tests on this adaptation of the FSC system.

6. Conclusions

The study examines key FSC stakeholder adaptability to the incorpo-ration of forest ecosystem services (FES). A comparison of FSC stake-holders' self-assessed adaptability over various FES showed that theiradaptability was relatively high for biodiversity conservation, carbonstorage, and NTFPs provision, medium for watershed protection ser-vices, and low for ecotourism values and provision of agricultural

productsCultural experience(ecotourism)

−7 C9.1

98 W. Jaung et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 70 (2016) 91–98

products. The study results are supported by the FSC internal principlesand criteria and influenced by forest carbonmarkets. These results con-tribute to understandings of the potential scope to test the FSC system'sexpansion to FES.

The study only focuses on key FSC stakeholders' self-assessments;additional studies are necessary to assess FSC's potential to expand itsscope to FES management. Future studies would have to analyze field-based analysis of the adaptability of the stakeholders (e.g., ecologicalstudies of certified forests), market demand for certified FES (e.g. PESbuyers' demand for certified watershed services) and the perceptionsof local ecosystem services stakeholders of certified FES (e.g., PES stake-holder perceptions on certified watershed services).

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Forest Stewardship Council, FSC NetworkPartners, World Wildlife Fund Indonesia, and WWF Global Forest &Trade Network for their support of this research. We also provide spe-cial thanks to all the individual participants of the surveys. The researchwas financially supported by the Global Environmental Facility throughthe United Nations Environment Program, Faculty of Forestry StrategicRecruitment Fellowships from the University of British Columbia, andthe CGIRA Program on Forests, Trees, and Agroforestry. The authorsalso acknowledge valuable comments from anonymous referees.

References

Abdi, H., 2010. Normalizing data. In: Salkind, N. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design.Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Barry, M., Cashore, B., Clay, J., Fernandez, M., Lebel, L., Lyon, T., Mallet, P., Matus, K.,Melchett, P., Vandenbergh, M., Vis, J.K., Whelan, T., 2012. Toward Sustainability: TheRoles and Limitations of Certification. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, DC.

Bass, S., Simula, M., 1999. Independent Certification/Verification of Forest Management.The World Bank/WWF Alliance Workshop, Washington, D.C.

Bauhus, J., Meer, P.J.v.d., Kanninen, M., 2010. Ecosystem Goods and Services from Planta-tion Forests. Earthscan, London.

Bennett, E.L., 2001. Timber certification: where is the voice of the biologist? Conserv. Biol.15, 308–310.

Cashore, B., Gale, F., Meidinger, E., Newsom, D., 2006. Confronting Sustainability: ForestCertification in Developing and Transitioning Countries. Yale School of Forestry & En-vironmental Studies, New Haven.

Cauley, H.A., Peters, C.M., Donovan, R.Z., O'Connor, J.M., 2001. Forest Stewardship Councilforest certification. Conserv. Biol. 15, 311–312.

Dias, F.S., Bugalho, M.N., Rodríguez-González, P.M., Albuquerque, A., Cerdeira, J.O., 2015.Effects of forest certification on the ecological condition of Mediterranean streams.J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 190–198.

Dillman, D.A., 2011. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored DesignMethod-2007 Updatewith New Internet, Visual, and Mixed-Mode Guide. Wiley.

Duchelle, A.E., Kainer, K.A., Wadt, L.H.O., 2014. Is certification associatedwith better forestmanagement and socioeconomic benefits? A comparative analysis of three certifica-tion schemes applied to Brazil nuts in western Amazonia. Soc. Nat. Resour. 27,121–139.

Elliott, C., Schlaepfer, R., 2001. The advocacy coalition framework: application to the pol-icy process for the development of forest certification in Sweden. Journal of EuropeanPublic Policy 8, 642–661.

Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services fordecision making. Ecol. Econ. 68, 643–653.

Foster, B.C., Wang, D., Keeton, W.S., 2008. An exploratory, post-harvest comparison ofecological and economic characteristics of forest stewardship council certified anduncertified northern hardwood stands. J. Sustain. For. 26, 171–191.

Gan, J., Cashore, B., 2013. Opportunities and challenges for integrating bioenergy into sus-tainable Forest management certification programs. J. For. 111, 11–16.

Ghazoul, J., 2001. Barriers to biodiversity conservation in forest certification. Conserv. Biol.15, 315–317.

Goldstein, A., Gonzalez, G., Peters-Stanley, M., 2014. Turning Over a New Leaf: State of theForest Carbon Markets 2014. Ecosystem Market Place.

Gullison, R.E., 2003. Does forest certification conserve biodiversity? Oryx 37, 153–165.Harshaw, H.W., Sheppard, S., Lewis, J.L., 2007. A review and synthesis of social indicators

for sustainable forest management. J. Ecosyst. Manage. 8.Ioras, F., Abrudan, I.V., Dautbasic, M., Avdibegovic, M., Gurean, D., Ratnasingam, J., 2009.

Conservation gains through HCVF assessments in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Romania.Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 3395–3406.

Kiker, C.F., Putz, F.E., 1997. Ecological certification of forest products: economic chal-lenges. Ecol. Econ. 20, 37–51.

Kozak, R.A., Cohen, D.H., Lerner, J., Bull, G.Q., 2004. Western Canadian consumer attitudestowards certified value-added wood products: an exploratory assessment. For. Prod.J. 54, 21–24.

Kuijk, M.v., Putz, F.E., Zagt, R., 2009. Effects of Forest Certification on Biodiversity.Wageningen, Tropenbos International.

Layke, C., 2009. Measuring nature's Benefits: A Preliminary Roadmap for Improving Eco-system Service Indicators. Washington, World Resources Institute.

Masters, M., Tikina, A., Larson, B., 2010. Forest certification audit results as potentialchanges in forest management in Canada. For. Chron. 86, 455–460.

McDermott, C.L., Noah, E., Cashore, B., 2008. Differences that ‘matter’? A framework forcomparing environmental certification standards and government policies.J. Environ. Policy Plan. 10, 47–70.

McKee, D.O., Varadarajan, P.R., Pride, W.M., 1989. Strategic adaptability and firm perfor-mance: a market-contingent perspective. J. Mark. 21–35.

Medjibe, V.P., Putz, F.E., Romero, C., 2013. Certified and uncertified logging concessionscompared in Gabon: changes in stand structure, tree species, and biomass. Environ.Manag. 51, 524–540.

Meijaard, E., Sheil, D., Guariguata, M.R., Nasi, R., Sunderland, T.C.H., Putzel, L., 2011. Eco-system Services Certification: Opportunities and Constraints. Center for InternationalForestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia (57 pp.).

Meijaard, E., Wunder, S., Guariguata, M.R., Sheil, D., 2014. What scope for certifying forestecosystem services? Ecosystem Services 7, 160–166.

Merger, E., Dutschke, M., Verchot, L., 2011. Options for REDD+ voluntary certification toensure net GHG benefits, poverty alleviation, sustainable management of forests andbiodiversity conservation. Forest 2, 550–577.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Frame-work for Assessment. Island Press.

Moore, S.E., Cubbage, F., Eicheldinger, C., 2012. Impacts of Forest Stewardship Council(FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) forest certification in North America.J. For. 110, 79–88.

Mori Junior, R.M., Franks, D., Ali, S.H., Eweje, G., Eweje, G., 2016. Sustainability certificationschemes: evaluating their effectiveness and adaptability. Corp. Gov.: The Internation-al Journal of Business in Society 16, 1–27.

Nasi, R., Billand, A., van Vliet, N., 2012. Managing for timber and biodiversity in the CongoBasin. For. Ecol. Manag. 268, 103–111.

Newsom, D., Bahn, V., Cashore, B., 2006. Does forest certification matter? An analysis ofoperation-level changes required during the SmartWood certification process in theUnited States. Forest Policy Econ. 9, 197–208.

Nussbaum, R., Simula, M., 2013. The Forest Certification Handbook. Earthscan, Londonand Sterling.

Pettenella, D., Brotto, L., 2012. Governance features for successful REDD+ projects orga-nization. Forest Policy Econ. 18, 46–52.

Pierce, A., Shanley, P., Laird, S., 2008. Non-timber forest products and certification: strangebedfellows. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 18, 23–35.

Putz, F.E., Romero, C., 2001. Biologists and timber certification. Conserv. Biol. 15, 313–314.Putz, F.E., Romero, C., 2012. Helping curb tropical forest degradation by linking REDD+

with other conservation interventions: a view from the forest. Current Opinion in En-vironmental Sustainability 4, 670–677.

Putzel, L., Dermawan, A., Moeliono, M., Trung, L.Q., 2012. Improving opportunities forsmallholder timber planters in Vietnam to benefit from domestic wood processing.Int. For. Rev. 14, 227–237.

Rametsteiner, E., Simula, M., 2003. Forest certification-an instrument to promote sustain-able forest management? J. Environ. Manag. 67, 87–98.

Roberge, A., Bouthillier, L., Boiral, O., 2011. The influence of forest certification on environ-mental performance: an analysis of certified companies in the province of Quebec(Canada). Can. J. For. Res. 41, 661–668.

Schmitt, J., Pokorny, B., Ying, L., 2008. Certification of non-timber forest products in China:effects on food quality, forest conservation and rural development. Forests, Trees andLivelihoods 18, 81–89.

Shanley, P., Pierce, A.R., Laird, S.A., Robinson, D., 2008. Beyond Timber: Certification andManagement of Non-Timber Forest Products. Center for International Forestry Re-search (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.

Sheil, D., Putz, F.E., Zagt, R.J., 2010. Biodiversity Conservation in Certified Forests.Tropenbos International, Wageningen.

Sheppard, S.R., Achiam, C., D'Eon, R.G., 2004. Aesthetics: are we neglecting a critical issuein certification for sustainable forest management? J. For. 102, 6–11.

Stupak, I., Lattimore, B., Titus, B.D., Tattersall Smith, C., 2011. Criteria and indicators forsustainable forest fuel production and harvesting: a review of current standards forsustainable forest management. Biomass Bioenergy 35, 3287–3308.

The Forest Stewardship Council, 2012. FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship(FSC-STD-01-001 V5-0 D5-0 EN) (Bonn).

Tikina, A., Kozak, R., Larson, B., 2008. What factors influence obtaining forest certificationin the U.S. Pacific Northwest? Forest Policy Econ. 10, 240–247.

Tuominen, M., Rajala, A., Moller, K., 2004. How does adaptability drive firm innovative-ness? J. Bus. Res. 57, 495–506.

Valentin, C.D., Emrich, A., Werth, D., Loos, P., 2012. Conceiving Adaptability for BusinessModels: A Literature-based Approach. Paper Presented at the CONF-IRM 2012Proceedings.

van Dam, J., Junginger, M., Faaij, A.P.C., 2010. From the global efforts on certification ofbioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning.Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 14, 2445–2472.