Módulo central de proceso

This thesis employs an integrated research framework: I draw on two different, but complementary approaches. First, I make use of Young (1994)’s approach that was modified by Tikina and Innes (2008) for forest certification. I complement this approach with the research

14 _{Although Gullison’s (2003) scope is worldwide, he focuses exclusively on impacts on biodiversity; see Gullison}

design proposed by Blackman and Rivera (2010) and Blackman and Naranjo (2012). I will discuss each of those approaches in the next paragraphs.

Tikina and Innes ‘s (2008) approach identifies up to six measures of effectiveness in forest certification: problem solving effectiveness, goal attainment, behavioural effectiveness, process effectiveness, constitutive effectiveness and evaluative effectiveness (see table 2.3).

Effectiveness Young's definition Measure of effectiveness in forest

certification

Problem Solving Problem that prompted the establishment of a

governance system solved.

Negative impact from forestry is eliminated or minimized; biodiversity is preserved; deforestation is stopped.

Goal attainment Achievement of certain

specific goals.

Standard specific-goals (stated as principles, objectives or criteria) are achieved; non-stated or less often stated stakeholder goals (e.g. market share gained or retained, public pressure avoided, and influence over decision-making gained) are achieved.

Behavioural effectiveness Differences in behaviour brought by a governance system.

Positive changes in forest practices, positive changes in consumer (end- user) behaviours, positive changes in customer (retailer and industrial user) behaviours.

Process effectiveness Adoption of a particular system in an institution, region or country.

Commitment to certification by

governance institutions

(government and industry associations); adoption of certification by forest managing entities.

Constitutive effectiveness Acceptance of a regime by social groups and their expenditures related to the operation of the system.

Licencees' or landholders' awareness of land-use issues, public awareness of certification and its influence over forest practices, tightening of requirements of similar instruments.

Evaluative effectiveness Assessment of efficiency, equitability, sustainability and robustness of regime.

Is forest certification the best system to minimize the potential negative impacts of forestry on ecosystems and communities? How do its effects compare with hard law or other governance mechanisms?

Table 2.3 Aspects of regime effectiveness as applied to forest certification. Source: adapted from Tikina and Innes (2008).

Young (1994)’s original approach is particularly interested in understanding why some environmental regimes work well and why others become largely ineffective. It does so by measuring how those regimes “score” on each of the measures of effectiveness described above.

The last measure of forest certification effectiveness (evaluative) is excluded from the scope of this work for a number of reasons that relate to practicality within the context of a PhD thesis. First, evaluative effectiveness addresses concerns that markedly differ from the other measures of effectiveness described above (Young, 1994). Addressing evaluative effectiveness might lead, for example, to an assessment of a number of variables involving the performance15 of the particular certification schemes to reach a better understanding about whether it is operating in a cost-effective manner. This would imply extensive and detailed evaluations of other variables (e.g. economic and social costs), going beyond the scope of this research. Second, evaluative effectiveness may also imply that there have been extensive evaluations of forest certification against existing legal requirements (soft-law versus hard-law comparisons) (Tikina and Innes, 2008) thereby widening the scope of this research to include other policy instruments. Hence, assessing the evaluative effectiveness of certification would be a study in itself.

One of the most important advantages of Young and Tikina and Innes’s approach is its comprehensiveness. It entails a number of different dimensions to measure the effectiveness of a regime as a whole. In this regard, most studies on forest certification impacts are narrowly focused on one or two particular dimensions, or they address more than one dimension without acknowledging “the big picture”. In contrast, this research makes explicit references to each dimension of effectiveness and its interactions with others. Importantly, this approach also includes some elements of the theory of change to assess forest certification as proposed by Romero et al. (2013), because it acknowledges short and medium-term outcomes (goal attainment dimension) towards final impacts of certification (problem solving dimension). For example, in environmental terms, it evaluates how the protection of certain environmental components (e.g. biodiversity and natural areas) may lead to a better environmental quality.

This study evaluates the capacity of forest certification to achieve concrete changes in the behaviour of plantation and native forestry businesses by investigating what, why and how

those changes have impacted upon a range of stakeholders environmentally, socially and economically. In other words, it focuses on how different forest certification schemes impact on forestry organizations and other stakeholders and the extent of change in the relations among them.

15 _{For example, if we would evaluate the efficiency of forest certification we would need to know if the regime is}

operating at a cost-effective manner, collecting quantitative data about costs and contrasting this information with the outcomes of the regime. On the other hand, if we need to know about the equitability of certification we would need to assess if the outcomes of the regime are being delivered to a whole range of stakeholders rather than focusing on a narrow group (e.g. big forestry business at the detriment of small forest owners), by collecting qualitative and/or quantitative data.

Similarly, we need to know how and why those changes impacted on certified companies, and to address, as far as practicable, what would have happened if forest certification had not been implemented at all in those forestry businesses. As De Vaus (2001):27 points out “we need to be confident that the research design can sustain the causal conclusions that we claim for it” so as to reasonably eliminate alternative explanations and obtain unambiguous conclusions, that is, maximizing the internal validity of the study. Thus, constructing a reasonably credible counterfactual analysis between case studies should allow us to explain whether the changes are truly due to certification itself or other causes. We can achieve that goal by drawing on the counterfactual approach proposed by Blackman and Rivera (2010) and Blackman and Naranjo (2012). That is, by comparing very similar certified and non- certified forestry businesses, in terms of a number of criteria to construct a set of matched pairs so as to avoid the risk of selection-bias.

This research is inspired by the counterfactual approach rather than a literal implementation of it. Hence, due to the qualitative nature of this research and the real-world challenges to conduct a counterfactual analysis (see sub-section 2.6.3.1), I do not use statistical tools to construct matched pairs (e.g. propensity score matching), or more sophisticated counterfactual cases. Instead, I employ a less onerous and non-random approach to construct them, through forming four groups of forestry businesses (two certified and two non-certified), in which their environmental, social and economic performance are assessed against five measures of effectiveness, according to the framework proposed by Tikina and Innes (2008) (see Figure 2.1). I will discuss sampling criteria in detail in section 2.6.3 in this chapter.

Figure 2.1 Scheme of the research framework used to assess the effectiveness of forest certification in this thesis.

Finally, I also drew on Moore et al.’s (2012) framework to understand the drivers of

forest certification. They categorize those drivers into four broad categories: strategic position/corporate social responsibility (CSR); signalling stewardship commitment towards external groups (social licence to operate); improved market access/prices; and better internal/field management practices. This framework is useful since allows the researcher to group numerous “small individual reasons” to seek certification under those broad categories.