CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 88Oil Palm Production and SustainabilityGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impactConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management

Assessing the potential additionality of certification by the round table on responsible soybeans and the roundtable on sustainable palm oil

Open access
Garrett, Rachael D, Carlson, Kimberly M, Rueda, Ximena, Noojipady, Praveen·2016·Environmental Research Letters
DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/045003
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Multi-stakeholder roundtables offering certification programs are promising voluntary governance mechanisms to address sustainability issues associated with international agricultural supply chains. Yet, little is known about whether roundtable certifications confer additionality, the benefits of certification beyond what would be expected from policies and practices currently in place. Here, we examine the potential additionality of the Round table on Responsible Soybeans (RTRS) and the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) in mitigating conversion of native vegetation to cropland. We develop a metric of additionality based on business as usual land cover change dynamics and roundtable standard stringency relative to existing policies. We apply this metric to all countries with RTRS ( n = 8) and RSPO ( n = 12) certified production in 2013–2014, as well as countries that have no certified production but are among the top ten global producers in terms of soy ( n = 2) and oil palm ( n = 2). We find RSPO and RTRS both have substantially higher levels of stringency than existing national policies except in Brazil and Uruguay. In regions where these certification standards are adopted, the mean estimated rate of tree cover conversion to the target crop is similar for both standards. RTRS has higher mean relative stringency than the RSPO, yet RSPO countries have slightly higher enforcement levels. Therefore, mean potential additionality of RTRS and RSPO is similar across regions. Notably, countries with the highest levels of additionality have some adoption. However, with extremely low adoption rates (0.41% of 2014 global harvested area), RTRS likely has lower impact than RSPO (14%). Like most certification programs, neither roundtable is effectively targeting smallholder producers. To improve natural ecosystem protection, roundtables could target adoption to regions with low levels of environmental governance and high rates of forest-to-cropland conversion.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/045003

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Transparency does not always lead to the desired positive outcomes and may lead to reverse impacts.

    “Transparency does not always lead to the desired positive outcomes and may lead to reverse impacts (Mol, 2010;Garrett et al., 2016;Gardner et al., 2018;van der Ven et al., 2018).”

    From Making deforestation risk visible. Discourses on bovine leather supply chain in Brazil (2020) · cites this paper as Garrett et al., 2016

    The Introduction describes roundtables as transparent but says industry participation may reduce the stringency of their standards. The Limitations section also says certification may have reduced benefits through displacement effects. These passages support the caution that transparency does not guarantee positive outcomes, but they do not say transparency itself causes reverse impacts. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Civil society pressure to abandon unsustainable practices may lead buyers to change suppliers but not to address the core problem, creating leakage of unsustainable operations elsewhere.

    “In the case of leakage, civil society pressure to abandon unsustainable practices may for example lead buyers to change suppliers but not to address the core problem.This creates the so-called effect of leakage of unsustainable operations to be carried on somewhere else (Henders and Ostwald, 2014;Garrett et al., 2016;Gibbs et al., 2016;Alix-Garcia and Gibbs, 2017).”

    From Making deforestation risk visible. Discourses on bovine leather supply chain in Brazil (2020) · cites this paper as Garrett et al., 2016

    Section 6.1 (page unavailable) says environmental groups pressure oilseed traders to eliminate deforestation from supply chains and that soy traders can reduce reputational risk by sourcing more soy from temperate regions. It does not say that unsustainable production consequently continues elsewhere or identify this supplier shift as leakage. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. Garrett R D and Rausch L 2015 Green for gold: social and ecological tradeoffs influencing the sustainability of the Brazilian soy industry J. Peasant Stud. 43 461-93 · DOI
  2. Obidzinski K et al 2012 Environmental and social impacts of oil palm plantations and their implications for biofuel production in Indonesia Ecol. Soc. 17 1-25 · DOI
  3. Lenzen M et al 2013 Drivers of change in Brazil's carbon dioxide emissions Clim. Change 121 815-24 · DOI
  4. Carlson K M et al 2013 Carbon emissions from forest conversion by kalimantan oil palm plantations Nat. Clim. Change 3 283-7 · DOI
  5. Carlson K M et al 2012 Committed carbon emissions, deforestation, and community land conversion from oil palm plantation expansion in west kalimantan, Indonesia Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109 7559-64 · DOI
  6. Edwards D P et al 2010 Wildlife-friendly oil palm plantations fail to protect biodiversity effectively Conserv. Lett. 3 236-42 · DOI
  7. Fuchs D, Kalfagianni A and Havinga T 2011 Actors in private food governance: the legitimacy of retail standards and multistakeholder initiatives with civil society participation Agric. Hum. Values 28 353-67 · DOI
  8. Waldman K B and Kerr J M 2014 Limitations of certification and supply chain standards for environmental protection in commodity crop production Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 6 429-49 · DOI
  9. Milder J C et al 2015 An agenda for assessing and improving conservation impacts of sustainability standards in tropical agriculture Conserv. Biol. 29 309-20 · DOI
  10. Wünscher T, Engel S and Wunder S 2008 Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits Ecol. Econ. 65 822-33 · DOI
  11. Segerson K and Miceli T J 1998 Voluntary environmental agreements: good or bad news for environmental protection? J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 36 109-30 · DOI
  12. Blackman A and Rivera J 2010 The evidence base for environmental and socioeconomic impacts of 'sustainable' certification Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 10-17 SSRN1579083 · DOI
  13. Strassburg B, Turner R and Fisher B 2009 Reducing emissions from deforestation-the 'combined incentives' mechanism and empirical simulations Glob. Environ. Change 19 265-78 · DOI
  14. Gibbs H K et al 2015 Brazil's soy moratorium Science 347 377-8 · DOI · Paper page
  15. le Polain Y et al A rush to the margins: impacts of land use policies on corporate investments in agriculture in the Gran Chaco Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA (doi:10.1073/ pnas.1602646113) · DOI
  16. Hansen M C et al 2013 High-resolution global maps of 21st- century forest cover change Science 342 850-3 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Potts J et al 2014 The state of sustainability initiatives review: standards and the green economy International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
  18. MEA 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being vol 5 (Washington, DC: Island Press) (www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/ document.356.aspx.pdf)
  19. Fearnside P M 2007 Brazils cuiabá-santarém (br-163) highway: the environmental cost of paving a soybean corridor through the amazon Environ. Manage 39 601-14 · DOI
  20. Fearnside P M 2001 Soybean cultivation as a threat to the environment in Brazil Environ. Conserv 28 23-38 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Bush S R et al 2013 Global food supply certify sustainable aquaculture? Science 341 1067-8 · DOI
  22. Costa P M et al 2000 Elements of a certification system for forestry-based carbon offset projects Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 5 39-50 · DOI
  23. Auld G, Gulbrandsen L H and McDermott C L 2008 Certification schemes and the impacts on forests and forestry Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 33 187 · DOI
  24. Lambin E F et al 2014 Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions Glob. Environ. Change 28 129-40 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Borck J C and Coglianese C 2009 Voluntary environmental programs: assessing their effectiveness Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34 305-24 · DOI
  26. Ebeling J and Yasué M 2009 The effectiveness of market-based conservation in the tropics: forest certification in ecuador and bolivia J. Environ. Manage. 90 1145-53 · DOI
  27. Barrett H R et al 2001 Smallholder farmers and organic certification: accessing the eu market from the developing world Biol. Agric. Hortic. 19 183-99 · DOI
  28. Gulbrandsen L H 2009 The emergence and effectiveness of the marine stewardship council Mar. Policy. 33 654-60 · DOI
  29. Vandergeest P 2007 Certification and communities: alternatives for regulating the environmental and social impacts of shrimp farming World Dev. 35 1152-71 · DOI
  30. Bacon C M 2010 Who decides what is fair in fair trade? The agri-environmental governance of standards, access, and price J. Peasant Stud. 37 111-47 · DOI
  31. Godar J et al 2014 Actor-specific contributions to the deforestation slowdown in the Brazilian amazon Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 111 15591-6 · DOI · Paper page
  32. McMichael P 2011 Food system sustainability: questions of environmental governance in the new world (dis) order Glob. Environ. Change 21 804-12 · DOI
  33. Romijn E et al 2012 Assessing capacities of non-annex i countries for national forest monitoring in the context of redd + Environ. Sci. Policy 19 33-48 · DOI
  34. Macedo M N et al 2012 Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern amazon during the late 2000s Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109 1341-6 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Tropek R et al 2014 Comment on 'high-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change Science 344 981 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Olmos V M 2007 The economic impact of the forest sector in uruguay: a cost-benefit analysis Master Thesis University of Georgia
  37. Garrett R D, Rueda X and Lambin E F 2013 Globalization's unexpected impact on soybean production in south America: linkages between preferences for non-genetically modified crops, eco-certifications, and land use Environ. Res. Lett. 8 1-12 · DOI
  38. Garrett R D, Lambin E F and Naylor R L 2013 The new economic geography of land use change: supply chain configurations and land use in the Brazilian amazon Land Use Policy 34 265-75 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Mayer F and Gereffi G 2010 Regulation and economic globalization: prospects and limits of private governance Bus. Polit. 12 1469-569 · DOI
  40. Deininger K and Byerlee D 2012 The rise of large farms in land abundant countries: do they have a future? World Dev. 40 701-14 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Carlson K M and Curran L M 2013 Refined carbon accounting for oil palm agriculture: disentangling potential contributions of indirect emissions and smallholder farmers Carbon Manage. 4 347-9 · DOI
  42. Gasparri N I and de Waroux Y L P 2015 The coupling of south American soybean and cattle production frontiers: new challenges for conservation policy and land change science Conserv. Lett. 8 290-8 · DOI
  43. McDermott C L 2013 Certification and equity: applying an 'equity framework' to compare certification schemes across product sectors and scales Environ. Sci. Policy 33 428-37 · DOI
  44. Lee J S H et al 2014 Environmental impacts of large-scale oil palm enterprises exceed that of smallholdings in Indonesia Conserv. Lett. 7 25-33 · DOI
  45. Gutiérrez-Vélez V H et al 2011 High-yield oil palm expansion spares land at the expense of forests in the peruvian amazon Environ. Res. Lett. 6 44029 · DOI
  46. Markelova H et al 2009 Collective action for smallholder market access Food Policy. 34 1-7 · DOI
  47. Kersting S and Wollni M 2012 New institutional arrangements and standard adoption: evidence from small-scale fruit and vegetable farmers in thailand Food Policy. 37 452-62 · DOI
  48. Bacon C 2005 Confronting the coffee crisis: can fair trade, organic, and specialty coffees reduce small-scale farmer vulnerability in northern nicaragua? World Dev. 33 497-511 · DOI
  49. Pinto L F G et al 2014 Group certification supports an increase in the diversity of sustainable agriculture network-rainforest alliance certified coffee producers in Brazil Ecol. Econ. 107 59-64 · DOI
  50. Forrer J and Mo K 2013 From certification to supply chain strategy: an analytical framework for enhancing tropical forest governance Organ. Environ. 26 26-280 · DOI
  51. Gulbrandsen L H 2004 Overlapping public and private governance: can forest certification fill the gaps in the global forest regime? Glob. Environ. Polit. 4 75-99 · DOI
  52. Cheyns E 2011 Multi-stakeholder initiatives for sustainable agriculture: limits of the 'inclusiveness' paradigm Govering Through Standards Origins, Drivers and Limitations ed S Ponte et al (London: Palgrave) pp 210-35
  53. Schouten G and Bitzer V 2015 The emergence of southern standards in agricultural value chains: a new trend in sustainability governance? Ecol. Econ. 120 175-84 · DOI
  54. Ponte S 2014 'Roundtabling'sustainability: lessons from the biofuel industry Geoforum. 54 261-71 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garrett, R. D., Carlson, K. M., Rueda, X., & Noojipady, P.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
  • Universidad de Los Andes (CO)
  • Goddard Space Flight Center (US)
ORCID
Venue
Environmental Research Letters
Publisher
IOP Publishing
Published
2016-04-13
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
045003
ISSN
1748-9326 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/045003
OpenAlex
W2336991387
Cited by
88
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 2
FWCI
9.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2016-07-19)
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Environmental Research Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection (cc-by)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  • PepsiCo
  • General Mills
  • Kellogg's
  • Harvard University
  • University of Minnesota
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Oil Palm Production and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Global trade, sustainability, and social impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Keywords
additionality, Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, voluntary certification, land cover change, deforestation, forest-to-cropland conversion, environmental governance, smallholder farmers, soybean, oil palm, agricultural supply chain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review