AbstractDutch policies have advocated sustainable commodity value chains, which have implications for the landscapes from whichthese commodities originate. This study examines governance and policy options for sustainability in terms of howecosystem services are addressed in cocoa, soy, tropical timber and palm oil value chains with Dutch links. A range ofpolicies addressing ecosystem services were identified, from market governance (certification, payments for ecosystemservices) to multi-actor platforms (roundtables) and public governance (policies and regulations). An analysis of policynarratives and interviews identified if and how ecosystem services are addressed within value chains and policies; how theconcept has been incorporated into value chain governance; and which governance options are available. The Dutchgovernment was found to take a steering but indirect role in all the cases, primarily through supporting, financing, facilitatingand partnering policies. Interventions mainly from end-of-chain stakeholders located in processing and consumptioncountries resulted in new market governance, notably voluntary sustainability standards. These have been successful increating awareness of some ecosystem services and bringing stakeholders together. However, they have not fully addressedall ecosystem services or stakeholders, thus failing to increase the sustainability of value chains or of the landscapes oforigin. We argue that chains sourced in tropical landscapes may be governed more effectively for sustainability if voluntary,market policy tools and governance arrangements have more integrated goals that take account of sourcing landscapes andimpacts along the entire value chain. Given the international nature of these commodities. These findings have significancefor debates on public-private approaches to value chain and landscape governance.
Green economic growth requires embracing (and reconcil-ing) national and cross-boundary policy issues such as cli-mate change, poverty and equity, trade and value chains. Aspart of that agenda, the Dutch government has promotedconsidering ecosystems and ecosystem services generally in
value chains for “enhanced biodiversity, water and foodsecurity, poverty alleviation and human well-being” (Neth-erlands Government 2013). This was in response to theEuropean Union’s call as part of the Biodiversity Strategy to2020 to its member states to map and assess the state ofecosystems and their services in their national territory(European Union 2013). Ecosystem services refer to thematerial and immaterial benefits humans derive from naturalassets (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Theseinclude provisioning services (also known as goods orproducts, such has food, fuel and water), and regulating,cultural and supporting services (CBD 2008). The provisionof ecosystem services is culturally determined, con-ceptualized as the “useful things” ecosystems “do” for peo-ple, directly and indirectly, and so is dynamic, changingover time even if the ecological system itself remains in arelatively constant state (TEEB 2010).
The Netherlands has a history of promoting sustainabletrade and safeguarding healthy social and environmental
conditions in the sourcing regions of imported goods. It hassought to increase the sustainability of international tradeusing a value chain approach, as part of a long-term tran-sition of Dutch trade, development and environmentalpolicy toward a green economic growth paradigm (Keijzers2000; Elzen et al. 2004). The Dutch government has usedfour main governance approaches to implement this policy:mandating, partnering, facilitating, and endorsing. Thecorresponding governance arrangements can be found inTable 1 and include government regulation, closed co-governance, open co-governance facilitating self-regulation,and market governance respectively (van Tulder 2008;Vermeulen and Kok 2012) (see next section for furtherdetails).
With a view to reducing the impact on the sourcing areasfrom where the value chains originate and securing resilientecosystems, the Dutch government (2013) has integratedthe concept of environmental services in its value chainapproach. The ecosystem services concept is seen as cap-able of bridging natural and social sciences and economics,conservation and development, and public and privatepolicy (Braat and de Groot 2012). Making ecosystem ser-vices more visible by assigning economic value to them caninform decision-makers about the importance of ecosystemservices and change perceptions on economic developmentand the future of the globe (Costanza et al. 1997 and 2017;TEEB 2009). The ecosystem services concept helpsunderstand how businesses affect natural capital (TEEB2009) and thus can be used to examine the sustainability ofvalue chains. The increasing use of this concept reflects aparadigm shift both in the Netherlands and internationally(van Wensem 2013; Wittmer et al. 2013), indicated byphrases such as “making natures value’s visible”, “main-streaming nature” and “valuing natural capital” (TEEB 2009;Melman et al. 2011). Sustainable ecosystem services implythat despite the services or products of an ecosystem beingused, the integrity and proper functioning of its naturalprocesses and components is not irreversibility impaired(De Groot et al. 2002). This is a critical point as losses ofglobal land-based ecosystem services have been valued ataround € 50 billion annually (TEEB 2009). Ecosystemlosses have important implications for the long-term viabi-lity of businesses and value chains dependent upon thesupply of ecosystem services and/or products originatingfrom these ecosystems (TEEB 2009). Integrating ecosystemservice management in value chain governance assumedlytherefore results in different benefits for different stake-holders. These include, first, private benefits for resourceproducers, by making businesses more viable—for instancethrough the commodification of ecosystem services. Sec-ond, there are public benefits for people living in and nearbysourcing areas who are dependent upon an ecosystem’sproducts and services, by increasing the sustainability of Ta
ble1
Gov
ernancearrang
ementsandpo
licyinstrumentsin
valuechains
Gov
ernancearrang
ement
Roleof
government:
Mandatin
g:Partnering:
Facilitatin
g:End
orsing
:
Gov
ernm
entregu
latio
nClosedco-gov
ernance
Openco-gov
ernance
Marketgo
vernance
Policyinstruments
andinterventio
ns:
Coercion,
‘com
mandandcontrol’
legislation,
regu
lators
andinspectors,
legalandfiscal
penalties,paym
entse.g.,
transfer
paym
entsandgrants,tax
regimes,
public
labels&
standards,anti-trustrules,
policies,direct
actio
n
Com
bining
resources,actors
engagement,dialog
,pu
blic
private
partnerships,covenants/agreem
ents
'Enablinglegislation’,actordialog
,aw
arenessraising,
incentives,sub
sidies,tax
rebates,procurem
entpo
licies,capacity
build
ing,
supp
ortin
gspread
oflabels,self-
governingagencies
Produ
ctlabelin
g,supp
ortfor/by
civil
societyinitiatives,Indu
stry
‘Best
practices’,vo
luntarylabelin
gand
certificatio
nstandards
Corpo
rate
governance
Cod
es:
Stock
exchange
regu
latio
nsandcodes,
company
law,mandatory
repo
rting,
disclosure
rules
Multi-actorcode
developm
ent,shared
mon
itoring
ofgo
vernment,marketor
civilsocietyinitiated
orshared
incentives
Implem
entin
ginternationalprinciples,
repo
rtingstim
uli/g
uidelin
es,internalization,
incentives
Ownrespon
sibility:
civilsocietyand
marketinitiated,vo
luntarycodesand
repo
rting;
peer
review
s/pressure
Inspired
byvanTulder(200
8)andVermeulenandKok
(201
2)
Environmental Management
their livelihoods. Third, there are global societal benefitssuch as climate regulation and biodiversity conservation.
Some of the impacts of sustainable value chains are onlyvisible when a landscape perspective is taken. By reducingenvironmental externalities, sustainable value chain man-agement creates both on-farm and in-forest benefits andreduced costs for the farmers, harvesters and broaderlandscape stakeholders. To capture such wider impacts,governance arrangements need to go “beyond the chain”(Ros-Tonen et al. 2015) and to tackle the sustainability ofecosystem services at the landscape scale (Muller et al.2010). Often collaboration between value chain and non-chain actors is needed, as such ‘advanced value chain col-laboration’ can bring a greater positive impact on farmers’social, human and natural capital than conventional valuechain collaboration (Deans et al. 2017). The landscapeswhere soy, palm oil, timber and cocoa are produced for theNetherlands are largely tropical low- and middle-incomecountries. The exception is soy, which is sourced mainlyfrom Brazil, the USA, Argentina, China, India and Para-guay (WWF 2014). Source impacts from commodity pro-duction often include deforestation, degradation andassociated biodiversity loss; climate and environmentalimpacts such as over-use and pollution of water; and socio-economic issues such as low wages and forced labor. Theseimpacts are further exacerbated by political instability andweak state governments (c.f. van den Berg et al. 2013; vanden Berg et al. 2014).
There are several challenges to maintaining and enhancingecosystem services impacted by commodity trade. First, therange of ecosystem services are often addressed by differentdecision-making processes and policies, such as forestryagencies, government bodies responsible for land-use plan-ning, and environmental ministries (van Oorschot et al. 2016).Second, terminology is varied, with the terms “ecosystemservices” and “landscape functions” often referring to the sameunderlying concepts, due to the diversity of disciplinarybackgrounds behind these transdisciplinary concepts (Mulleret al. 2010; Arts et al. 2017). Third, contrasting discoursesand often sectorally defined policy frames view commodityvalue chains, their origin landscapes and associated ecosys-tems differently (van Oosten et al. 2017). Against this context,this paper takes a broad perspective on the relations betweenecosystem services, the biophysical characteristics of land-scapes and their products, and subsequent value chains. Itthereby addresses the following questions:
1. How have ecosystem services been positioned inDutch policies from 2007 to 2014 to increase thesustainability of international value chains with linksto the Netherlands?
2. How are ecosystem services incorporated into theDutch-linked value chains?
3. Which governance options are available to increasethe sustainability of international value chains byaddressing ecosystem services?
These questions are addressed in the results section, afteroutlining the conceptual framework that guides the analysis,and the methodology used. The discussion deliberates onthe need to expand the value chain approach to a broaderlandscape perspective that goes “beyond the chain” (Ros-Tonen et al. 2015).
Conceptual Framework: Value ChainGovernance
To guide this study, a framework drawing on value chaingovernance concepts was constructed. Value chains concernthe value-generating activities involved in bringing a pro-duct—farmed and natural—from its origins, through pro-cessing and production, to delivery to final consumers andultimately disposal (Kaplinsky and Morris 2000). Theseactivities may be implemented by various actors, includingprimary producers and harvesters, processors, traders, ser-vice providers, and upstream suppliers. Products embodyand carry with them multiple relations of value – oftenexplicitly economic, but also social, cultural and environ-mental (Ingram 2014). Value chains are dynamic anddiverse and can operate from local to national and globallevel, with international chains connecting the origin land-scapes where products are sourced to those in which pro-cessing and consumers are embedded, with positive andnegative impacts possible at all stages of the chain. Fromthis perspective, a landscape coincides with the sourcingarea of a value chain (c.f. Ros-Tonen et al. 2015; Deanset al. 2017). Value chain analysis provides a framework formapping and categorizing the interactions, relationships andpower between chain actors and the economic, social andenvironmental processes in chains, to create a betterunderstanding of how and where actors are positioned andbenefit or lose out. Value chains encompass the organiza-tion, coordination and linkages, power dynamics, andgovernance between actors (Helmsing and Vellema 2011)and as such can be used to investigate governance andidentify opportunities and possible leverage points forinterventions and changes in chain arrangements (Hum-phrey and Schmitz 2001).
‘Governance’ is central in value chains, referring to therelationships and institutional mechanisms through whichthe coordination of activities in a chain take place (Hum-phrey and Schmitz 2001) and the relative powers betweenstakeholders in a chain (FAO 2007; Keane 2008). Institu-tions enable and shape individual, group and social expec-tations, interactions and behavior through the rules, norms
Environmental Management
and processes that define how people interrelate and actwithin and outside of organizations (UNDP 1997; Bavincket al. 2005). Institutions can change over time or space, beformal or informal, and are interlinked with knowledge,power and control. Institutions may govern ecosystem ser-vices (van Oorschot et al. 2016), including provisioningones that generate agricultural and natural commodities.Governance arrangements can be seen on continuum,shown in Table 1, which vary depending upon the goals andactors (van Tulder 2008; Vermeulen and Kok 2012). Gov-ernment regulation focuses primarily on public goals,whereas in closed co-governance, a coalition of (usually)government and private sector adopts public goals. In openco-governance public goals are negotiated, with govern-ment facilitating self-governance. Self-governance concernscommon goals scaled-up to become public goals or coupledto them (Fernandez-Stark et al. 2011; Arnouts et al. 2012).Market governance refers to public aims being coupled withbusiness interests. These new and hybrid forms of govern-ance can occur in alliances between public, private and civilsociety actors.
Coordination in value chains is achieved through thesetting and enforcement of product and process conditionsto be met by stakeholders in a chain, for example throughnetworks, and platforms. In international value chains,buyers often play an important role in setting andenforcing such conditions because a (perceived) risk ofproducer failure (Humphrey and Schmitz 2001). Productand process conditions and standards may also be set bygovernment agencies and international organizations, suchas environmental standards which may address ecosystemservices. Value chains are subject to increased complexity,proliferating jurisdictions, multiple centers of decision-making in government and non-state realms, and theincreased rise and participation of non-chain actors ininternational value chains. This gives rise to notions such asmultilevel and polycentric governance. These phenomenamake decision-making a process of “complex overlappingnetworks” (i.e., governance institutions) at multiple scales,rather than “discrete territorial levels” (Bache and Flinders2004). Changes in the role of the government and firmshave challenged conventional ideas of democraticaccountability and altered their roles in decision-making,corporate social responsibility and transparency in valuechain management Fernandez-Stark et al. 2011; (Arnoutset al. 2012). This has led to four main types of policyinstruments currently being used to address value chainactivities (Table 1).
This paper focuses on the integration and maintenance ofecosystem services into value chain governance and policyagainst the broader framework conditions—the meso andmacroeconomic context and landscapes in which valuechains operate. These include the socio-economic,
regulatory, institutional and political environment; marketdemand and consumer characteristics and trends; the directbusiness operating environment; the structure and compo-sition of production systems; and the wider political system.These framework conditions provide “windows of oppor-tunity” for interventions concerning ecosystem services invalue chains.
Methods
First, a review of policy documents, scientific literature andwebsites from 2007 to 2017 was used to identify public andprivate policies addressing ecosystem services in Dutch-based commodity value chains. The documents resultingfrom this review are shown in Table 2. Framing (Hankeet al. 2002) was used to identify how Dutch policy makessense of stakeholders, their roles and relationships. A frameprovides a link between the messages in the literature thatmay or may not be deliberately provided, to broader per-ceptions about the world around us (Gorp 2006). The mainframes were constructed from the content and keywords(ecosystem services and the specific services named in theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, ecosystem(s)approach, valuing, natural capital) occurring in the literaturereviewed.
Second, of the seven priority commodity value chainsaddressed in the Dutch Sustainable Trade Action Plan(IDH 2012), four (tropical timber, cocoa, soy and palmoil) were selected for study. The high levels of imports ofthese raw and processed products to the Netherlands, pro-cessing and (re)exports have created a strong Dutch eco-nomic and political interest in these chains. Thirdly, areview of scientific literature, websites, databases andmedia from 2007 to 2015 was used to identify cases ofhow ecosystem services were addressed in these valuechains. Fourthly, additional information on the cases wasgathered through interviews with 25 people involved inthese value chains, working with the private sector, volun-tary certification schemes, government, NGOs, researchorganizations and consultants. The interviews did not aimto provide a representative perspective from all parties inthe chain. For this reason the interviews are anonymous.As actors can also be information gatekeepers, semi-structured questions were used to avoid bias and triangu-late the data and focus on if and how ecosystem serviceswere positioned in Dutch policies, how ecosystem serviceswere incorporated into value chain governance (where,how, by whom, and the relationships between actors) andthe governance options available to increase the sustain-ability of international value chains by addressing ecosys-tem services.
Environmental Management
Results
This section presents the results according to the threeresearch questions
1. How have ecosystem services been positioned inDutch policies from 2007 to 2014 to increase thesustainability of international value chains with linkswith to the Netherlands?
Dutch policies referring to value chains andgovernance consistently lack a definition of ecosystemservices and address ecosystem services mostly
implicitly, as one element of a wider objective(sustainability), often defined selectively by differentpolicy instruments. Of the policy documents, only theNatural Capital Agenda (Netherlands Government2013) explicitly concerns ecosystems services andrelates these to conservation and the sustainable use ofbiodiversity, with a link made between natural capitaland value chain sustainability. By 2014, the focusshifted from making biodiversity and other ecosystemservices more concrete (De Knegt 2014; Smits et al.2013) to the concept of natural capital, which isarguably more accessible and applicable (Kok et al.2014). This led to ecosystem services being posi-tioned in Dutch policy as both a national, Europeanand global issue.
Ecosystem services are positioned in differentgovernance arrangements. The main policy documentproviding the most extensive information on ecosys-tem services is the 2008–2011 Biodiversity policy—the oldest of the documents—where ecosystemservices are introduced with reference to the Millen-nium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystem serviceswere predominantly associated with markets andpayment mechanisms, while biodiversity was asso-ciated with sustainable trade chains. The policiesstrongly emphasize markets and stimulate attempts todefine the economic value of ecosystem services. Thepolicy documents suggest that the main cause ofecosystem degradation is due to the costs of losingbiodiversity and ecosystem services not havingmarket prices. This externalization of ecosystem costsresulted in attempts to define the economic value ofecosystem services so that they can be internalized, atleast partly, into chain activities. This led to a focus oneconomic policy measures such as the SustainableTrade Initiative (Initiatief Duurzaame Handel, IDH),marketed as a public-private partnership, supported bygovernment financing; a closed co-governance solu-tion to conserve and maintain ecosystem services.Sustainability challenges for business were framed asan opportunity to strengthen the competitive positionof the Netherlands, particularly in recent policydocuments.
The second dominant frame concerns the distribu-tion of responsibilities and the need for cross-sectorcollaboration and partnerships between government,industry, research and civil society and the govern-ment taking a supporting and facilitating role. In linewith this open co-governance response, the govern-ment has invested in the development of multi-actorplatforms and collaborations and in developing apolicy agenda which further integrates economy andecology, and in which businesses take the main or
1. Letter from the Ministry of EA in response to the advice of theTaskforce Biodiversity and Natural Resources (Ministry ofEconomic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation 2012)
2. Letter of appreciation of the Ministry of EA concerning theEuropean Biodiversity Strategy (Ministry of Economic Affairs,Agriculture and Innovation 2011)
3. Assessing IDH’s contribution to public good impacts at scale(2016–2020). First assessment report on the existing evidence behindIDH’s impact stories. Wageningen, Wageningen University &Research and KPMG Advisory N.V.: 121. (Waarts. Y and K. BassoGumbis de souza 2017)
Policy documents addressing value chains and/or ecosystemservices:
4. Government Commodity Note (Dutch Cabinet 2011)
5. Government Sustainability Agenda. A green growth strategy forthe Netherlands (Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment 2011)
6. Biodiversity Policy 2008–2011. Biodiversity works for nature forpeople forever (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality2012)
7. Natural Capital Agenda: Conservation and sustainable use ofbiodiversity (Uitvoeringsagenda Natuurlijk Kapitaal: behoud enduurzaam gebruik van biodiversiteit) (Ministry of Economic Affairs2013)
8. Policy Letter. Corporate social responsibility pays off (Ministry ofForeign Affairs 2013a)
9. Policy Note. What the world deserves: a new agenda for aid, tradeand investment (Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2013b)
10. Report Dutch international support in the field of climate change(Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2010)
11. Sustainable Trade Action Plan 2011–2015. Public-privatepartnership for sustainable commodity chains (IDH 2012)
13. Background document for the budget of the Ministry of EA 2011(Dutch House of Representatives 2011)
14.Government vision on governance and administrative structure(Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations 2011).
Environmental Management
leading role in developing sustainable value chains.Dutch development cooperation policy shifted “fromaid to trade”, which coincided with the joint plea fromcivil society organizations, private business and tradeunions for a concerted, long-term sustainabilityagenda for Dutch international trade. Demand wascreated and stimulated for (certified) standards whichdemonstrated the sustainability credentials of pro-ducts. These developments implied a change in theframework conditions in which the value chainsoperated.
The third frame relates to market governance, withcertification as one of the main mechanisms used topromote more sustainable chains. It has been the mainapproach in which ecosystem services were eitherspecifically named or implied. Among the voluntarysustainability standards promoted as tools to imple-ment the Dutch policy, only the Forest StewardshipCouncil (FSC) and Forest Certification for EcosystemServices (ForCES) certification explicitly mentionecosystem services. The certification standards usedin the cocoa, soy and palm oil chains mention onlyspecific services such as genetic resources, erosionregulation and water quality, but do not use the termecosystem services. Experiments with the use ofpayments for ecosystems (PES) in the cocoa chain andreducing emissions from deforestation and forestdegradation (REDD+) in the timber chain are theonly other examples of market-led policy instrumentswhich explicitly allude to ecosystem services.
The 2010–2015 Sustainable Trade Action Plan(IDH 2012) discussed neither ecosystem services norvalue chain governance, but 5 years later in the2015–2020 strategy (IDH 2016), governance was seenas an important pathway to develop sustainablecommodity chains. However, the ecosystem servicesrelated to these chains were not made explicit. In theimpact evaluation of the Sustainable Trade Initiative(Waarts and Basso Gumbis de Souza 2017), bothvalue chains and landscape governance were seen askey pathways contributing to impact and ecosystemimpacts of commodity trade. Natural capital andecosystem services were not specifically mentioned,but ecosystem health and impacts on ecosystemswere. However, the plausibility and impacts of theIDH approach to improving sector and value chaingovernance has been noted as difficult to assess, giventhe limited amount of information available (Waartsand Basso Gumbis de Souza 2017).
The Dutch policies to increase the sustainability ofcommodity value chains mirror global trends. Sustain-ability policies have been implemented by the UNDPGreen Commodity Program since 2009 in eleven
countries concerning the palm oil, cocoa, coffee,pineapple, fisheries, soy and beef chains (UNDP2017) and in Germany (Eberhard Krain and EdmondKonan 2011; FAO 2007), Switzerland (Auroi 2003;Hamprecht et al. 2005; Schouten and Glasbergen2011; Vermeulen and Kok 2012), the UK (Walkerand Jones 2012) and Denmark (Giovannucci et al.2014). This convergence of policies is reflected inincreasing co-funding of the IDH: originally solelyDutch-funded it is now also financed by the Swiss,Danish and Norwegian governments.
2. How are ecosystem services incorporated into theDutch-linked value chains?
This section successively provides an overview ofthe eight cases that address ecosystem services in thefour value chains, the actors driving the change, andwhere in the chain and how ecosystem services wereaddressed (Table 3); how the eight cases haveintegrated ecosystem services in the value chains(Table 4); and which actors are involved in the cases(Table 5). Notable are the similarities: a focus onprocess-orientated, multi-stakeholder platforms andpartnerships, and on the producer stage at thebeginning of the chain. The process-oriented pilotsgeneral entailed IDH match funding companies to helpdevelop, implement and scale-up certificationschemes. The cases show that interwoven technical,process- and learning-orientated organizational, eco-nomic and institutional measures were used in parallelto address sustainability issues in all four value chains.In five of the cases—UTZ, PES, Roundtable forResponsible Soy (RTRS), FSC and the Roundtable forSustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)—specific rather than allecosystem system services were addressed; in twocases (STAP and the Dutch Procurement Policy),ecosystem services are implicitly addressed throughreference to certification standards; and in three cases(FSC, ForCES and REDD+) ecosystem services werespecifically mentioned (Table 3).
Table 4 provides an overview of how the valuechain cases address sustainability and integrateecosystem services in the value chains. The mostpopular strategies and instruments were certification,partnering, and promoting an enabling environmentfor ecosystem services by raising awareness ofecosystem services as a means to develop newbusiness practices. Most strategies and instrumentswere framed as being along the entire value chain, butwere in fact focused on the producer stage and onsetting up platforms and networks of value chainactors. The public procurement policy in the timberchain was the only case based on statutory regula-tions.
Environmental Management
Table3
How
ecosystem
services
wereaddressedin
thetrop
ical
timber,cocoa,
soyandpalm
oilvaluechaincases
Chain
Case
Driving
stakeholder
Value
chainstagewhere
ES
addressed
Ecosystem
services
(ES)
Characterization
Cocoa
Sustainable
Trade
ActionPlan
(STAP)20
10&
UTZcertificatio
n20
08
Private
sector
(internatio
nal
andDutch)
Who
lechain,
particularly
prod
ucers
ESno
texplicitin
STAPbu
tsomeESaddressedin
UTZ
standard
Process-orientatedpilot,multi-actorplatform
PaymentsforES(PES)20
10Private
sector
(Dutch)
Who
lechain,
particularly
prod
ucers
PaymentsforspecificES
Pilo
tsGhana
&Côted’Ivoire
Soy
Rou
ndtableforRespo
nsible
Soy
(RTRS)20
06Private
sector
(internatio
nal&
Dutch),civilsociety,
public
sector
Who
lechain,
particularly
prod
ucers
Attemptsto
includ
esomeES
intheRTRSstandard
Process-orientatedpilot,multi-actorplatform
Palm
oil
Rou
ndtableforSustainable
Palm
Oil
(RSPO)20
03Private
sector
(internatio
nal&
Dutch)
Who
lechain,
particularly
prod
ucers
Som
eESaddressedin
RSPO
standard
Process-orientatedpilot,multi-actorplatform
Tim
ber
Sustainable
Trade
ActionPlan
(STAP)20
11Dutch
government
Exp
orters,manufacturers,
retailers
ESim
plicitviauseof
voluntarysustainability
certificatio
nstandards
Multi-actorpartnerships
andplatform
,finance
ForestStewardshipCou
ncil(FSC)
1993
&ForestCertifi
catio
nfor
Ecosystem
Services(ForCES)20
12
Private
sector
(internatio
nal&
Dutch)
Who
lechain,
particularly
forestow
ners/con
cessionaires
ESaddressedin
theFSC
standard;ForCEScertifies
ES
Process-orientatedpilot,multi-actorplatform
Dutch
Pub
licProcurementPolicy
2008
EU
&Dutch
government
Who
lechain,
particularly
impo
rters,endbu
yers
and
users
ESim
plicitby
referringto
FSC
andPEFC
certificatio
nstandards
Produ
ct-andprocess-
orientated
policy;
GFTN
andTPAC
asmulti-actorplatform
s;regu
latio
nson
sustainabilitystandardsin
chains
ReducingEmission
sfrom
Deforestatio
n&
ForestDegradatio
n(REDD+)Indo
nesia20
10
InternationalandDutch
NGOs,UnitedNations,Dutch
government
Particularly
forestow
ners/
concession
aires,privatesector
REDD+specifically
mentio
nsES
Multi-actorplatform
andpartnership,
policy
practice&
research,pilots,learning
-orientated,resource-focused
Environmental Management
Multi-stakeholder involvement and partnershipsbetween private sector, non-government and civilsociety organizations, and research institutes were themost common approach to trigger and implementchanges in chain governance, with examples found inall the chains (Table 5). The majority of intervieweesconsidered multi-stakeholder partnerships as criticalto the success of setting up and implementing the newarrangements. The majority of the Dutch privatesector chain participants were large multi-nationals,with few examples of small and medium enterprises.The Dutch government largely played an indirectfacilitating and endorsing role. There was no orminimal liaison with governments in origin countries.In the cases involving cocoa certification, soy andpalm oil, IDH and the main private sector actorsimplement Dutch policy, with the government fund-ing, steering and evaluating this implementation. Theparticipation of civil society was generally limited andconsumers (private, corporate and public) werelargely absent in the development and direct imple-mentation of policies, except in the timber publicprocurement regulation. Consumers were howeverstimulated to change their purchasing behaviorthrough the use of certified products.
3. Which governance options are available to increasethe sustainability of international value chains byaddressing ecosystem services?
The cases in the previous sections show that a range ofgovernance arrangements and policy approaches have beenused in tropical commodity value chains ending in theNetherlands. The main policy approaches used have been
endorsing, partnering and facilitating. Both government andnon-government actors were incorporated into new gov-ernance arrangements used to stimulate and support changestoward more sustainable chains, with ecosystem servicesmostly implicitly, except for four cases (UTZ cocoa certi-fication, soy RTRS, palm RSPO, FSC timber certification)and explicitly addressed. Initially, pressure from civilsociety played a major role in developing more sustainablevalue chain practices. Companies and NGOs often workedtogether in establishing and defining production standards(van Tulder 2008; Vermeulen and Kok 2012; van den Berget al. 2013, 2014). Market governance, notably certification,has been the dominant approach to increase the sustain-ability of the four commodity value chains. Considering thelimited market share and long adoption timescales, inter-viewees questioned whether voluntary mechanisms arebeing implemented fast enough to meet all the challengesinherent in making value chains more sustainable. Althoughthe success of FSC certification has been much lauded(Synnott 2005; van Kuijk et al. 2009; Oldenburger et al.2010), with FSC-certified forests covering 12% of all tro-pical forests in 2011 (Forest Stewardship Council 2012),only around 0.4% of global tropical roundwood productionis certified (UNECE/FAO 2011). FSC certification is muchlower for tropical and subtropical biomes with 11.5% of thetotal forest area certified, compared to 52% of boreal and37% of temperate biomes (Forest Stewardship Council2012). The adoption of certified cocoa has been faster, withapproximately 38% of global production certified since2008 (Fountain and Hutz-Adams 2015), and 25% of cocoasold on the Dutch market being certified (Logatcheva 2014).About 41% of palm oil sold in the Netherlands is certified,largely since 2010 (CBS 2013) and since 2010
Table 4 How the ecosystem services were addressed in the four value chain cases
Strategy/instrument Cocoa Soy Palm oil Timber
IDH &UTZ
PES RTRS RSPO IDH FSC &ForCES
Dutch PublicProcurement Policy
REDD+
Introducing and upscaling voluntary certificationstandards
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
Partnering and partnerships, including platforms √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √Promoting an enabling environment forecosystem services
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
Simplifying access to information √ √ √ √ √Encouraging entrepreneurship √ √ √ √ √Recognizing the role of intermediaries √ √ √Enhancing and supporting collective action √ √ √Commodity innovation √ √ √Creating and testing positive cases andsituations and building on experiences
approximately 8% of soy sold on the Dutch market is cer-tified (CBS 2013). This progress has prompted interest ingoing “beyond certification” (Barry 2015; Poynton 2015),and “certification plus”: certification accompanied by otherinitiatives such as capacity building, training of producersand policies, which is becoming increasingly common,particularly for commodities with longer histories of certi-fication such as cocoa (Ingram et al. 2017; Deans et al.2017). The difficulties of measuring impacts of commoditychain interventions and governance (Waarts and BassoGumbis de Souza 2017) have also highlighted the need forintegrated, performance-based incentive systems operatingacross regions and scales, linked through a shared metric ofjurisdiction-wide performance (Nepstad et al. 2013).
Some interviewees (notably CSOs and some privatesector actors) raised questions about whether frameworkconditions were addressed considering the indirect role ofthe Dutch government and limited involvement of govern-ments of countries of origin. It was noted that the relianceon market governance using certification standards, meantthat impacts are most prevalent in origin landscapes, but thisis where the Dutch government and its agencies have littleauthority.
A third of the interviewees noted that a stronger com-bination of both statutory “command and control” andvoluntary instruments would allow higher standards to bedeveloped through voluntary mechanisms. Regulationswould enable minimum standards to be set to ensure com-plete chain and sector coverage, which is currently lacking(Waarts and Basso Gumbis de Souza 2017). An example isthe development of the ISO Sustainable Cocoa Standard,with the Dutch government participating in the concurrentDutch Sustainable Cocoa Norm. Mirroring these senti-ments, Lambin and colleagues 2014 note that public reg-ulations also play a role in providing enabling conditions formarket and hybrid governance initiatives, pushing standardsupward, and are critical in some framework contexts, suchas controlling for weak governance. Market governancehowever has the potential to address regulatory gaps andimprove land-use practices and contribute to broaderchanges in governance, under appropriate policy mixes.
The responses of actors and the evaluation of IDH(Waarts and Basso Gumbis de Souza 2017) indicate that awider range of policies and arrangements in both origin andconsumer countries is needed, and that both consumer andprocessing country governments need to be involved.Maintaining ecosystem services related to commodities andtheir value chains needs to go beyond the farm or forestfrom where these commodities are sourced, and cannot beisolated from the broader landscapes from which they ori-ginate. Complementary policies and governance approachesare needed to spur a transformation toward more sustainabletrade and upscale the adoption and acceptance of
sustainability initiatives in value chains, recognizing thelimits of voluntary chain-based initiatives to involve orstimulate all market actors (Oorschot et al. 2013). Thediscussion below deliberates on whether landscapeapproaches could move value chain interventions beyondcertification, with policies and instruments that addressecosystem services in the commodity origin landscape in amore integrated way.
Discussion: Going beyond the Chain andIntegrating Landscapes into Value ChainGovernance Arrangements
Given the international nature of the four commodity valuechains, lessons from Dutch policies have significance fordebates on government-market/public-private approaches tovalue chain and landscape governance. Concerns to maintainecosystem services in relation to commodities have occurredglobally, as have the commodification of ecosystem ser-vices, with companies and civil society organizations pro-moting new business models and approaches such as tradingindividual, segregated ecosystem services in specialist orniche markets, such as carbon (Bishop et al. 2009), bundlingecosystems services (Renard et al. 2015), and payments forecosystem services (PES) via certification (Wunder 2006;Felperlaan et al. 2011; Porras et al. 2017). The Dutchexperiences of addressing ecosystem services in commodityvalue chains shows that this has often been problematic,with effectiveness being highly dependent upon the frame-work conditions, notably macro-political support, trade andcultural values, and the willingness to change from gov-ernment regulatory arrangements to market arrangements(Savilaakso et al. 2015). Such efforts and also riddled withthorny questions of power, legitimacy, inclusiveness andparticipation, efficiency and efficacy (Waarts and BassoGumbis de Souza 2017), in common with similar experi-ences internationally (Pagiola et al. 2005; Bulte et al. 2008;Pirard et al. 2010). These insights suggest that that com-patibility in landscape and value chain governance is neededto achieve sustainable value chains, as was noted particularlyin the PES, REDD+ and ForCES cases where ecosystemservices were most explicit. This includes dealing withtrade-offs, maximizing overlaps and combining separatepolicy instruments and governance arrangements which aretypically unconnected and often opposing to link ecosystemand poverty reduction agendas (Porras et al. 2017).
Despite the obvious links between sustainable valuechains and landscapes, only recently have explicit policiesand governance arrangements emerged which seek to inte-grate ecosystem services into value chains and take anintegrated landscape approach. The only Dutch policyreferring to both landscapes and ecosystems is the Natural
Environmental Management
Capital Agenda. Action point five states the need to addressconservation in agro-commodity production areas from alandscape level, with a landscape approach and integratedland-use planning suggested as beneficial as it “will helpcreate larger areas of valuable, protected nature, to replacethe present fragmented landscape of small areas protected atfarm level” (Netherlands Government 2013, p 6). Landscapeapproaches have been promoted by IDH since 2015 as partof its second strategy sustainable trade (IDH 2016), whichimplements the Natural Capital Agenda through a series ofco-financed public-private-CSO partnerships in 11 land-scapes worldwide, which link with the sourcing areas ofIDHs commodity value chain orientated programs (IDH2017). Furthermore, landscape approaches are also a gov-ernance arrangement (Hospes et al. 2016). The DutchEnvironment Agency now recognizes this (Van der Horn andMeijer 2015), implying that more interlinks between valuechain and landscape governance appear to be appropriate.
Whilst commodities have been recognized as a source ofcompeting land use (Giller et al. 2008; Nelson et al. 2009;Sayer et al. 2013), Sayer and colleagues 10 principles for anintegrated landscape approach do not elaborate on theinterlinkages and benefits between sustainable value chainsand the origin landscapes of these products. It is nowincreasingly realized that some sustainability goals are onlypossible at landscape level, and thus require inter-sectoralgeographical coordination (Mbow et al. 2015; Reed et al.2015; Waarts and Basso Gumbis de Souza 2017). Advan-cing knowledge on sustainable commodity chains andintegrated landscape approaches highlights the need for amore seamless understanding of the landscape-scale com-plexity of our production systems (Giovannucci et al. 2014)and the benefits of an integrated landscape approach (Mulleret al. 2010; Ros-Tonen et al. 2015; van Oosten et al. 2017;Deans et al. 2017; Arts et al. 2017). The fact that commu-nication with the public sector in sector-based round-tablesand platforms tends to be restricted to only one ministry inthe production countries, hampers effective and integratedimplementation of government policies in origin landscapes(Waarts and Basso Gumbis de Souza 2017).
Based on these findings, the following suggestions weremade by interviewees and by the authors, of options tofurther integrate sustainable use and maintenance of eco-system services into tropical commodity value chains,directed toward all stakeholders in the value chains (busi-ness, government, CSOs and support):
(i) Value chain actors need to collaborate to developclear, coherent and integrated strategies that make therole of ecosystem services and landscapes in globalcommodity value chains explicit in policy conceptssuch as “sustainable inclusive growth”, “naturalcapital”, and “green economic growth”;
(ii) Governments in consumer countries can re-considerthe mix of policy instruments, using market govern-ance certification “carrots” and incentive-based “sticks”(such as tax incentives and public procurement) tostimulate new partnerships and initiatives withregulation to ensure full chain, sector and landscapecoverage to defined standards;
(iii) Governments can more explicitly create standards forecosystem services in their procurement criteria tostimulate how these services are addressed in originlandscapes;
(iv) Governments in end-of-chain countries can re-consider the mix of policy instruments used, expand-ing from the focus on voluntary product certificationto alternative instruments which support the privatesector to respond to market opportunities for ecosys-tem services, for example incentivizing demandthrough fiscal incentives;
(v) Governments from sourcing regions and consumercountries should jointly discuss with standardsorganizations how a more explicit inclusion ofecosystem goods and services in the landscapes fromwhich they originate can be addressed in voluntarysustainability standards;
(vi) Bringing together stakeholders with a landscape focus(e.g., the UN FAO and Global Landscapes Forum)and commodity focus (e.g., the UNDP GreenCommodities Program) and voluntary standard plat-forms such as the ISEAL Alliance, operating atmultiple levels where value chains and landscapesintersect, could also better integrate ecosystemservices into the different segments of a chain moreeffectively;
(vii) Making use of the interconnections between productsand experiences across chains and origin landscapescould provide valuable multi-level, cross-sectoralinformation, as could government involvement incertification schemes—such as FSC and UTZ—whichtake a “beyond the chain” integrated landscapeapproach, to provide insights for all types of chainactors, particularly, consumers, origin country gov-ernments and smaller enterprises) into the costs andbenefits of maintaining ecosystem services as part ofsustainable chains and origin landscapes;
(viii) Sectoral ministries should ensure a coherent approachwhen using indirect policy tools that facilitate andendorse ecosystems services to take an integratedlandscape approach;
(ix) Policy possibilities should be explored to influencehow ecosystem services are impacted in other stagesin the chain than the current focus on origin countries.The processing and consumption stages which take
Environmental Management
place in end-of-chain countries where the sphere ofinfluence and range of policy options available isgreater for consumer country governments such as theNetherlands;
(x) Consumer and origin country governments shouldincrease collaboration to develop, implement andenforce policies and governance that stimulatessustainable production practices;
(xi) European processing and consumer country govern-ments could collaborate more to address sustainablechains, both bilaterally and regionally (the EuropeanUnion) to ensure a level playing field and to stimulatedemand for products which address ecosystemservices all along their value chains and not just inthe sourcing landscape;
(xii) More evidence is needed of the impact of governancearrangements and particularly certification at land-scape level and how it maintains or enhancesecosystem services, with internationally agreed uponimpact indicators.
Conclusions
Over the past decade, policymakers in the Netherlandstogether with private sector and societal organizations, haveexperimented with different governance arrangements toaddress the sustainability of international commodity valuechains with strong Dutch links. The result has been rapidlyshifting policies and on-the-ground practices relating tosustainability of the value chains in general, and increasedattention to enhancing the maintenance of ecosystem ser-vices specifically. Challenges have included making eco-system services explicit in policy and governancearrangements and engaging with all value chain actors,particularly consumers and origin country governments,with all types of private sector actors. The cases highlightthat organizing multi-actor involvement in internationalvalue chains is seen as a critical factor for the success andacceptance of sustainability initiatives addressing ecosystemservices, such as voluntary standards and certification.
The Dutch cases show how the government createdincentives for actors to address ecosystem services in inter-national commodity value chains politically feasible, usingendorsing, facilitating and partnership policies. However, themain approach used—market governance—has had limits interms of effectiveness, sector uptake and impact to date, withthe business incentives to invest in internalizing these con-cepts not clear for all private sector actors. Chains sourced intropical landscapes may be governed more effectively forsustainability if the voluntary, market policy tools andgovernance arrangements used have more integrated goalsthat take account of sourcing landscapes and impacts along
entire value chain. Given the limitations of market govern-ance, governance arrangements that more fully support thetransition to value chains that address the entire range ofecosystem services impacted by commodity production andtrade and create a level playing field for all market playersare needed. Scoones et al. (2015) stress that green trans-formations must be both “top-down”, involving elite alli-ances between governments and business, but also ‘bottom-up’, pushed by grassroots innovators and entrepreneurs, andpart of wider mobilizations among civil society.
It is increasingly recognized that we need to go furtherand go one step beyond current policies and governancepractices: “Beyond certification” (Barry 2015; Poynton2015) to certification plus and “beyond the chain” (Ros-Tonen et al. 2015). By integrating landscape and valuechain governance, ecosystems and their services extendingfrom the sourcing landscape in which the value chain ori-ginates to the end of its chain, can be addressed to createmore sustainable commodity value chains. Both value chainand landscape approaches pursue environmental, social andeconomic sustainability. Both governance approaches focuson integrated objectives, multi-stakeholder, multi-levelarrangements and learning processes to achieve “sustain-able landscapes” (i.e., the sourcing area) (Sayer et al. 2013;van Oosten et al. 2014; Ros-Tonen et al. 2014; Reed et al.2016). These intersections and common issues of concernsuggest that there is scope for increased alignment. A“landscape+ value chain” approach appears possible,although evidence on how this works in practice is as yetthin (Waarts and Basso Gumbis de Souza 2017). Benefitscould include a more coherent and integrated approach tothe regions where tropical commodities are sourced, thataddresses both the social and economic aspects of thepeople and organizations involved in the value chains, andthe environmental sustainability of the commodity by sys-tematically considering ecosystem services provided by thelandscape. Recognizing the difficulties inherent in bothlandscape and value chain approaches is critical. Theseinclude issues of inclusiveness (Helmsing and Vellema2011; Ros-Tonen et al. 2015) so that ecosystem and societaland business benefits and externalities are balanced; theneed to take an adaptive learning approach to effectivelyimplement such complex governance arrangements (vanOosten 2013) and the importance of actively seekingsynergistic, complementarity between government regula-tion and market governance (Gulbrandsen 2014; Ingram2014). As landscape approaches to date often have notmade governance explicit, but have been presented asmanagement processes (Hospes et al. 2016), recognizingthat both value chain approaches and landscape approachesare forms of governance is also key to any approach seekingto enhance ecosystem services in cocoa, soy, tropical timberand palm oil value chains.
Environmental Management
Acknowledgements We thank the interviewees for their time givenduring interviews, sharing their ideas, information and expertise. Thispaper draws on the findings of a project commissioned by the Neth-erlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) for the StatutoryResearch Task Unit for Nature and the Environment, funded by theDutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. We are appreciative of the col-laboration with Marcel Kok of the Netherlands EnvironmentalAssessment Agency (PBL) and Pieter van Beukering of the Institute forEnvironmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam. We thank MirjamRos-Tonen and James Reed for extensive feedback on this paper.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict ofinterest.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you giveappropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide alink to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes weremade.
References
Agrawal A (2007) Forests, governance, and sustainability: commonproperty theory and its contributions. Int J Commons 1:111–136
Arnouts RCM, Kamphorst DA, Arts BJM, Tatenhove JPMv (2012)Innovatieve governance voor het groene domein. Governance-arrangementen voor vermaatschappelijking van het natuurbeleiden verduurzaming van de koffieketen, WOt WerkdocumentenWettelijke Onderzoekstaken Natuur & Milieu306, WageningenUR, Wageningen
Arts B, Buizer M, Horlings L, Ingram V, van Oosten C, Opdam P(2017) The Landscape Approach: A framework for land usepolicy and practice Ann Rev Env Res 42:439–463
Auroi C (2003) Improving sustainable chain management through fairtrade Greener Management Int 43:25–35
Bache I, Flinders M (2004) Multi-level governance. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford
Barry M (2015). Beyond certification: The next step for sustainablesupply chains online community, ISEAL Alliance, London
Bavinck M, Cheunpagdee R, Diallo M, Heijen Pvd, Kooiman J,Mahon R, Williams S (2005) Interactive Fisheries Governance: AGuide to Better Practice. Eburon Publishers, Delft
Bishop J, Kapila S, Hicks F, Mitchell P, Vorhies F (2009) Newbusiness models for biodiversity conservation. J Sustain For28:285–303
Braat LC, de Groot R (2012) The ecosystem services agenda: bridgingthe worlds of natural science and economics, conservation anddevelopment, and public and private policy. Ecosyst Serv 1:4–15
Bulte EH, Lipper L, Stringer R, Zilberman D (2008) Payments forecosystem services and poverty reduction: concepts, issues, andempirical perspectives. Envand Dev Econ 13:245
CBD (2008) Biodiversity and Agriculture. Ecosystem services forhuman well-being. Secretariat of the Conventional on BiologicalDiversity, Montreal
CBS (2013) Monitor Agro-grondstoffen Validering palmolie, soja,hout en koffie. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Den Haag/Heerlen
Costanza R, d’Arge R, De Groot R, Faber S, Grasso M, Hannon B,Limburg K, Naeem S, O’neill RV, Paruelo J (1997) The value of
the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630):253–260
Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L, Kubiszewski I, Fioramonti L, SuttonP, Farber S, Grasso M (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem ser-vices: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?Ecosyst Serv 28:1–16
De Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RM (2002) A typology for theclassification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions,goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408
De Knegt Be (2014) Graadmeter diensten van natuur. Vraag, aanboden trend van goederen en diensten uit ecosystemen in Nederland.Wagenignen UR, Wageningen
Deans H, Ros-Tonen MA, Derkyi M (2017) Advanced Value ChainCollaboration in Ghana’s Cocoa Sector: An Entry Point forIntegrated Landscape Approaches? Env Management, 1–14.https://doi.org/110.1007/s00267-017-0863-y
Dutch Cabinet (2011) De Grondstoffennotitie. Rapport, 15-07-2011(Government Commodity Note) Den Haag, The Netherlands
Dutch House of Representatives (2011) Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal Vaststelling van de begrotingsstaten van het Ministerievan Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie (XIII) voor hetjaar 2012, Vergaderjaar 2011–2012. Background document forthe budget of the Ministry of EA 2011. Den Haag, TheNetherlands
Eberhard Krain EM, Edmond Konan EricServat (2011) Trade and Pro-Poor Growth: Introducing Rainforest Alliance Certification toCocoa Production in Côte d’Ivoire. Deutsche Gesellschaft fürInternationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Eschborn
Elzen B, Geels FW, Green K (2004) System innovation and thetransition to sustainability: theory, evidence and policy. EdwardElgar Publishing, Cheltenham
European Union (2013) Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems andtheir Services An analytical framework for ecosystem assess-ments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.European Union, Brussels, Discussion paper – Final
FAO (2007) Governance, coordination and distribution along com-modity value chains. FAO Commodties and Trade Proceedings.Trade and Markets Division, Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations, Rome
Felperlaan A, van Zijl M, de Lange V, Bos M, van Elzakker B (2011)PES and cocoa. Securing future supplies and preserving biodi-versity by paying cocoa farmers for Ecosystem Services. CREMBV. & Agro Eco - Louis Bolk Institute, Amsterdam &Driebergen
Fernandez-Stark K, Bamber P, Gereffi G (2011) The Fruit andVegetables Global Value Chain. Economic Upgrading andWorkforce Development. Duke University Center on Globaliza-tion, Governance and Competitiveness, Durham
Forest Stewardship Council (2012) Global FSC certificates: type anddistribution May 2012 Bonn Accessed 14 February 2014. https://ic.fsc.org/file-download.facts-and-figures-may-2012.a-1351.pdf
Giller KE, Leeuwis C, Andersson JA, Andriesse W, Brouwer A, FrostP, Hebinck P, Heitkönig I, Van Ittersum MK, Koning N (2008)Competing claims on natural resources: what role for science?Ecol Soc 13:2
Giovannucci D, von Hagen O, Wozniak J (2014) Corporate socialresponsibility and the role of voluntary sustainability standards,Voluntary Standard Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Gorp Bv (2006) Een constructivistische kijk op het concept framing.Tij voor Comm 34:3
Gulbrandsen LH (2014) Dynamic governance interactions: evolu-tionary effects of state responses to non‐state certification pro-grams. Reg Gov 8:74–92
Helmsing AHJ, Vellema S (2011) Value Chains, Inclusion andEndogenous Development Contrasting Theories and Realities.Routledge, Abingdon
Van der Horn S, Meijer J (2015) The Landscape Approach: TheConcept, Its Potential and Ppolicy Options for Integrated Sus-tainable Landscape Management. PBL Netherlands Environ-mental Assessment Agency, the Hague
Hospes O, Ingram V, Boerdijk M, Nijmeijer E (2016) A paradigmshift in sustainability governance? The emergence of sustainablelandscape initiatives. ISDRS 22nd International SustainableDevelopment Research Society Conference—Rethinking Sus-tainability Models and Practices: New and Old World Contexts2016, Lisbon
Humphrey J, Schmitz H (2001) Governance in Global Value Chains.IDS Bull 32:17
IDH (2012) Sustainable Trade Action Plan 2011–2015. Public-privatepartnership for sustainable commodity chains. Utrecht. https://issuu.com/idhsustainabletradeinitiative/docs/action_plan_2011_-_dec_2012_final
Ingram V (2014) Win-wins in forest product value chains? Howgovernance impacts the sustainability of livelihoods based onnon-timber forest products from Cameroon. African StudiesCentre, Leiden
Ingram V, Waarts Y, van Rijn F (2017) Cocoa sustainability initia-tives: The impacts of cocoa sustainability initiatives in WestAfrica. In: Umaharan P (Ed.) Achieving sustainable cultivation ofcocoa. Burliegh Dodds Scientitifc Publishing, Sawston
Kaplinsky R, Morris M (2000) A handbook for value chain research.IDRC, Canada
Keane J (2008) A ‘new’ approach to global value chain analysis.Overseas Development Institute, London
Keijzers G (2000) The evolution of Dutch environmental policy: thechanging ecological arena from 1970–2000 and beyond. J CleanProd 8:179–200
Kok M, Alkemade R, Bakkenes,M, Boelee E, Christensen V, EerdtvM, Esch vdS, Janse J, Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen S, Kram T (2014)How sectors can contribute to sustainable use and conservation ofbiodiversity. PBL, UBC, Wageningen UR, Tropenbos Interna-tional, The Hague. https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-79-en.pdf
Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P, Rueda X, Blackman A, Börner J, Cerutti PO,Dietsch T, Jungmann L, Lamarque P, Lister J, Walker NF,Wunder S (2014) Effectiveness and synergies of policy instru-ments for land use governance in tropical regions. Glob EnvChang 28:129–140
Logatcheva K (2014) Availability and application of data Monitoringand estimating the consumption of certified sustainable cocoa andcoffee in the Netherlands. LEI Wagenignen UR, Den Haag
Mbow C, Neely C, Dobie P (2015) How can an integrated landscapeapproach contribute to the implementation of the SustainableDevelopment Goals (SDGs) and advance climate-smart objec-tives? In: Minang PA, van Noordwijk M, Freeman OE, Mbow C,de Leeuw J, Catacutan D (Eds.) Climate-Smart Landscapes:
Multifunctionality in Practice. World Agroforestry Centre(ICRAF), Nairobi, pp 103–117
Melman T, Heide M, Hinsberg Av, Wiersinga W, Egmond Pv, Oos-tenbrugge Rv (2011) Ecosystem services as inspiration for theDutch Nature and Biodiversity Outlook. ESP Congres, TheNetherlands
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and HumanWell-being: Opportunities and Challenges for Business andIndustry. Island Press, Washington DC
Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (2012) Beleid-sprogramma Biodiversiteit 2008-2011. Biodiversiteit werkt: voormensen, voor natuur, voor altijd. Eindrapportage (Policy programBiodiversity 2008-2011. Biodiversity works: for people, fornature, forever. Final report). Den Haag, The Netherlands
Ministry of Economic Affairs (2013) Uitvoeringsagenda NatuurlijkKapitaal: behoud en duurzaam gebruik van biodiversiteit (NaturalCapital Agenda: Conservation and sustainable use of biodi-versity) Den Haag, The Netherlands
Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation (2011)Kamerbrief appreciatie Europese biodiversiteitsstrategie. Kamer-stuk: Kamerbrief, 26-05-2011 (Letter of appreciation of theMinistry of EA concerning the European Biodiversity Strategy).Den Haag, The Netherlands
Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation (2012)Kamerbrief over eindadvies Taskforce Biodiversiteit en Nat-uurlijke Hulpbronnen,Kamerstuk: Kamerbrief, 06-03-2012 (Let-ter from the Ministry of EA in response to the advice of theTaskforce Biodiversity and Natural Resources). Den Haag, TheNetherlands
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2010) Dutch international support in thefield of climate change. Den Haag, The Netherlands
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2013a) Policy Letter. Corporate socialresponsibility pays off. Den Haag, The Netherlands
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2013b) Policy Note. What the worlddeserves: A new agenda for aid, trade and investment. Den Haag.The Netherlands
Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment (2011) Agenda duur-zaamheid; een groene groei- strategie voor Nederland. Rapport,03-10-2011 (Government Sustainability Agenda. A green growthstrategy for the Netherlands). Den Haag, The Netherlands
Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (2011) MinisterieBuitenlands Zaken Visienota bestuur en bestuurlijke inrichting.Beleidsnota, 10-10-2011 (Government vision on governance andadministrative structure). Den Haag, The Netherlands
Muller F, de Groot R, Willemen L (2010) Ecosystem services at thelandscape scale: the need for integrative approaches. LandscOnline 23:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201023
Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron D,Chan KMA, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Lonsdorf E,Naidoo R, Ricketts TH, Shaw M (2009) Modeling multipleecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity pro-duction, and tradeoffs at landscape scale. Front Ecol Env 7:4–11
Nepstad D, Irawan S, Bezerra T, Boyd W, Stickler C, Shimada J,Carvalho O, MacIntyre K, Dohong A, Alencar A (2013) Morefood, more forests, fewer emissions, better livelihoods: linkingREDD+, sustainable supply chains and domestic policy in Brazil,Indonesia and Colombia. Carbon Manag 4:639–658
Netherlands Government (2013) Natural Capital Agenda: conservationand sustainable use of biodiversity, 26 407 Biodiversity. SecondChamber of Parliament, Den Haag
Oldenburger J, Winterink A, Leek N (2010) Duurzaam geproduceerdhout op de Nederlandse markt in 2008. Probos Wageningen
Oorschot Mv, Kok M, Brons J, Esch Svd, Janse J, Rood T, VixseboxseE, Wilting H, Vermeulen W (2013) Verduurzaming van inter-nationale handelsketens: Voortgang, effecten en perspectieven.Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving No. 630, Den Haag
Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G (2005) Can payments for environ-mental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issuesand the evidence to date from Latin America. World Dev33:237–253
Pirard R, Billé R, Sembrés T (2010) Questioning the theory of Pay-ments for Ecosystem Services (PES) in light of emergingexperience and plausible developments. Analyses; Biodiversity.Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Inter-nationales, Paris
Porras I, Mohammed E, Ali L, Ali M, Hossain M (2017) Power, profitsand payments for ecosystem services in Hilsa fisheries in Ban-gladesh: a value chain analysis. Mar Pol 84:60–68
Poynton S (2015) Beyond Certification. Routledge, Abingdon, NewYork
Reed J, Van Vianen J, Deakin EL, Barlow J, Sunderland T (2016)Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and envir-onmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to guide thefuture. Global Change Biology 22(7):2540–2554
Reed J, van Vianen J, Sunderland T (2015) From global complexity tolocal reality: Aligning implementation pathways for the Sus-tainable Development Goals and landscape approaches (Vol.129). CIFOR, Bogor
Renard D, Rhemtulla JM, Bennett EM (2015) Historical dynamics inecosystem service bundles. PNAS 112:13411–13416
Ros-Tonen MA, Van Leynseele Y-PB, Laven A, Sunderland T (2015)Landscapes of social inclusion: Inclusive value-chain collabora-tion through the lenses of food sovereignty and landscape gov-ernance. Eur J Dev Res 27:523–540
Ros-Tonen MAF, Kusters K (2009) Pro-poor governance of non-timber forest products: the need for secure tenure, the rule of law,market access and partnerships. In: Shackleton S, C. B, ShanleyP, Mitchell D, Shackleton C (eds) Non-Timber Forest Products inthe Global Context. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg
Ros-Tonen MA, Derkyi M, Insaidoo TF (2014) From co-managementto landscape governance: Whither Ghana’s modified taungyasystem? Forests 5(12):2996–3021
Savilaakso S, Meijaard E, Guariguata MR, Boissiere M, Putzel L(2015) A review on compliance and impact monitoring indicatorsfor delivery of forest ecosystem services. CIFOR, Bogor
Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J, Pfund J-L, Sheil D, Meijaard E,Venter M, Boedhihartono AK, Day M, Garcia C (2013) Tenprinciples for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture,conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc Natl Acad SciUSA 110:8349–8356
Scoones I, Leach M, and Newell P (eds.) (2015) The Politics of GreenTransformations. Routledge, London, New York
Schouten G, Glasbergen P (2011) Creating legitimacy in global privategovernance: the case of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil.Ecol Econ 70:1891–1899
Smits MJW, van den Burg SWK, Verburg RW (2013) Circulaireeconomie en behoud van natuurlijk kapitaal. LEI, WageningenUR, Den Haag
Synnott T (2005) Some notes on the early years of FSC. https://ic.fsc.org/preview.notes-on-the-early-years-of-fsc.a-798.pdf. Accessed25 January 2017
TEEB (2009) TEEB—The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversityin Business and Enterprise. United Nations Environment Pro-gramme, Geneva
TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity:Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: a synthesis of theapproach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. UNEP,New York, NY
UNECE/FAO (2011) Forest Products Annual Market Review 2010-2011 Geneva Timber and Forest Study Paper 27
UNDP (1997) Governance for sustainable human development.UNDP, New York, NY
UNDP (2017) United Nations Development Program. Green Com-modities Programme. United Nations Development Program.http://www.undp.org/content/gcp/en/home.html. Accessed 2Febrary 2016
van den Berg J, Ingram V, Bogaardt M-J, Harms B (2013) Integratingecosystem services into the tropical timber value chain: Dutchpolicy options from an innovation system approach, WettelijkeOnderzoekstaken Natuur & Milieu, Working Document 344. LEIWageningen UR, Wageningen
van den Berg J, Ingram V, Judge L, Arets E (2014) Integrating eco-system services into tropical commodity value chains – Cocoa,Soy and Palm Oil. Dutch policy options from an innovationsystem approach, Wettelijke Onderzoekstaken Natuur & Milieu,Technical Report 6. LEI Wageningen UR, Wageningen
van Kuijk M, Putz J, Zagt R (2009) Effects of forest certification onbiodiversity, In: International, T. (ed). Tropenbos International,Wageningen
van Oorschot M, Wentink C, Kok M, Beukering P, Kuik O, vanDrunen M, van den Berg J, Ingram V, Judge L, Arets E (2016)The contribution of sustainable trade to the conservation of nat-ural capital. PBL: Netherlands Environmental AssessmentAgency, Den Haag
van Oosten C (2013) Restoring landscapes—Governing place: alearning approach to forest landscape restoration. J Sustain For32:659–676
van Oosten C, Gunarso P, Koesoetjahjo I, Wiersum F (2014) Gov-erning forest landscape restoration: Cases from Indonesia. Forests5(6):1143–1162
van Oosten C, Moeliono M, Wiersum F (2017) From product to place—Spatializing governance in a commodified landscape. EnvManagement. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0883-7
van Tulder R (2008) Partnerships for Development. Lecture SeriesResearch In Management Max Havelaar Lectures. RotterdamSchool of Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam
van Wensem J (2013) Use of the ecosystem services concept inlandscape management in the Netherlands. Int Env Assess Manag9.2:237–242
Vermeulen WJV, Kok MTJ (2012) Government interventions in sus-tainable supply chain governance: Experience in Dutch front-running cases. Ecol Econ 83:183–196
Waarts Y, Basso Gumbis de Souza K (2017) Assessing IDH’s con-tribution to public good impacts at scale (2016–2020). Firstassessment report on the existing evidence behind IDH’s impactstories. Wageningen University & Research and KPMG AdvisoryN.V., Wageningen
Walker H, Jones N (2012) Sustainable supply chain managementacross the UK private sector. Supply Chain Manag: Int J17:15–28
Wittmer H, Berghöfer A, Sukhdev P (2013) Poverty Reduction andBiodiversity Conservation: Using the Concept of EcosystemServices to Understand the Linkages. Biodiversity Conservationand Poverty Alleviation: Exploring the Evidence for a Link.https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118428351.ch3
Wunder S (2006) Are direct payments for environmental servicesspelling doom for sustainable forest management in the tropics?Ecol Soc 11:2
WWF (2014) The growth of soy: impacts and solutions. WWFInternational, Gland
