Feed aggregator

Forest certification is meant to ensure forests are being managed responsibly. But in Australia, questions remain about the benefits it delivers beyond legal compliance. Australia’s forest debates are full of confident claims. Some argue that native forest harvesting can be sustainable if properly regulated and independently certified, while others argue that certification mainly gives a social licence to forest logging that should no longer occur. Both those for and against native forest harvesting often speak with certainty. And both are at the whim of the forest certification process – the tool that verifies timber and wood products come from responsibly managed, sustainable forests. But there is a more basic question we have not answered well enough: what does forest certification actually do? In research I recently published with colleagues, we reviewed the literature on forest certification in Australia, hoping to understand whether it delivers benefits beyond existing legal requirements. This idea – understanding about benefits that would not have otherwise been realised without it – is known as ‘additionality’. Put simply, are certified forest managers doing things they would not otherwise have done, or are they simply complying with the law? Certification reassures markets, governments and the public that forest products – things like timber and wood chips – come from responsibly managed forests. It can influence procurement, market access, corporate reputation and public trust. In contested areas like native forestry for timber production, certification becomes part of the evidence people use to judge whether forest management is acceptable. But some stakeholders argue that existing laws don’t go far enough to ensure environmental and social outcomes, making certification’s contribution beyond the legal baseline particularly important. So, we need to know whether certification is simply a compliance badge or whether it produces real environmental, social and governance benefits. The answer is mixed. Certification has introduced regular third-party audits, more formal planning systems and stronger expectations around transparency. These are not trivial benefits. Certification can make forest managers document decisions more carefully, respond to concerns from conservation groups and demonstrate how environmental risks are being managed. It can show whether procedures are followed, non-conformities are identified (e.g. inadequate protection of threatened species habitat), and corrective actions are taken. But that is not the same as showing whether biodiversity, habitat quality, regeneration, water values or ecosystem conditions are improving over decades because of certification. When it comes to long-term ecological outcomes, the evidence is much thinner than many people might expect. That doesn’t mean certification has no ecological value. It means we often lack the right kind of evidence to prove it. Are we ticking a box or making a difference? Imagine a forest manager is certified and complies with all relevant legal and certification requirements. At a later date, spatial analysis might show that parts of the certified forest overlap with areas identified by researchers as having high conservation value, meaning timber harvesting, even when certified, should not have occurred in that ecosystem. While this doesn’t automatically prove a breach in certification rules or a failure of certification itself, it highlights that the legislation doesn’t go as far as some conservation scientists, communities or advocates think it should. At best, certification can strengthen procedural recognition. Whether it supports more substantive change depends on how forest managers implement those requirements and whether they track those changes. The missing piece in Australia is long-term monitoring. Asking the right questions Australia has excellent forest scientists, remote sensing capacity, and biodiversity expertise. We have also had important monitoring programs, including FORESTCHECK in Western Australia, the Coastal Integrated Forestry Operations Approval Monitoring Program in New South Wales and Victoria’s forest monitoring systems. But these efforts have not yet been brought together into a national research agenda capable of testing forestry sustainability – or certification additionality. At best, certification can strengthen procedural recognition. Whether it supports more substantive change depends on how forest managers implement those requirements and whether they track those changes. The missing piece in Australia is long-term monitoring. Asking the right questions Australia has excellent forest scientists, remote sensing capacity, and biodiversity expertise. We have also had important monitoring programs, including FORESTCHECK in Western Australia, the Coastal Integrated Forestry Operations Approval Monitoring Program in New South Wales and Victoria’s forest monitoring systems. But these efforts have not yet been brought together into a national research agenda capable of testing forestry sustainability – or certification additionality. That means comparing harvested and unharvested forests, forests under different regulatory settings, areas before and after changes in certification standards, and forests managed for fire, drought, invasive species or climate change. This work is difficult. But without it, claims about sustainability will remain vulnerable. Certification as an opportunity, not an obligation The forest industry also has to be candid about this. For decades, certification has been used to demonstrate that forest management is responsible and independently audited. But it could have been used more strategically to generate public evidence about ecological performance. Certification should help forest managers move from “trust us, we’re certified” to “here is what long-term monitoring shows”. But even that won’t end Australia’s forest wars. Some conflicts are about values, not only evidence, and some oppose native forest harvesting in principle. But better evidence will improve the debate. For forest policy makers and research funders, this is the opportunity – Australia needs a proactive forest research agenda. Certification should not be treated only as a market instrument. It should also be treated as infrastructure for public learning. The additionality question is deliberately uncomfortable. Are we certifying forests simply to comply with the law? Or are we using certification to drive measurable improvements in forest condition, transparency, accountability and public trust? The answer should be the latter, and forestry needs the evidence to prove it. This article was first published in Melbourne University’s Pursuit magazine (https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/). You can read the original there. Dr Alex Van Der Meer Simo Is a Research Fellow in Forest Certification, School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne

The post Opinion: Dr Alex Van Der Meer Simo – what are the benefits of forest certification appeared first on Timberbiz.