Oryx Vol 37 No 2 April 2003 Does forest certification conserve biodiversity? R. E. Gullison Abstract Forest certification provides a means by convincing forest owners to retain forest cover and pro- which producers who meet stringent sustainable forestry duce certified timber on a sustainable basis, rather than standards can identify their products in the marketplace, deforesting their lands for timber and agriculture. 3) At allowing them to potentially receive greater market access present, current volumes of certified forest products are and higher prices for their products. An examination insuBcient to reduce demand to log high conservation of the ways in which certification may contribute to value forests. If FSC certification is to make greater inroads, biodiversity conservation leads to the following con- particularly in tropical countries, significant investments clusions: 1) the process of Forest Stewardship Council will be needed both to increase the benefits and reduce (FSC)-certification generates improvements to manage- the costs of certification. Conservation investors will ment with respect to the value of managed forests for need to carefully consider the biodiversity benefits that biodiversity. 2) Current incentives are not suBcient to will be generated from such investments, versus the attract the majority of producers to seek certification, benefits generated from investing in more traditional particularly in tropical countries where the costs of approaches to biodiversity conservation. improving management to meet FSC guidelines are significantly greater than any market benefits they may Keywords Biodiversity, certification, tropical forests, receive; available incentives are even less capable of forestry, Forest Stewardship Council, FSC. cover remains (van Soest, 1998). Furthermore, industrial Introduction logging can catalyze deforestation by opening up vast The ongoing loss and degradation of the world’s forests tracts of forest to colonization (Verissimo et al., 1995), is one of the greatest challenges that the international and it can change the microclimate of forests and make environmental community faces. Recent attempts to them more susceptible to forest fires and windthrow measure the rate of forest decline suggest that the world (Cochrane, 2001). lost almost 10 million ha of net forest cover per year Although the destructive impacts of industrial logging during the 1990s (FAO, 2001). Even this alarming figure mean that it is a major threat to biodiversity in some is an underestimate of the plight of the world’s natural contexts, it is also apparent that in other contexts the forests, as it does not reflect forest degradation, or the promotion of industrial logging may make a positive fact that in some cases forests have been replaced with contribution to biodiversity conservation. For example, plantations. in order for eCorts to stop logging in high conservation Although the causes of deforestation vary regionally value forests (HCVF) to be successful, logging pressure (Rudel & Roper, 1996; Roper, 1999), industrial logging needs to be directed towards forests and plantations has maintained the attention of the international environ- of lower conservation value, where logging is com- mental community as a major causal agent (Dudley patible with biodiversity conservation objectives (FrumhoC et al., 1995). At very high harvest intensities, industrial & Losos, 1998). In addition, in some cases industrial logging is synonymous with deforestation, while at forestry may provide higher biodiversity benefits than lower harvest intensities, logging can severely degrade default land uses, such as agriculture, and as such, the environmental value of forests, even though forest forestry may be a significant conservation strategy in its own right. A comprehensive strategy for conserving the world’s forests and their biodiversity therefore needs to address R.E. Gullison Centre for Biodiversity Research, University of British Columbia, 6270 University Blvd,Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada, and industrial logging as a threat to be mitigated in some Hardner & Gullison Associates, LLC, 13810 Long Lake Road, Ladysmith contexts, and as a land use to be promoted in others. BC V9G 1G5, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] Gullison et al. (2001) recently reviewed mechanisms Received 7 November 2002. Revision requested 15 January 2003. to stop or prevent industrial logging in HCVF. They Accepted 20 February 2003. identified five categories of mechanisms, organized by 153 © 2003 FFI, Oryx, 37(2), 153–165 DOI: 10.1017/S0030605303000346 Printed in the United Kingdom 154 R. E. Gullison where they were applied along the flow of forest pro- system, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). The FSC ducts from forest to market. The mechanisms included has been in operation for almost 10 years, and hence creating new protected areas from unallocated public this is an opportune time to review its progress. The lands, purchasing and retiring timber rights on public and paper begins with a general explanation of how forest private lands, and reducing the international flow of certification works, and then describes the FSC’s stan- timber products from HCVF with the use of CITES and dards, before examining various ways in which FSC- import/export bans. The diverse nature of the mech- certification may contribute to biodiversity conservation. anisms means that there are approaches appropriate for The paper concludes by raising some questions that most contexts in which industrial logging in HCVF need to be addressed before the role of certification can occurs. Despite chronic underfunding, protected areas be more clearly defined in an overall conservation have been surprisingly eCective at countering threats strategy for the world’s forests. such as logging (Bruner et al., 2001), and various eCorts are underway to further improve their performance Forest certification (IUCN, 2000). The second component of a comprehensive strategy The goal of forest certification is to improve forest for conserving the world’s forests is to maximize the management by providing a means by which pro- contribution that industrial logging makes to biodiversity ducers that operate to higher standards can identify conservation in well-managed plantations and natural their products in the marketplace, thereby enabling con- forests of lesser conservation value (FrumhoC & Losos, sumers to recognize and preferentially purchase forest 1998). One such approach is ‘log and protect’ (Rice et al., products that originate from forests whose production 1997) – the forest equivalent to ‘dehorning the rhino’ – generates greater environmental and social benefits than where logging of low density and high value timber products arising from forests with conventional manage- species precedes the creation of protected areas. This ment (FSC, 2002a; WWF, 2002a). An environmentally approach avoids the foregoing of revenue that would sensitive consumer base should create incentives that otherwise occur if logging was sacrificed, and can also reward certified producers, and encourage other non- maintain most of the environmental values of the forest, certified producers to seek certification and its market providing that logging is of low intensity. benefits. In this way, certification directs demand Another approach to maximizing the contribution of away from uncertified forests and towards products industrial logging to biodiversity conservation is the from forests that meet rigorous management criteria, promotion of sustainable forestry through certification including implementing management practices to (FSC, 2002a; WWF, 2002a). The goal of certification is to promote biodiversity conservation. provide an independent evaluation of the environmental The implementation of a forest certification system and social impacts of the production process of a pro- normally proceeds in the following way (Upton & Bass, duct, which allows consumers to make an informed 1995; Bass, 2001). Firstly, standards, criteria, and indicators choice at the time of purchase. The recent appearance for sustainable forestry are developed. ‘Sustainable’ in of forest certification is part of a larger trend, which has this sense means that the standards consider the environ- also seen the emergence of certification of the sustainable mental and social impacts of forest management, not management of fisheries (MSC, 2003), certification that just the economic objective of producing a sustained yield products have avoided the use of sweatshop labour of timber. The goal of sustainable forestry standards is in their construction (SAI, 2003), and certification that to define management practices that are economically produce meets organic production standards (OCIA, viable, that retain a company’s social licence to operate, 2003). Certification provides a means by which con- and that maintain the natural capital upon which the sumers can reward producers who provide the greatest business is based. The range and balance of stakeholder environmental and social benefits from their production groups represented during the standard setting process process, either by paying a price premium, or by varies considerably among diCerent certification systems. preferential purchasing. As a result, there are diCerences, sometimes large, in the The emergence of certification as a conservation social and environmental standards that are considered strategy has triggered a vigorous debate concerning the to be sustainable. role of certification and sustainable forestry versus more The next