Abstract
International expansion of forest certification programs has occurred over the last three decades. Both public and private organizations have shown increased interest in becoming certified by one or more forest certification bodies, to assure the public that forest resources are managed adequately in sustaining forest health and socio-economic viability. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) program is globally used as a benchmark to implement forest certification at the national and regional levels. The Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI) and the American Tree Farm System (ATFS) are also used throughout the United States. In Europe, individual countries such as Bulgaria and Turkey have also developed national forest certification programs. The SFI, ATFS and Bulgarian programs are further endorsed by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). The results of a qualitative analysis comparing the FSC forest certification program with the SFI, the ATFS, and the two European national programs (Bulgarian and Turkish) suggest that differences in these programs are not necessarily related to their language, but to the level of detail and prescriptiveness of each program. We find that the FSC is much more detailed and prescriptive in nearly all aspects considered for forest certification. In particular, we find that most of the elements considered in the FSC Principle 6 (Environmental Impact) are either only superficial, or not addressed at all, in the other four programs. Furthermore, the other programs appear to be less comprehensive and detailed in the substance of the FSC monitoring and assessment principles. In a few areas, the Turkish program requires more quantitative indicators for assessing forest management than the other programs. Though a comparison of the legal framework related to forest management in each of the studied countries was briefly introduced, our study focuses on the certification schemes themselves; it may contribute to policy discussions in the future development and implementation of other certification programs.
Highlights
One of the earliest certification processes, the American Tree Farm System (ATFS), was developed in 1941 to improve forest management practices on private lands in the United States through education and self-discipline, under forest production and protection premises [1]
We have not preformatted the formal analysis of the forest policy frameworks on any of the studied countries, we set the stage for the analysis of the forest certification programs by first providing a brief overview of the forest policy context in which forest landowners operate in the United States, Bulgaria and Turkey
The main differences between the forest certification programs analyzed here primarily occur at the level and scale of measurable impact, rather than regarding language employed
Summary
One of the earliest certification processes, the American Tree Farm System (ATFS), was developed in 1941 to improve forest management practices on private lands in the United States through education and self-discipline, under forest production and protection premises [1]. This concern for sustainable forest management is held by many private landowners, as about 74,000 family forest owners are currently enrolled in the ATFS program, representing 7.69 million ha (19 million acres) of forest land. Despite some differences across programs, contemporary certification processes generally consist of five steps: (1) initial contact with the certifying body, (2) a pre-assessment, (3) an on-site verification visit, (4) certification approval, and (5) subsequent audits, inspections, and re-certification when applicable
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
