Evidence-Based Knowledge Versus Negotiated Indicators for Assessment of Ecological Sustainability: The Swedish Forest Stewardship Council Standard as a Case Study

Abstract

Assessing ecological sustainability involves monitoring of indicators and comparison of their states with performance targets that are deemed sustainable. First, a normative model was developed centered on evidence-based knowledge about (a) forest composition, structure, and function at multiple scales, and (b) performance targets derived by quantifying the habitat amount in naturally dynamic forests, and as required for presence of populations of specialized focal species. Second, we compared the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification standards’ ecological indicators from 1998 and 2010 in Sweden to the normative model using a Specific, Measurable, Accurate, Realistic, and Timebound (SMART) indicator approach. Indicator variables and targets for riparian and aquatic ecosystems were clearly under-represented compared to terrestrial ones. FSC’s ecological indicators expanded over time from composition and structure towards function, and from finer to coarser spatial scales. However, SMART indicators were few. Moreover, they poorly reflected quantitative evidence-based knowledge, a consequence of the fact that forest certification mirrors the outcome of a complex social negotiation process.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0377-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Relative contributions of set-asides and tree retention to the long-term availability of key forest biodiversity structures at the landscape scale

“…Society has responded to these negative environmental trends by developing a variety of governmental policies (McDermott et al, 2010) and market-driven conservation initiatives (Angelstam et al, 2013). In Fennoscandia, most policy tools specifically aiming to conserve forest biodiversity were developed and implemented fairly recently from a forestry perspective, mainly in the later parts of the 20th century .…”

Knowledge Production and Learning for Sustainable Landscapes: Seven Steps Using Social–Ecological Systems as Laboratories

“…Regarding ecological sustainability, policy visions can be used to develop both evidence-based and negotiated performance targets for different dimensions of sustainability. Non-linear responses of species to habitat loss and certification standards exemplify this (Angelstam et al 2013e). Biodiversity conservation ambition levels can be interpreted by comparative studies of focal species in landscapes with different histories (Roberge et al 2008), retrospective studies (Lindborg and Eriksson 2004) and modeling (Fahrig 2002).…”

“…This means to operationalize policy principle’s different criteria and indicators by identifying and using measurable verifier variables that reflect different spatial scales (Lammerts van Bueren and Blom 1997; Axelsson et al 2013a; Elbakidze et al 2013b). The biophysical, anthropogenic, and intangible landscape concepts can be used as a tool to include and bridge theories from different disciplines, and to identify verifier variables for different aspects of sustainability (Angelstam et al 2013e; Axelsson et al 2013a). Subsequently, states and development trends of ecological, economic, social, and cultural dimensions can be compared.…”

“…Assessment also involves studies about stakeholders’ understanding, ability to act and willingness to act (Lundquist 1987) to make a diagnosis of policy implementation processes. The results of the assessments of processes in ecological (Angelstam et al 2013e) and social systems (Axelsson et al 2013b) should be communicated among stakeholders involved in decision-making processes at strategic, tactical, and operational levels.…”

“…However, it is not sufficient. Additionally, a range of potential social actions (sensu Weber 1922; Parsons 1949) needs to be understood (see an example in Angelstam et al 2013e). …”