Abstract
•FSC-certification shows no significant ecological improvements in forest management.•Equally high amounts of timber (97%) are extracted on FSC and non-FSC clearcuts.•The study provides a first detailed assessment of microclimate on boreal clearcuts.•Clearcuts reduce cooling and buffering capacities of ecosystems.
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is widely recognized as certification standard for responsible forest management across all major forest biomes. Still, only few field studies assessed if FSC certification generates measurable positive impacts in a managed forest ecosystem. Consequently, unequivocal evidence on ecological effectiveness of FSC is scarce. Especially the Russian boreal forests, where FSC has shown a rapid growth of certified areas, have hardly been studied regarding ecologically positive achievements delivered by certification compared to conventional practices. In this case study, systematic research was carried out to assess the ecological effectiveness of FSC in the boreal forests of the Arkhangelsk Region, Russian Federation. At harvested sites belonging to two companies, managed with and without FSC-certification respectively, and at a primary reference forest, 95 variables related to five indicators (living tree biomass, deadwood, rejuvenation, vegetation, and microclimate regulation) were empirically assessed. With regard to the most ecologically relevant parameters chosen for this study, there were very few substantial differences of FSC-certified forestry operations to conventional ones. This can be explained with the equally high amounts of harvested timber (ca. 97% extracted) as well as the practice of large-scale clearcutting (up to >50 ha), generating significant structural and functional ecological changes in the forest ecosystem. The findings suggest that there is no real change in forest operations towards an ecologically responsible harvesting. Rather, FSC-certified forestry contributes to the ongoing loss of primary forests in the remaining Intact Forest Landscapes, and FSC does not seem to slow down the loss of ecosystem functionality. Actually, the large-scale clearcuts do not resemble any comparable natural disturbance regime and produce risky ecological changes related to micro- and mesoclimate. Our data show substantial heating of the large clearcuts and the loss of ecosystemic buffering capacity, being highly relevant in the context of vulnerability to climate change.