Certified forests in Minnesota show higher use of best management practices

A recent study found that forests in Minnesota certified under systems like FSC showed higher implementation of best management practices than non-certified forests. Best management practices, also called forest management guidelines, are developed at the state level to mitigate negative impacts during forest management and timber harvesting activities.  

Adherence to these guidelines has been found to have positive outcomes on water quality and other resources across the United States. In fact, other research reported an over 90% reduction in water quality impacts after the development of forest management guidelines. 

Methodology 

This study, published in the International Journal of Forest Engineering by David C. Wilson, Michael A. Kilgore, and Stephanie A. Snyder, investigated certified and non-certified forests in the state of Minnesota, located in the north-central United States. Minnesota forest management guidelines support sustainable forest management and mitigate negative outcomes from timber harvest on water quality, wildlife, biodiversity, soil, cultural resources, and visual quality.  

The researchers used quantitative, on-site field monitoring, and statistical methods, focusing on 26 guidelines such as proper handling leftover materials after timber harvest and installing erosion control structures to ensure forest health. They evaluated 606 recent timber harvests across different land ownership types. 

Key findings for forests in Minnesota 

The research concluded that certified forests in Minnesota generally follow forest management guidelines more closely than non-certified forests. Certified forests had significantly higher compliance with 11 out of 26 guidelines studied. They are less likely to have roads or landings located within filter strips and water crossings in areas that could have been avoided. They are also significantly more likely to comply the recommended portion of the harvest area devoted to infrastructure, have water diversions and erosion control structures correctly installed, and conduct preharvest checks for the presence of cultural resources and endangered and threatened species. 

However, comparing the two biggest and most complex forest landowners in the state (one is certified, and the other is not) did not show a significant difference in how they followed forest management guidelines. This suggests that for large, complex organizations, organizationally driven factors beyond certification can also play a role in determining how responsibly forests are managed.  

Finally, the authors acknowledge that the study considered only one aspect of certification – application of a state’s timber harvest best management practices. Other crucial aspects of certification such as adherence to laws and policies, respecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights, and consulting communities and stakeholders were outside the scope of the study. Further research could explore these areas to show a more complete picture of how certification leads to broader goals of sustainable forest management.   

Read the study here.