In the face of accelerating forest degradation and deforestation, forest certification emerged in the early 1990s as a voluntary and market-based mechanism to promote environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world’s forests. A key goal of forest certification is to reduce forest degradation and deforestation while enhancing forest enterprises’ economic viability. However, whether forest certification contributes to meeting such goals is unclear. We conducted a systematic literature review on such impacts, reviewing empirical studies published between 1993 and 2021 regarding the impact of forest certification on forest degradation, deforestation, and economic viability. Drawing on 98 empirical studies, we analyzed these impacts and provide an overview of the studies’ findings in terms of geographical distribution, indicators considered, and the certification schemes assessed. We found that the impact of forest certification on deforestation has been specifically understudied (n = 11) compared to forest degradation (n = 42) and economic viability (n = 45). On deforestation, studies have focused on Africa (45%) and South America (36%); on forest degradation, studies have focused on Europe (40%) and Asia (20%); on economic viability, studies have focused on Asia (33%), Europe (33%) and South America (20%). We found positive-neutral (54%; 46%) impacts on deforestation, positive-neutral-mixed (70%; 21%; 9%) impacts on forest degradation and positive-negative-mixed (50%; 33%; 17%) impacts on economic viability. We did not find clear evidence that impact is linked to a specific region or certification scheme. However, scarce evidence on the impacts of the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), the application of various methods, and site-specific indicators in the individual studies challenge such comparison and hamper the generalization of findings. This systematic review provides an overview of the state-of-the-art research on the effectiveness and economic viability of forest certification, evaluates and discusses the current evidence base, and concludes with future research lines.

There has been an ongoing interest in how important forests are for employment and what measures need to be taken to reduce decent work deficits. This study aims to contribute to the existing debate on the extent of informal and subsistence employment globally, with a particular focus on the forestry and logging sub-sector. Estimates on employment numbers not captured in the official statistics are aggregated with the recent official reported data to demonstrate a partial overview of global forest-based employment. The previous estimation method is extended by incorporating clustering techniques in response to the paucity of available labour productivity rates. Related employment and production data compiled by FAO are used as a basis of analyses. Main findings reveal that at least two-thirds of the entire forestry and logging-based employment is informal or subsistence. Estimates are highly concentrated in developing countries where decent forestry work need to be strengthened most. Aggregating official employment statistics and our additional estimates, the global forest-related workforce amounts to at least 64 million persons FTE in 2015. The study can be considered a step towards a more profound assessment approach in estimating informal and subsistence employment in the global forest sector based on the officially reported statistics. Disaggregated data based on employment status and gender is essential for improving the indirect estimation of the forest sector’s informal economy and thus requires more attention by policymakers in the near future.

The transition of our current economic system towards a bioeconomy that is based on renewable materials and energy can be an important contribution but at the same time a threat to mitigate the challenges of the 21st century, such as global warming and resource depletion. To assess societal, economic, and environmental impacts associated with this transition, we propose an approach for a sustainability assessment as an integral part of a future bioeconomy monitoring concept. The assessment approach is based on material flow analyses of the bioeconomy and their core products. As a proof of applicability, the proposed assessment approach is exemplified for the material flow of softwood lumber and its core product ‘EPAL 1 pallet’. To simulate a frequent monitoring, material flow analysis and assessment of six sustainability effects are applied for the years 2010 and 2015. Since a frequent bioeconomy monitoring requires regularly updated and quality assured data, official statistics should be the major source of information. Whereas cutoff thresholds, nondisclosure of data, and high level of aggregation are major limitations of official production statistics and for material flow analysis, lack of information regarding environmental effects is the major limitation for material flow related sustainability assessment. We make suggestions on how to overcome these limitations and put our approach in to context with other ongoing monitoring activities.

The European Union Biodiversity Strategy 2030 (EUBDS) aims to regain biodiversity through enhanced forest conservation and protection, which may lead to increased timber harvest in non‐EU countries. We aimed to identify the potential leakage of biodiversity risks as induced by the EUBDS. We created an indicator framework that allows one to quantify vulnerability of forest biodiversity. The framework is based on 26 biodiversity indicators for which indicator values were publicly available. We weighted single indicator values with countrywise modeled data on changed timber production under EUBDS implementation. Nearly 80% of the indicators pointed to higher vulnerability in the affected non‐EU countries. Roundwood production was transferred to countries with, on average, lower governance quality ( p = 0.0001), political awareness ( p = 0.548), forest coverage ( p = 0.034), and biomass ( p = 0.272) and with less sustainable forest management ( p = 0.044 and p = 0.028). These countries had more natural habitats ( p = 0.039) and intact forest landscapes ( p = 0.0001) but higher risk of species extinction ( p = 0.006) and less protected area ( p = 0.0001) than the EU countries. Only a few indicators pointed to lower vulnerability and biodiversity risks outside the EU. Safeguards are needed to ensure that implementation of EUBDS does not cause harm to ecosystems elsewhere. The EU regulation on deforestation‐free supply chains might have limited effects because the sustainable management of existing and even expanding forests is not well considered. Sustained roundwood production in the EU is needed to avoid placing more pressure on more vulnerable ecosystems elsewhere. Decreasing species and habitat indicator values nevertheless call for global conservation and protection schemes. The EUBDS helped pave the way to the Kunming–Montreal Biodiversity Framework. Yet, lower values for the indicators mean governance and biodiversity engagement in non‐EU countries suggest that this global framework might not sufficiently prevent leakage of risks to biodiversity. Effective land‐use planning is necessary to balance conservation schemes with roundwood production.

Informal employment has been observed for decades and inevitably accompanies the formal economy globally, and it does not disappear to date along with economic growth. Particularly in developing countries, informal employment has increased beyond expectation. This scoping literature review, therefore, aims to identify and analyze the magnitude, causes, characteristics and socioeconomic effects of informal employment in the forest sector on a global scale. The literature analysis reveals that informal employment is predominant in the forest sector. Poverty, lack of education and migration are the causes of informal employment both in general and in the forest sector. Informal employment in the forest sector has various decent work deficits. At the same time, informal employment in the forest sector has induced and enlarged socioeconomic effects of working poverty and occupational accidents and illnesses.