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.

Sustainable forest management is important for advancing sustainable societal development. Effective communication plays a major role in how goals and objectives are achieved. This study aims to assess how sustainability is considered by people who develop forest management plans (or forest plans in short). We employed the snowball sample technique to locate the study’s respondents. In addition, an open-ended questionnaire and a mix method data collection (phone and email) and analysis (qualitative and quantitative) were found to be adequate methods to survey forest planners who have been involved in the development, implementation, evaluation, and/or revision of forest plans in the United States. Our approach helped us to understand their perceptions of and means of incorporating sustainability concerns in forest plans. A total of 55 surveys were completed by forest planners physically located in 26 of the 50 states in the country. Results suggested that planners generally placed environmental sustainability concerns over social and economic sustainability concerns. A variety of key terms were central to forest planners’ attempts to communicate sustainability, from which most were associated with philosophical and temporal principles that would then be associated with concrete actions and the human dimension. Nevertheless, respondents also acknowledged difficulties and misunderstandings in describing how forest sustainability should be demonstrated within a forest plan. Topics such as restoration, carbon sequestration, and resilience were infrequently associated with sustainability and sustainable forest management. Finally, we found that the respondents were divided on whether the language used in forest plans to demonstrate sustainability could be improved.