AUTHOR: Laure-Lou Tremblay
This blog explores different options on how the European Commission could strengthen the integration of Close-to-Nature Forest management into voluntary forest certification schemes. Our recent study with Milieu Consulting, outlined three possible pathways, ranging from adapting existing systems to developing new EU-level standards. Each option reflects different levels of ambition, complexity, and alignment with current policy frameworks, offering insights into how certification can help drive more biodiversity-friendly forestry across Europe.
Despite growing forest cover since the 1990s, EU forests have in the meantime become more intensively managed and homogeneous: about 75% of EU forests are even-aged, and about 1/3 of them are mono-specific. To address this issue, the European Commission published in 2023 the Guidelines on Closer-to-Nature Forest Management, a key commitment under the EU Forest Strategy for 2030. As part of the Strategy, the Commission also announced the development of a voluntary certification scheme to promote biodiversity-friendly forest practices aligned with these guidelines.
The first step toward this goal was the recent publication of a study conducted jointly by IEEP and Milieu Consulting. This study explores how the Closer-to-Nature forestry (CNF) guidelines could be supported or integrated into existing forest certification schemes.
Within this study, several options are proposed, each with its own opportunities and challenges. Ultimately, any decision on a potential approach comes down to priorities: Should the certification scheme closely mirror the CNF guidelines, potentially limiting uptake due to implementation barriers? Or should it take a more pragmatic approach, building on existing certification systems and aligning with current policy frameworks to encourage broader adoption?
Each path involves trade-offs between ambition and feasibility, and the direction chosen will reflect the balance between the two. Below is an overview of the different options identified in the study, highlighting their respective strengths, limitations, and implications for policy and practice.
Option 1: Establish a new EU-level voluntary forest certification standard linked directly to the CNF guidelines
The first potential option is to develop a new EU-level voluntary certification scheme that fully reflects the Closer-to-Nature Forest Management (CNF) guidelines through clear and measurable criteria. This could help address shortcomings in existing schemes, particularly around structural complexity, deadwood retention, and set-aside areas, and promote consistent implementation across Member States. However, this would require significant investment to translate CNF principles into practical standards and set up governance and verification systems. Uptake may be limited due to costs, training needs, and potential confusion or resistance from stakeholders if the scheme overlaps with existing forest certifications such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC).
Option 2: Collaborate with existing forest certification schemes
As a more pragmatic alternative, the Commission could work with existing forest certification schemes to align their benchmarks more closely with the CNF guidelines. FSC and PEFC are the most widely implemented certification schemes across the EU, with both schemes playing a significant role in promoting sustainable forest management through their respective certification processes and standards. In Europe, approximately 7% of the total forest area (or 86 million hectares) is certified under PEFC, and nearly 6% (or 70 million hectares) certified by FSC. The study identified several national FSC and PEFC standards that include CNF-compatible approaches—such as provisions for soil and water protection and landscape-level planning—demonstrating potential for broader integration of CNF principles. A key advantage of this option is the existing recognition and market trust in current certification labels. Consumers are already familiar with these schemes, and FSC and PEFC have established third-party monitoring and verification systems across EU countries, providing administrative efficiencies. However, most national guidelines still lack specific, quantifiable targets for key CNF aspects and often fall short in offering operational guidance. Moreover, there remains considerable variability between national standards, which could undermine harmonisation and coherence at EU level.
Option 3: Certify existing certification schemes
A third option could combine the benefits of leveraging existing schemes while maintaining EU-level oversight: the development of an EU voluntary standard that certifies existing forest certification schemes as being in line with CNF principles. This “certification of certifications” model would ensure consistency with CNF without requiring major structural changes to current schemes. It could lower administrative burdens, enable quicker uptake, and support market acceptance by building on established labels.
This model could take the form of a new standalone EU standard, or it could be integrated into existing policy frameworks. For instance, it could serve as a reference for emerging biodiversity crediting schemes, such as those developed by Verra, which aim to link forestry practices with biodiversity finance. It could also feed into the Commission’s ongoing work on developing biodiversity crediting mechanisms, providing a common benchmark for projects to demonstrate biodiversity benefits. This approach would create synergies between CNF certification and biodiversity conservation financing mechanisms.
Alternatively, CNF criteria could be embedded into the EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF), which accredits schemes on a rolling five-year basis. As the CRCF evolves to incorporate mandatory biodiversity co-benefits into carbon farming methodologies, integrating CNF indicators could enhance the alignment between biodiversity protection and carbon sequestration objectives.
However, this option carries the risk that biodiversity goals may be sidelined if carbon sequestration is prioritised. Without strong safeguards, the financial appeal of carbon credits could overshadow the implementation of CNF practices. Ensuring that biodiversity outcomes are explicitly embedded in certification rules will be essential to avoid such trade-offs.
Commissioner Jessika Roswall has recently highlighted the EU’s intention “to define a global standard for nature credits”—a signal of growing interest in aligning biodiversity outcomes with market-based incentives. While the design and implementation of such a system remain open questions, the Commission sees nature credits as a potential tool to advance biodiversity restoration goals and provide new income streams for landowners and forest managers.
By integrating Closer-to-Nature Forestry principles into any future biodiversity crediting mechanisms, the EU could unlock new stream of green finance and enhance the environmental credibility of such schemes and ensure they deliver measurable ecological benefits. Whether through a new EU certification standard or collaboration with existing schemes, the next steps must involve consultation with both experts and stakeholders on how to move forward with operationalising closer-to-nature forestry. If done right, CNF-aligned certification could support a new market dynamic where biodiversity is not just protected but invested in.
Photo by Ma Ti on Unsplash
