Abstract
AbstractSustainability certificates are increasingly used as tools for shaping bioeconomic production processes and trade. However, their specific effects are subjected to debate. A multitude of certificate schemes and standards are currently in use, defining and measuring sustainability in the bioeconomy in highly varying ways. Different representations of environmental effects, resulting from the use of different standards or scientific methods in certification, can have very real implications for how, where and to which degree bioeconomic production can be conducted and the environment will be conserved. Further, the implications for bioeconomic production practices and management embedded in the environmental knowledge employed in bioeconomic sustainability certificates will produce different winners and losers, and privilege some societal or individual concerns at the expense of others. In this way, sustainability certificates share some characteristics with other standards and policy tools that embody political contingencies, but are presented and often understood as objective and neutral. The paper argues that the politics of environmental knowledge involved in these processes warrant more awareness, scrutiny and explicit consideration from decision makers, policy developers and researchers.
Funder
Norges Forskningsråd
Norwegian institute for nature research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Ecology,Environmental Chemistry,Geography, Planning and Development,General Medicine
Reference90 articles.
1. Andresen, L. 2013. Levende Skog—forhandlinger & årsaker til brudd. Master thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management.
2. Angelstam, P., J.M. Roberge, R. Axelsson, M. Elbakidze, K.-O. Bergman, A. Dahlberg, E. Degerman, S. Eggers, et al. 2013. Evidence-based knowledge versus negotiated indicators for assessment of ecological sustainability: The Swedish Forest Stewardship Council Standard as a case study. Ambio 42: 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0377-z
3. Asdal, K., B. Cointe, B. Hobæk, H. Reinertsen, T. Huse, S.R. Morsman, and T. Måløy. 2021. ‘The good economy’: A conceptual and empirical move for investigating how economies and versions of the good are entangled. BioSocieties. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-021-00245-5.
4. Aspøy, H., and H. Stokland. 2022. Segmented forest realities—The ontological politics of biodiversity mapping. Environmental Science and Policy 137: 120–127.
5. Baumann, C., and I. Gjerde. 2002. Environmental inventories in forests—biodiversity. A manual for conducting inventories of forest habitats. Part 4: Guidelines for Ranking and Selection. http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2559284. Accessed 10 May 2021.