The forestry and timber sector provides a good case study on the dynamics of competi­tion between various sustainability standards and certification systems. It also provides a background for the emergence of the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels. The decline of social sustainability standards as part of certification for forest sustainability suggests potential pitfalls in the inclusion of social sustainability standards for biomass energy production and value chains.

Public concerns over deforestation in the tropics, loss of biodiversity, and the perceived low quality of land management in developing nations, from which energy biomass is often sourced [17,18], led to discussion among civil society organization (CSOs), transnational corporations (TNCs) and governments around securing adherence to sustainability stan­dards in forest management. As a spin-off from these international discussions, the private Forest Sustainability Council (FSC) was successfully established in 1993. A decade later, the FSC had certified more than 53 million hectares of forest in 78 countries.

The FSC was the primary certification system for much of the 1990s and early 2000s. Yet by the second decade of the twenty-first century, its privileged position in the sector had been challenged. As of 2005, a least 23 different national, regional, and global standards competed with the FSC. One competitor, the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), was established in 1999 by forest owners and the timber industry as an umbrella scheme for national standards. By mid-2002, the PEFC had become the world’s largest forest certification scheme in terms of certified forest land [17]. PEFC requires that local stakeholders be involved in both standard-setting and decision-making before a system can be endorsed [19].

The marginalization of the FSC and the widespread support for the PEFC and other pro­grams originating from within the industry has disappointed many environmental groups, which see the industry initiatives as inherently weaker. For example, unlike the FSC, the PEFC does not rely on independent on-the-spot inspections, demand annual inspections, or implement regular checks. This should be no surprise, however, as competing forestry standards allow for producers and suppliers to choose from the standards systems that best fit their needs, reduce their costs, and maximize their profits [20].

In contrast, the management practices required by PEFC include several social sus­tainability criteria, including ecosystem services that provide habitats and shelter for peo­ple and wildlife, offer spiritual and recreational benefits, protection of workers’ rights and welfare, encourage local employment, and respect indigenous people’s rights. The PEFC conducted a stakeholder dialogue on Sustainable Biomass and Forest Certification in November of 2012 in conjunction with the International Energy Agency’s Bioenergy initiative. The goal of the meeting was to explore sustainability issues related to expanding use of forest biomass for energy and other industries. Addressing the added pressures on communities caused by forest-based biofuel production is necessary, as sustainable forest management may not be enough to ensure social sustainability, as those standards may not adequately address specific intensified production and harvesting methods related to forest fuels [21].