The forestry industry has been talking about sustainability for decades. Certification schemes, reduced-impact logging standards, biodiversity monitoring, carbon accounting — the framework exists. The question in 2026 is how well it’s being implemented on the ground, and whether the standards are keeping pace with the challenges.

Certification: The Current Landscape

Two major certification schemes dominate global forestry: the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). Between them, they cover roughly 450 million hectares of certified forest worldwide.

In Australia, the Australian Forestry Standard (AFS) is endorsed by PEFC, and FSC certifies a smaller area independently. Most state forest agencies and larger plantation companies hold certification under one or both schemes.

Certification has achieved real gains. Certified operations must maintain riparian buffers, protect high-conservation-value forests, control chemical use, and consult with Indigenous communities. Auditing provides accountability that purely regulatory approaches sometimes lack.

The criticism — and it’s not unfounded — is that certification has become a minimum standard rather than a driver of continuous improvement. Once certified, the incentive is to maintain compliance rather than exceed it. The gap between “certified” and “best practice” has widened as the science of forest ecology has advanced faster than certification standards have been updated.

Reduced-Impact Logging

The principles of reduced-impact logging (RIL) are well established: plan harvest operations to minimise soil disturbance, protect residual trees from damage, maintain canopy connectivity, and avoid harvesting on steep slopes or near waterways.

Implementation varies enormously. In well-managed Australian native forests, RIL practices are followed with reasonable rigour. Harvest planning uses GIS-based mapping, exclusion zones are clearly marked, and machinery operators are trained in low-impact techniques.

In plantation forestry, the equation is different. Plantations are essentially crops, and the sustainability question shifts from “how do we harvest without damaging the forest” to “how do we manage the plantation landscape to provide ecosystem services alongside timber production.”

Progressive plantation managers are integrating biodiversity corridors, maintaining wildlife habitat patches within plantation landscapes, and using mixed-species plantings rather than monocultures. But economic pressure favours monoculture blocks of fast-growing species, and many plantation operations prioritise production efficiency over ecological design.

Carbon and Climate

Forestry’s role in carbon management has become increasingly prominent. Forests sequester carbon through growth and store it in wood products. The carbon accounting of forestry operations — considering emissions from harvesting, transport, and processing against carbon stored in products and regrowth — is complex and contested.

The Australian government’s Emissions Reduction Fund includes forestry-based methods, primarily reforestation and avoided deforestation. Carbon credits from forestry projects contribute to Australia’s emissions reduction targets, though the permanence and additionality of some carbon credits have been questioned by researchers.

One area of genuine progress is the use of mass timber — cross-laminated timber (CLT) and glue-laminated timber (glulam) — in construction. When timber replaces steel and concrete in buildings, the carbon benefit is significant: the embodied carbon is lower, and the timber continues to store the carbon it sequestered during growth.

CLT construction has grown steadily in Australia, with several multi-story timber buildings completed in Melbourne, Brisbane, and Sydney. The structural engineering is proven, fire performance meets code requirements, and the sustainability narrative resonates with developers and occupants.

Water and Soil Management

Forestry’s impact on catchment hydrology is well documented. Plantation forests, particularly young fast-growing plantations, consume more water than grassland or scrubland. In water-limited catchments, this can reduce streamflow and affect downstream water users and ecosystems.

Sustainable forestry standards require water impact assessment, but the practical application varies. In Tasmania, Water-sensitive forestry practices are relatively well integrated. In other states, the connection between forestry planning and catchment management is less explicit.

Soil management has improved with better understanding of compaction impacts. Modern harvesting equipment is heavier than older machinery, and the potential for soil damage during wet conditions is significant. Best practice involves restricting harvesting to drier periods, using designated extraction routes, and rehabilitating compacted areas after harvest.

Biodiversity Monitoring

Monitoring the biodiversity outcomes of forestry management has historically been under-resourced. It’s relatively easy to count the hectares harvested and regenerated, or the volume of timber produced. It’s much harder to assess whether wildlife populations are stable, whether plant diversity is maintained, or whether ecosystem functions are intact.

Camera trap networks, acoustic monitoring, and environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling are making biodiversity monitoring more feasible and cost-effective. Several Australian state forest agencies have expanded their monitoring programs using these technologies.

The data these tools generate is only useful if it feeds back into management decisions. A monitoring program that collects data without a clear process for using that data to adjust practices is expensive box-ticking.

Indigenous Land Management

The intersection of forestry and Indigenous land management is receiving overdue attention. Indigenous fire management practices — cool-burning to reduce fuel loads, promote regeneration, and maintain habitat diversity — are being integrated into some forestry operations.

In northern Australia, Indigenous ranger programs that manage fire and invasive species across vast landscapes have demonstrated that traditional knowledge and modern science can work together effectively. The extension of these approaches into commercial forestry landscapes is still early but promising.

Recognition of Indigenous cultural values in forest management plans is becoming standard in certification requirements. Whether that recognition translates into genuine shared decision-making or remains a consultation exercise varies considerably by operation and jurisdiction.

The Plantation vs Native Forest Debate

The most contentious sustainability debate in Australian forestry remains the role of native forest harvesting. Environmental groups argue that logging native forests — even under certification and regulatory frameworks — is incompatible with biodiversity conservation, carbon storage, and water yield maintenance.

The industry argues that sustainably managed native forests provide renewable timber while maintaining forest cover and ecosystem values, and that shifting all production to plantations creates other land-use pressures.

The policy trajectory has been toward reduced native forest harvesting. Victoria ended native forest logging in 2024. Western Australia has announced a phase-out. Other states maintain regulatory harvesting programs with varying levels of public support.

Plantations will supply an increasing share of Australia’s timber, but they can’t produce all timber types. Some specialty hardwoods come only from native forests. The question of whether those species can be sourced from selectively managed native forests without unacceptable ecological cost doesn’t have a simple answer.

Looking Forward

Sustainable forestry in 2026 is better than it was a decade ago. Certification is widespread, monitoring has improved, and the industry’s engagement with carbon and biodiversity issues is more substantive.

But “better than before” isn’t the same as “good enough.” Climate change is altering fire regimes, pest distributions, and growth conditions in ways that challenge existing management frameworks. The pace of ecological change may be outrunning the forestry sector’s ability to adapt its practices.

The honest assessment is that the forestry industry has the tools and knowledge to manage forests sustainably. Whether it consistently applies them — particularly when economic pressures favour shortcuts — remains the ongoing challenge. Standards and certification provide guardrails, but the space within those guardrails still allows significant variation in actual environmental outcomes.

Closing that gap between standard and practice is where the real work of sustainable forestry lies.