Certification

1
Certification
Two main systems. Both are audit based and
depend, for their success, upon people being
prepared to pay for certified timber (rather like
the organic foods process).
Forest Stewardship Council http//www.fscus.org/
standards_criteria/
Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife
Fund, and The Nature Conservancy.
Sustainable Forestry Initiative
http//www.fscus.org/standards_criteria/
American Forest Paper Association (AFPA)
Certification cost Pack Forest 8 per acre.
2
Comparison of some features
This Report is the product of a panel formed in
December 2000 by the Meridian Institute at the
request of The Home Depot Company, the Forest
Stewardship Council-U.S. Working Group (FSC-US),
and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) of
the American Forest Paper Association (AFPA).
The sponsors requested the Meridian Institute
convene and facilitate a balanced, diverse panel
of experts to produce a factually accurate,
consensus-based comparison of FSC and SFI
certification programs.
3
FSC standards emerged out of a desire to provide
market rewards through the labeling of
forest products with a logo designed to
distinguish products derived from lands certified
as complying With a global set of Principles and
Criteria of exemplary forest management or forest
stewardship. The SFI program operates under
the philosophy of a rising tide that raises all
boats. It consists of a set of standards aimed
at all aspects of the forest industry from
landowner to producer and it establishes a
baseline of performance that builds on the
concepts of sustainable forestry.
The two programs differ significantly in their
sources of program funds. FSC International
receives about 85 of its funding from private
foundations. The remaining 15 comes from
membership and accreditation fees. The FSC-US
receives 100 of its funding from private
foundations. The SFI program receives about 82
of its funds from AFPA members through dues to
and member contributions to the SIC. The
remaining 18 comes from grants and revenue from
meetings, publications and the Licensee Program.
4
The two programs differ in their approach to
certification itself. The FSC is a third-party
certification program only. AFPA member
companies are required to annually report to
AFPA the results of first-party verification
(self verification) against the SFI standard as a
condition of membership in the AFPA.
Second-party verification by a customer is
optional. Third-party certification to the SFI
standard is also optional however, it is
required for all AFPA members and licensees who
desire to use the newest version of the SFI
program logo or use the SFI on-product label when
it is authorized by the SFB or AFPA.
5
The FSC is international in scope. The principles
and criteria do not presume that local laws and
regulations assure exemplary forest management
and thus they are comprised of a broad array of
environmental and social criteria. The award of
certification is regularly accompanied with
prescribed actions (conditions) designed to
address deficiencies in the forest management
program. The SFI program was created for the
United States within the context of federal and
state environmental and social laws and
regulations. The SFI program often implicitly
assumes that compliance with U.S. laws and
regulations assures adequate landowner
performance relative to the issues that are
addressed by those laws without elaborating
parallel requirements within the SFI standards.
6
SUBJECT AREAS THAT ARE ADDRESSED BY BOTH PROGRAMS
USING ESSENTIALLY THE SAME APPROACH Water
Quality and Riparian Zone Protection Soil
Protection Forest Protection from Fire,
Pathogens, and Disease Periodic Monitoring of
Environmental Conditions and Adaptive
Management Identification and Protection of
Cultural, Archaeological and Historic
Resources/Sites Public Access and Use
Opportunities Efficiency of Resource Utilization
7
SUBJECT AREAS THAT ARE ADDRESSED BY BOTH
PROGRAMS, BUT WITH DIFFERENT APPROACHES
Clearcutting and Even-Aged Forest Management FSC
standards require green retention within
even-aged units and require the size of clearcuts
to mimic non-catastrophic natural disturbances
it limits clearcuts to 40 acres in plantations in
most cases. SFI standards limits the average
size of clearcuts to 120 acres and has green-up
requirements for harvested areas (i.e., height of
the new crop of trees) before contiguous units
can be cut. It permits even-aged management
within the context of landscape level measures
that promote habitat diversity.
Forest Regeneration and Reforestation FSC
standards emphasize natural forest attributes and
require natural features among plantations. SFI
standards emphasize early successful regeneration
irrespective of silvicultural methods.
8
Sustained Yield FSC standards require harvests
not to exceed levels that can be permanently
sustained. The long-term focus is on the balance
of harvest and growth that are measured over
rolling ten-year time periods following
attainment of a balanced age/class
distribution. SFI standards require that planned
harvests be sustainable over the long-term and
periodically recalculated based on updates of
forest inventory information and new information.
Forest Plantations FSC standards emphasize the
value of natural forests and prohibit the
conversion of natural forests to plantations (in
the FSC nomenclature, a plantation is a managed
forest lacking most of the attributes and
characteristics of the native ecosystem).
Planting, in and of itself, does not imply a
plantation under the FSC definition. While
conversion of natural forests to plantations is
prohibited, plantation operations that do not
entail natural forest conversions are potentially
certifiable under Principle 10 that deals
explicitly with plantation management. SFI
standards do not address the conversion of
natural forests to plantations. SFI presumes
that planting is a commonly accepted forestry
practice in the U.S. and is a necessary and
widely accepted component of industrial forest
management.
9
Use and Management of Exotic Species FSC
standards allow the use of exotic species under
carefully controlled conditions and
stresses responsible use and control. SFI
standards do not explicitly address the use of
exotic species.
Maintenance and Conservation of Biological
Diversity Both programs explicitly address the
maintenance and conservation of biological
diversity, but they differ in approach, level of
detail and degree of prescription. FSC standards
explicitly require that forest management shall
conserve biological diversity and its associated
values and includes a detailed list of
prescriptive requirements including establishment
of conservation zones and reserve areas
protection of rare, threatened and endangered
species habitat and assessment of impacts prior
to site disturbance. SFI standards focus on
habitat diversity and landscape level planning
for the maintenance of habitat diversity. SFI
standards also require investments in research
related to biodiversity and the application of
the findings from that research into the
management of the forest.
10
Forest Regeneration and Reforestation FSC
standards emphasize natural forest attributes and
require natural features among plantations. SFI
standards emphasize early successful regeneration
irrespective of silvicultural methods.
Long-Term Financial Viability of the Forest
Operation FSC standards require an assessment of
economic viability of forest management
operations. SFI standards require participants
to use sustainable forestry practices that are
economically and environmentally responsible but
an assessment of financial viability is not
mandatory.
11
Two years after SFI started it had certified 50
million acresi.e., almost the entire US
industrial timber base. This was about as much
acreage (70 million) as FSC had certified to in
54 countries in 9 years. (greenpressinitiative.org
, 2002). It is easier to get certified under SFI
than under the FSC Changes to management/operation
al practices are more substantial with FSC Annual
audit is required under FSC so practices must be
sustained Consumers rarely know the difference
between the two schemes Desire to buy certified
wood has begun to grow slowly domestically Informa
tion about the benefits of certification and the
differences between schemes is not widely
available search costs for consumers who do
care
12
Strategy of the AF PA Saw threat to business
practices in the FSC Created a competing scheme
with a similar label and equally appealing name
but with less stringent standards in
response Created alternative for the entire
industry Depend on consumers inability to
distinguish between the two schemes? Consumers
desire to purchase sustainable forestry but not
really caring which certification they support.
SFI certification is probably good enough
13
Strategy of a firm so why get FSC
certified? International recognition New
markets for FSC labeled products, acquiring
market recognition for responsible forest
management. The opportunity for interaction and
cooperation among the various players involved in
responsible forest management. The assurance
for future generations that they will enjoy the
benefits of the forest a multitude of other
ecological and social benefits the desire to be
a green company The opportunity to use the FSC
trademark on products. Control and entrance
into downstream markets Home Depot is phasing in
a preference for FSC certified wood Vertical
restraint on retailers must sell product as-is
or get FSC certified as well