An Introduction to Forest Certification

EC 1518 • July 2000 $1.50

An introduction to Forest Certification

M. Rickenbach, R. Fletcher, and E. Hansen

orest certification, or green certifica- New certification systems are developing, tion, is an attempt to identify forestland that and older ones are changing. Companies, is well managed toward a goal of sustain- landowner groups, and others are lining up ability. Sustainability includes the ecological, behind their favorite systems. Only time will economic, and social aspects of managing tell which systems survive and what form fforests. they will take. Certification of some sort, Certification of public and private forests however, will be with us for some time to is an issue that goes beyond our local forests come. Authors and even beyond the confines of the United Mark Rickenbach, former OSU Exten- States. It’s a major topic of discussion Worldwide growth sion forestry worldwide, and everyone has his or her own and evolution research associate perspective on it. Environmental groups see and current Exten- Certifying a forest as well managed has been it as a way to verify a landowner’s or firm’s sion forestry practiced in the United States since 1941 commitment to sustainable forestry. Indus- specialist at when the American Tree Farm System was University of trial forest companies and some government created. Tree Farm, now sponsored by the Wisconsin-Madison; agencies hope to use their certification to get Rick Fletcher, American Forest Foundation (AFF), was not credit with the public for conservation Extension forestry created in response to market pressures—as efforts. Wood products companies hope to agent, Benton some current systems have been. Member- County, and associ- capture new markets and gain market ship has always been limited to properties ate director, The advantage by showing eco-labels to their that have passed inspection by a tree farm Sustainable Forestry customers as proof of good environmental Partnership, and Eric inspector appointed by AFF. performance. Hansen, Extension Since the early 1990s, new certification forest products systems have appeared. The Worldwide Fund marketing; both of for Nature and other environmental groups Oregon State University. created the Forest Stewardship Council

1 Outside the United States, many local and country-based systems have been proposed or developed. In the South Pacific, for example, Indonesia has its own certification system, while Australia and New Zealand are devising ones. Forest owners in Europe have created an alternative to the FSC. This system, Pan European Forest Certification (PEFC), currently has efforts in 17 European coun- tries and hopes to have 25,000,000 acres certified by the end of 2000. This system includes chain of custody and an eco-label. Some woodland and landowner organizations in the United States are actively discussing aligning with the PEFC system.

(FSC) with its international certification system in 1993. The intent was to protect tropical forests and to help tropical timber producers avoid boycotts of their products in wo approaches Europe’s environmentally sensitive wood Chain of custody products markets. to certification Ability to track The United-States-based American Forest Certification systems typically are either systems based or performance based. The wood from the & Paper Association (AF&PA), an industry trade group, has developed a system called tdifference is important: it reflects who sets time it leaves the the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). the criteria for a well-managed forest. forest through the Although directed primarily at its member Under a systems-based approach, the processing and companies, the system is expanding to landowner is responsible for setting up a marketing include other private and public ownerships. system to track environmental performance. channels to the Nonindustrial private forest owners in the Landowners can tailor the system to their final consumer, United States have additional options. A few own objectives and situation. Under SFI, the in order to ensure are opting for the FSC system. Most, certifier identifies the broad system compo- that what ends up however, remain undecided. Tree Farm was nents; ISO 14001 requires the landowner to labeled as a reworked to more closely reflect a modern design an entire environmental management certified product forest certification system. The National system. Though setting one’s own standard may be attractive from a property rights can be traced Forestry Association (NFA) has developed a perspective, it is not as strong a statement in back to a new system, called Green Tag, for woodland owners. the marketplace as performance-based certified source. Trends outside forestry also have encour- certification, which requires landowners to aged the creation of certification systems. meet standards that are independently set. Large corporations’ move to standardize In performance-based systems, the management systems in Europe and North certification system outlines the require- America led to the adoption, in 1994, of the ments. The system may specify certain International Organization for Standardiza- actions or practices that are acceptable or tion (ISO) 14001 Environmental Manage- unacceptable. For example, there may be ment Standard. While not specific to limits on the use of herbicides or on the size forestry, forestry operations can use its of clearcuts permitted. The FSC, Green Tag environmental management system frame- Forestry, and Tree Farm systems are work. performance-based systems.

2 Performance-based systems range widely Verification process oversight in the degree of performance required and in Verification (sometimes referred to as assess- the types of criteria. Tree Farm has 10 broad- ment) is the actual comparison of a forestry based performance measures, while FSC and operation to the certification system’s Green Tag require verified conformance with standard. In the FSC and Green Tag systems, 50 or more indicators. auditors accredited by the sponsors are Hybrid programs such as SFI include responsible for conducting verifications. FSC elements of both systems- and performance- and Green Tag play the role of systemwide based plans. For example, SFI allows compa- police by ensuring the consistent application nies to set many of the targets within their of their systems. In the Tree Farm system, the own management systems but requires certifying organization directly oversees conformance to others that SFI sets, such as verifications. SFI and ISO allow for both reforesting after harvest. internal and independent verifications. Eco-label Those familiar with certification systems Proprietary view FSC as supported by the major interna- Verification process symbol used to tional environmental organizations. Tree Exact steps of verification differ by system, identify a Farm, Green Tag, and SFI are considered but the process generally has four stages: more aligned with landowners and the product that has • Preliminary discussions forestry industry. ISO is seen as originating been produced • Field verification outside this traditional split yet closely according to • Verification report aligned with corporate accounting strate- a given • Follow-up audits gies—in this case, environmental accounting. environmental The more complex the system, the more standard. Forest certification time each step takes. A Tree Farm verification generally takes a day or less, but an ISO standards development verification may take a week. The goal of Standards are set very differently. The SFI, verification is to see whether the candidate’s Green Tag, and Tree Farm standards are set operation conforms to the certification internally by committees empowered by the system. At first glance it may appear that certifying organization. FSC employs verification is a yes/no decision, but in regional rules committees that include input practice it is more a negotiated agreement. from many outside stakeholders, which can include environmen- talists, landowners, industry, civic groups, state and federal agencies, and other interested individuals. ISO also has a public input process. Each system takes on the flavor of the rule- making process. Most notably, SFI, Green Tag, and Tree Farm generally focus more on the traditional-forestry aspect of management, and FSC provides greater details on the ecological and social aspects.

3 For example, a certification may be awarded adopt a new practice, such as designated skid with a condition that the landowner will trails during harvest operations.

orest certification in perspective Certification Certification offers certain opportunities—and currently faces several system limitations. A landowner moving toward one or more systems needs to consider both sides of the equation. A system of standards used f Opportunities Changing standards Certifica- to identify a Image Certification may tion systems continue to evolve well-managed enhance how environmental and change. As of yet, no clear forest. There are groups and the public view leaders are apparent. So, the three types of management activities. “right” system (i.e., the one that certification Credibility Certification may best meets your needs) today may systems: provide additional credibility to not provide the same benefit in first-party, claims of good management. the future. second-party, Premiums Certification may and third-party. yield price premiums from Costs buyers. Rules and Direct costs of certification vary Market access Certification processes are widely. An FSC field assessment may maintain or create access to or ISO audit can cost from defined in a first- markets (e.g., upscale architec- party system by $3,000 to $7,000 for a 200-acre tural uses or some European parcel; a Tree Farm inspection is the individual or markets) that favor certified free to the landowner. firm seeking products. Overall, the more detailed the certification; in a system, the more certification will second-party Limitations cost. system by a Limited demand At this In addition, the landowner customer or point, the certified products must consider the indirect costs trade associa- market is a minor, but growing, of establishing and maintaining tion; and in a part of the overall wood products certification. They might include third- party market. inventory or monitoring require- system by an Chain of custody To reap the ments and forestland set-asides independent returns of potential premiums or for nontimber uses. Indirect costs market access, chain of custody may surpass the direct costs of the organization that must be maintained from the initial verification. includes a clear, forest to the consumer. This may documented be difficult for some products stakeholder or such as paper and other compos- public involve- ite materials, which come from ment process. many different sources.

4 that contained both certified and non-certified materials. Marketplace realities soon changed this, Verification and FSC developed a policy (assessment) to allow percentage-based The comparison claims. of the Similarly, SFI originally landowner’s did not allow a third-party verification option. How- forest manage- ever, as time passed, some ment practices, members clearly needed to plans, and other have that option to validate documentation their performance claims against a more objectively. AF&PA certification companies now can choose system’s to have their lands indepen- standards. dently verified for compli- Verification can ance with the SFI system. In addition, be first-, Certification AF&PA has begun exploring its options for second-, or an eco-label. in the near future Tree Farm recently adopted mandatory third-party. performance measures for new and continu- A first-party Systems ing membership. Green Tag, the newest verification is While each organization has an interest in system, has undergone rapid changes in conducted and promoting its own system, these interests scope and depth to remain competitive with decided by the may change over time. Four forces are likely other systems. individual at work: proliferation, competition, evolu- Convergence and harmonization Com- landowner or tion, and convergence and harmonization. petition in the certification marketplace is firm itself; a Proliferation As the market for certified making the systems more similar over time. products develops, various groups will likely second-party As this continues, pressure from the market- verification by a design new certification systems to either place is likely to eliminate confusion result- customer or capitalize on market demand or avoid being ing from multiple eco-labels. This pressure left out of the marketplace. In the short eventually will foster harmonization among trade associa- term, there will likely be more systems before the systems. In practice, this could mean that tion; and a third- the weaker ones fall aside. a forest certified through the FSC system party verification Competition There is strong competition would carry an SFI product label, or vice by an among the systems. In the mid-1990s, FSC versa, depending on how the market develops. independent and SFI were aggressively attacking each organization. other’s system. Recently, this heavy competition has decreased, and leaders of the systems Markets have met to discuss the future of certifica- The marketplace’s overall acceptance is a tion. However, competition remains heated critical factor in the future of certification. both to attract landowners that want to To date, consumers have not truly affected become certified and to establish “brand” the development of certification. However, as awareness in the marketplace for certified certified products become more visible, products. consumers may begin to recognize eco-labels Evolution Competition and the need to and to seek out products that carry them. develop the marketplace clearly have resulted Demand for certified products in today’s in an evolution of systems over time. At first, marketplace comes from large corporations FSC did not allow its eco-label to be used on that wish to avoid the risk of damaging their products such as particleboard or furniture brand image. That brand image can be

5 damaged if the company is buying products the current growth of the Certified Forest that do not meet with the approval of Products Council (CFPC). CFPC is a powerful environmental groups. The Home membership organization designed to Depot, a national chain of home improve- increase the demand for certified products. ment stores, recently committed to purchas- Companies that join CFPC commit to work ing certified forest products. Much of the toward purchasing certified wood products pressure that led to this decision was from whenever possible. Members such as The the Rainforest Action Network (RAN), Home Depot have been key in driving which led a multiyear campaign against the interest in certification among wood prod- company. Seeing the lesson of The Home ucts producers. Depot, other major retailers in the United Considering all the factors in the current States have since made similar commit- marketplace, there is considerable potential ments to avoid protests from environmental for huge growth in the demand for certified groups. products. Still, as a share of the market, RAN shifted its focus to the home- certified production is still probably less than building industry with a similar campaign 1 percent of the overall forest products against the largest homebuilders in the market in the United States, and it is difficult country, Centex Homes and Kaufman & to predict when and to what extent forest Broad. The mere threat of protest caused and wood products certification will become these companies to develop policies favor- mainstream. ing certified products. Another important factor in the demand for certified products in the United States is

6 Comparison of Forest Certification Systems of Interest to U.S. Forest Owners

12345678901234567890123

12345678901234567890123 Family Forests 12345678901234567890123 Most applicable to 12345678901234567890123 1234567890123456789012

1234567890123456789012

12345 1234567890123456789012

12345 1234567890123456789012 Industrial or Corporate Forests

12345 1234567890123456789012

12345Somewhat applicable to 12345 Forest Sustainable International Green Tag American Tree Stewardship Forestry Organization for Forestry Farm System Council Initiative Standardization General Features Sponsor or auditors NFA AFF SCS, SmartWood AF&PA ISO Scope national national international national international Year established 1998 1941 1993 1995 1994 Type of certification system performance performance performance combination systems System development 2nd party 2nd party 3rd party 2nd party 3rd party Verification options 3rd party 3rd party 3rd party 1st, 2nd, or 3rd 1st or 3rd Direct costs for 3rd-party verification moderate minimal expensive expensive expensive Region-specific rules in some areas in some areas in some areas no no Chain of custody & eco-label √* √ General Expectations Compliance with existing laws ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ Requires written forest plan ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ Documentation & monitoring ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ Continuous improvement ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ Verification report available to public ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ Forestry-specific Expectations (that exceed applicable laws)** Biodiversity (incl. endangered species) ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ Chemical pesticide & herbicide use ...... √ ISO is a systems-based Forest aesthetics ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ approach that Forest health ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ does not √ √ Landscape consideration ...... restrict specific √ √ Nontimber products ...... practices Protect, enhance fish & wildlife habitat...... √ ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ beyond Protection of “special” sites ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ compliance Reforestation ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ with Planning & Management Silvicultural treatments ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ applicable Stream protection & water quality ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ laws. Sustained yield ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ Performance expectations Road design, building, & maintenance ...... √ ...... √ are docu- Skidding & yarding ...... √ ...... √ mented in an Slash disposal & product utilization ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ Environmental

Operations Management Tree felling ...... √ ...... √ System. Community relations ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ Contractor relations ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ Indigenous rights ...... √ Landowner tenure, rights, responsibilities .. √ ...... √ ...... √ Long-term economic viability ...... √ ...... √ ...... √ √ √ √ Social & Economic Recreation ...... Green Tag Tree Farm SCS SFI ISO √ indicates specific reference to a particular criterion. It does not evaluate the cumulative effects of several criteria together nor does it imply an equal standard of rigor. Before considering the merits of individual systems, review the actual program materials available from the certification system developers or certifiers. *Green Tag Forestry does have a chain-of-custody option, but it had yet to be applied at the time of this printing. **These and other expectations may be addressed through a participant’s management plan but are not expressly required. 7 or more information Partial support For more information on sustainability and forest certification in general, contact for this publica- the following individuals and organizations. tion was University of Wisconsin-Madison American Tree Farm System provided by the fMark Rickenbach 608-262-0134 Washington, DC MacArthur 888-889-4466 OSU College of Forestry www.affoundation.org Foundation Eric Hansen 541-737-4240 or through a grant Rick Fletcher 541-737-8304 Green Tag Forestry (contact: Keith Argow) to The Sustain- Washington, DC The Sustainable Forestry Partnership able Forestry 888-503-6737 http://sfp.cas.psu.edu Partnership, a • Oregon State University 541-737-4991 Forest Stewardship Council growing • Auburn University 334-844-1037 Washington, DC network of • Penn State University 814-865-7932 877-372-5646 universities and • National office, in Washington, DC www.fscus.org other organiza- 877-737-4937 U.S.-based FSC verifiers tions that wish • Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) to document For information on specific certification Oakland, CA innovations in systems: 510-832-1415 sustainable American Forest & Paper Association www.scs1.com/forest.html forestry and Washington, DC • SmartWood/Rainforest Alliance see them 202-463-2700 Richmond, VT www.afandpa.org/index.html integrated 802-434-5491 broadly into www.smartwood.org practice. © 2000 Oregon State University. Produced and distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914. Extension work is a cooperative program of Oregon State University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Oregon counties. Oregon State University Extension Service offers educational programs, activities, and materials—without discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, marital status, disability, and disabled veteran or Vietnam-era veteran status. Oregon State University Extension Service is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

Photos on pages 1, 2, 3, and 6 by Rick Fletcher, OSU Extension Service; page 5, Forestry Media Center, College of Forestry, Oregon State University; page 8, Starker Forests.

Published July 2000.