20 Woodland ManageMent • SuMMer 2011 Tree Farm and FSC: Family Forests’ Dynamic Duo by Paul Pingrey he American Tree Farm System Tand the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) are often viewed as competitors for the allegiance of family forest own- ers. In fact, the two are strong comple- ments, together forming a compelling set of education, marketing and landowner engagement tools. Tree Farm, with its familiar green and Paul Pingrey photo white sign, has been around since 1941. The Forest Stewardship Council is a Forest certification audits involve specialists from many disciplines. The man with his hand in the air is Mike Ferrucci, a Tree Farm-SFI auditor. The man on the left holding his glasses relative newcomer, established in 1993. is Dr. Robert Hrubes, an FSC auditor. Both now offer third-party forest certi- fication recognition to private woodland consisting of about 98 percent of MFL tainable rates without reforestation. Our owners in the United States who follow family forest participants who volun- forebears had an offhand attitude toward responsible forest management stan- tarily agree to abide by additional for- forests, but the resource was not endless. dards developed by the two organiza- est certification rules. In 2008, the MFL Alarm over the long-term implications tions. While Tree Farm and FSC share Group became dual certified by both resulted in birth of the American Tree similarities, they are different in ways Tree Farm (a program of the American Farm System in 1941. The concept of that can lend strength to both. Forest Foundation) and FSC. The MFL “farming” was chosen to symbolize a Many Wisconsin Woodland Owner As- Group is the largest certified family for- commitment to the land, a simple idea sociation (WWOA) members are right- est organization in the world. that could be readily grasped by a coun- fully proud to be certified Tree Farmers. The Wisconsin experience is proving try with roots in agriculture. A woodland WWOA and the Wisconsin Tree Farm that the Tree Farm-FSC duo is strong, owner who sensibly manages for “wood, Committee have a longstanding working promoting a new vision of responsible water, wildlife and recreation” can be relationship encouraging family forest forestry and giving family forest owners recognized as a Tree Farmer. Those four certification through the Tree Farm pro- a growing edge in global markets. Some tenets, which basically embody the theo- gram. A number of prominent WWOA people wonder how Wisconsin’s Tree ry of ecosystem management, help U.S. members have been recognized as Na- Farm-FSC synergy works and whether family forest owners fulfill their objec- tional and Regional Outstanding Tree both are truly important for family forest tives for the land. Farmers of the Year, making Wisconsin owners. Anyone who is associated with Tree forestry admired around the country. In essence, the American Tree Farm Farm, however, knows that the organiza- About 42,000 Wisconsin Tree Farms System was the first forest certifica- tion’s primary objective has never been also found their way into the program tion program—albeit originally with- “certification”—that is, assurance to through Wisconsin’s Managed For- out the kinds of third party verification outside interests that sound practices are est Law (MFL) Group. MFL is a state required by certification programs like followed. Rather, Tree Farm is primarily property tax incentive administered by FSC. Early in the last century, conser- a program of landowner education, rec- the Department of Natural Resources. vation leaders realized that America’s ognition and advocacy for policies that The “MFL Group” is a subset of MFL private forests were being cut at unsus- are beneficial to family forest owners. It Woodland ManageMent • SuMMer 2011 21 is designed to motivate landowners and move them down a path (no matter how humble the beginnings) to be respon- sible—and sometimes even outstand- ing—land managers. For participants, Tree Farm networks share not only ideas but also friendships. As a result, loyalty among active Tree Farmers can be pow- erful, leading to skepticism about newer players like FSC. The Forest Stewardship Council’s ori- gins and mission are different than Tree Farm’s. FSC was chartered after the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Rainforest ex- ploitation, not temperate forest manage- ment, was the driving concern. FSC is an international organization of forest own- ers, timber industries, social groups and environmental organizations seeking to identify credible, well-managed forests as sources of responsibly grown and har- vested forest products. Proving claims of responsible sourcing to outside interests (i.e., stakeholders)—businesses and con- Paul Pingrey photo sumers rather than to forest owners—is FSC’s primary function. They also work Certification auditors (center) and DNR foresters confer during a MFL field audit in Crawford County. Pictured left to right are Arvid Haugen (DNR), Kathy Nelson (DNR), on an international scale, FSC being a Professor Steve Grado (FSC Auditor), Scott Berg (Tree Farm auditor) and Gary Harden global standard. (DNR Forester). The landowner can sell these logs as “FSC Pure.” The fact that so many poor and devel- oping countries around the world lack be built to make a sustainable structure. training and use what they learn. the environmental, social and economic FSC participants can use local resource To help make the FSC standard appli- institutions enjoyed by developed na- management guidance material, but they cable to “smaller” family forest owner- tions like the U.S. makes writing FSC need to compare it with FSC indicators ships less than 2,500 acres in size, the standards more challenging. Even in and take steps to plug the drafts. The FSC-US Board activated a set of “family the U.S., however, concerns over forest FSC-US standard is more prescriptive forest indicators” in July of 2010. Their management inconsistencies resulted in because stakeholders were not comfort- effect is about a 20 percent reduction in a new 110-page U.S. forest management able with the range of variation that can the number of indicators that auditors standard released in 2010. It aims for a result from relying on local guidance need to look at on family forest lands uniform measure of quality regardless of without doing a quality assurance check. because the risk of nonconformance is what state forests are in. For the Wisconsin MFL Group, the considered low. Monitoring and some The American Tree Farm standard differences between Tree Farm expecta- other requirements are also less formal weighs in at about six pages, but there’s tions and those of FSC are minimal be- for family forestlands. However, audi- more to it than meets the eye. The Tree cause MFL begins with a fairly high bar. tors still need to evaluate any indicators Farm standard is analogous to a post and There are gaps, but they haven’t been that they suspect might risk being out of beam construction. Tree Farm provides difficult to address. For example, state compliance. a framework and roof and then turns to and federal pesticide use laws allow the Marketing assurance based on a state-level Best Management Practices, sale of some chemicals that the FSC comprehensive standard supported by federal and state laws, and local silvi- standard considers highly hazardous environmental activists and industry, culture norms to fill in the walls, win- because they are persistent and can get social groups, and landowners, then, is dows, doors, plumbing, etc. The written into the water supply. Wisconsin DNR a strength of FSC. That contrasts with documentation a forester considers when takes measures to ensure that landown- Tree Farm’s power in motivating land- writing a Tree Farm plan is actually quite ers and commercial applicators do not owners through education and social extensive and technical. use the FSC banned products on MFL networking. Good as it may be, however, The framework FSC starts with is very Group lands. Both Tree Farm and FSC FSC marketing can fail if an insufficient similar to Tree Farm’s. Instead of rely- have higher expectations than MFL that number of landowners adopt the stan- ing as much on state and local guidance, loggers work safely, and so again DNR dard and there isn’t enough FSC product however, FSC defines more about how takes extra efforts to inform landown- to sell. Tree Farmers, on the other hand, the walls, windows, doors, etc. should ers and encourage loggers to get safety would be much better off if businesses 22 Woodland ManageMent • SuMMer 2011 sought their timber more actively. Tree News search and you’ll be flooded with Treasure Forest Association, which is Farm does not market any forest prod- other current events. A recent look turned going through a FSC group certification ucts under its own trademark. While up group forest certification efforts in review in November 2010. the American Forest Foundation is hav- Viet Nam, Ukraine, China, Indonesia The next in line for 2011 is likely to be ing some success promoting Tree Farm and other far- flung places that, because an Appalachian landowner association wood through partner Sustainable For- of global markets, are direct competitors in Virginia designing a carbon seques- est Initiative (SFI) and other programs, with Wisconsin’s family forests for a tration-group certification program. And those forest certification brands have not share of green markets. there are more in the works. been as successful as FSC. Whether we appreciate it or not, the Considering the relative strength of While forest certification has not yet most substantial and very real economic the American Tree Farm System in the resulted in price premiums in Wisconsin, benefit of having certified wood (not to South, it should not come as a surprise it has promoted market access (as your mention environmental and social im- if they, too, look at how Tree Farm and local paper mill can attest).