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 organiza- tions 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 individu- als. 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