WikiHome

Forest Certification

Frederick Cubbage

North Carolina State University

Forest certification has expanded rapidly in the world since its introduction in 1993. It is intended to ensure that forests are managed in an economically, environmentally, and socially desirable manner. Certification develops, measures, monitors, and enforces specific forest practice standards at the forest management unit (FMU) or the stand level. This entry summarizes the status of forest certification in the Americas as of 2007. Most of the individual standards also have separate entries in this Encyclopedia of Forests and Forestry in the Americas.

Certification Systems and Evolution

Table 1 summarizes data on forest certification systems in the world. The largest forest certification system in the world is the Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification, which endorses forest certification schemes developed in individual countries. In total, PEFC has recognized 462 million acres as certified, including 138 million ac in Europe and 311 million ac in the Americas. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is the only system that has unified world principles and governance, and has about 168 million ac. Major forest certification systems in the Americas include FSC (91 million ac in the Americas), the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI, 136 million ac; 56 in the USA and 80 in Canada), and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA, 170 million ac). Certficación Forestal (CertFor) in Chile and Certificação Florestal (CerFlor) in Brazil, which are recognized by PEFC, have 4 million ac and 2 million ac enrolled, respectively. (For conversion, 1 hectare = 2.47 ac.)

Table 1. Major Forest Certification Systems in the World, 2006

¹Includes 171 million ac of CSA in Canada, 134 million ac of SFI in U.S and Canada, 4 million ac CertFor in Chile, 2 million ac Cerflor in Brazil, 13 million ac in Australia, 140 million ac in Europe. Sources: program web sites.

Forest certification was largely developed as a means to encourage sustainable forestry in the tropics. However, about 95% of currently certified forest area is in the northern hemisphere in the world, and in the Americas, with only about 5% in Central and South America. Canada has 69% of the certified forest area in the Americas, and 43% of those certified in the world (Table 2). Canada has the largest share of its forest certified, at 36%, followed by Uruguay at 16%, the United States and Guatemala with 14%, and Chile with 12%. Costa Rica and Bolivia have slightly more than 3%, and Brazil 1.2% of their forests certified.

Table 2. Forest Certification Systems Areas in the Americas, December 2006

Source: Forest Stewardship Council 2007

FSC started the first forest certification program in 1993, and is generally considered the “greenest” of the various systems based on its strong focus on environmental protection and social concerns, as well its support from environmental nongovernmental organizations (ENGOs) such as the World Wildlife Fund and the Rainforest Action Network. FSC has a Small/Low Intensity Managed Forests (SLIMF) program designed specifically for small forest landowners.

The America Tree Farm System (30 million ac) has converted from exclusively an educational program to include certification, and has a large number of members in the U.S. South. Green Tag, with 69,160 ac, is a small system in the United States and Canada. Several Canadian provincial small woodland owners associations have best practice standards as well, which are being considered for conversion into forest certification systems currently. In addition, the United States Forest Service is moving to at least first party inspection approach to an environmental management system patterned after ISO 14000 of its entire National Forest System under its new planning regulations issued in 2005, which will include up to 190 million ac.

Standards

Each of the forest certification systems has various principles, criteria, objectives, standards, and performance indicators, depending on the language used in that system. These may be as few as 20 or so indicators to more than 200 for each system. These standards are then audited to ensure that organizations conform to each one. Depending on the system, failure to conform or meet the standards may prevent certification, or may require corrective action before or after certification.

The FSC framework for evaluating sustainable forest management consists of ten Principles and associated Criteria that focus on social, economic and ecological issues. The individual principles cover (Forest Stewardship Council 2000): (1) compliance with laws and FSC principles, (2) tenure and use rights and responsibilities, (3) indigenous people’s rights, (4) community relations and worker’s rights, (5) multiple benefits from the forest, (6) environmental impact (biodiversity), (7) management plans, (8) monitoring and assessment, (9) maintenance of high conservation value forests, and (10) plantations. FSC has regional standards that are promulgated by stakeholders in each region, with up to 200 standards in each region. Certified owners may receive certification, but may have to meet pre-conditions to become certified. They also usually will have conditions that they must meet after certification in order to maintain certification. These become Continuing Action Requests (CARs), and must be fulfilled within a given time frame, usually between one to three years.

In North America, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative states that the program participants must: (1) broaden the implementation of sustainable forestry by ensuring the long-term harvest levels based on the use of the best scientific information available; (2) ensure long-term forest productivity and conservation of forest resources through prompt reforestation, soil conservation, afforestation, and other measures; (3) protect water quality in streams, lakes, and other water bodies; (4) manage quality and distribution of wildlife habitats and contribute to the conservation of biological diversity; and (5) manage visual impact of harvesting and other forest operations.

The SFI Objectives also require that program participants must: (6) manage Program Participant lands that ecologically, geologically, historically, or cultural important in a manner that recognizes their special qualities; (7) promote the efficient use of forest resources; (8) broaden the practice of sustainable forestry through procurement systems; (9) improve forestry research, science, and technology; and (10) improve the practice of sustainable forest management by resource professionals, logging professionals, and contractors through appropriate training and education programs. Finally, three objectives state that program participants must demonstrate (11) commitment to comply with applicable federal, provincial, state, or other local laws and regulations; (12) broaden the practice of sustainable forestry by encouraging the public and forestry community to participate in the commitment to sustainable forestry and publicly report progress; and (13) promote continual improvement in the practice of sustainable forestry and monitor, measure, and report performance in achieving the commitment to sustainable forestry.

The American Tree Farm System has 9 broad Standards, 14 Performance Measures, and 22 specific Indicators. The ATFS Standards are (1) ensuring sustainable forests; (2) compliance with laws; (3) commitment to practicing sustainable forestry; (4) reforestation; (5) air, water, and soil protection, (6) fish, wildlife, and biodiversity; (7) forest aesthetics; (8) protect special sites; (9) wood fiber harvest and other operations

The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standards have six criteria: (1) conservation of biological diversity; (2) maintenance and enhancement of forest ecosystem condition and productivity; (3) conservation of soil and water resources; (4) forest ecosystem contributions to global ecological cycles; (5) multiple benefits to society; and (6) accepting society’s responsibility for sustainable development.

Certificacão Florestal (CERFLOR) in Brazil as five principles: (1) compliance with the law; (2) rationality in management and forest resources striving for sustainability; (3) care for biological diversity; (4) care for air, water, and soil resources; and (5) socio-economic and environmental development. This implemented with a many standards.

Certificación Forestal (CERTFOR) in Chile has 9 Principles: (1) sustainable forest management planning; (2) native ecosystem values and biodiversity protection; (3) productivity & protection from damaging agents; (4) water quality protection; (5) respect for and assistance to communities; (6) respect for indigenous agreements and rights; (7) respect for workers rights, health, and fair pay; (8) respect for laws, regulations, and treaties of Chile; and (9) evaluation and improvement of the principles.

FSC and the two South American systems have strong components related to environmental protection, community rights, and worker relations and protection. FSC is probably the most environmentally restrictive, with components about high conservation value forests, justification for plantations, and a complete ban on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). However, FSC has certified a large area of forest plantations in the Americas.

SFI, Cerflor, and CertFor were initiated more by large and small private forest owners, with perhaps more focus on forest utilization and best practices for environmental protection. However, as appropriate for Latin American conditions, CerFlor and CertFor have significant social components as well. All three of these systems are endorsed by the Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification.

Issues

There are many debates about the merits of forest certification. Some are widespread and explicit; some are more implicit. Various critics have cited the costs of forest certification and inferred that these systems foist social agendas on forest landowners and managers. Some discussion suggests that firms or governments in developing countries feel that certification is being promoted or required by developed countries so that the developed countries can compete better, due to their presumed technological and managerial advantages. High fixed costs of certification may put smaller landowners at a disadvantage compared to large, industrial producers. Another fear is that forest certification may be used by timber buyers to discriminate against uncertified forest landowners, or as a bargaining tactic to pay less to landowners when buying stumpage.

There are large debates about the social values included in forest certification standards; the environmental rigor of different systems; what practices are regulated and how much; and the on-the-ground impacts or improvement in forest practices. One critique from environmentalists is that some systems are merely “greenwash” to cover up the same old practices. On the other hand, some industrial advocates contend that certification standards are substantive, but only required due to “greenmail” direct action campaigns and protests at a firm’s stores, which extort adoption of certification systems to prevent loss of sales or damage to corporate image. Only a few of these debates have been (or can be) empirically tested to date because of the newness of forest certification or the complexity of the issues.

Conclusions

Forest certification has potential for significant impacts on natural and plantation forest management and measurement and protection of biological diversity. Forest certification by FSC requires that managers favor natural stands and high conservation value forests. The Sustainable Forestry Initiative certification process in North America includes wildlife and biodiversity as major components of its standards. FSC mandates rigorous standards for forest plantations, especially of exotic species, and careful planning to justify how they complement natural forests and are juxtaposed in the forest landscape. Social forestry standards also are important for FSC, and are being considered more closely by SFI, particularly to meet the standards in the PEFC program. SFI has rigorous environmental requirements for best management practices and wildlife protection, and more standards focused on forest utilization than FSC. ATFS has similar environmental protection, wildlife, and utilization standards, more appropriate for small forest ownerships. CerFlor, CertFor, are strong programs with detailed environmental, economic, and social components and standards.

Forest certification has reformed thinking and practices about the economic, ecological, social, managerial, and scientific aspects of sustainable forestry. While some of this is rhetoric, the new view toward forestry is being imbued throughout the organizations as the certification standards trickle down to most employees and operations. Certification under the major SFI and FSC regulations is more difficult for small landowners, because of the significant annual audit costs (say $5,000 per owner per year), and the large amount of record keeping and preparation costs. Thus the FSC SLIMF group certification, or the systems designed specifically for small landowners, such as Tree Farm or Green Tag, are apt to be best for most nonindusrial private woodland owners.

The continued application of sustainable forest management criteria and indicators through forest certification schemes will enhance data collection, scrutiny, management, and protection of natural forests throughout the world. At the same time, forest certification offers promise for the continued social imprimatur to grow and manage intensive forest plantations under reasoned guidelines and standards. Firms also should benefit from better planning, better morale, better marketing, and in other means from forest certification. Small landowners may gain better market access for their certified timber, but this has not occurred to date. Costs for certification under the major systems are significant, which can be borne at the least cost per acre by large landowners.

Forest certification will continue to be demanded by the pubic, by buyers of wood products, and by environmental groups that drive much of this agenda. With success, forest certification will continue to enhance forest management, forest protection, and social benefits in the Americas in the future. The tradeoffs between perceived benefits and costs, for forest landowners and for interest groups and society, will determine the merits of adopting forest certification and its rate of adoption by different landowners.

References

American Tree Farm System. 2007. Certification. Accessed at: http://www.treefarmsystem.org/cms/pages/26_19.html . 10 June 2007.

Canadian Standards Association. 2007. CSA—sustainable forest management standard. Accessed at: http://www.certificationcanada.org/english/csa/ . 10 June 2007.

Cashore, Benjamin, Graeme Auld, and Deanna Newsom. 2004. Governing through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-State Authority. Yale University Press. New Haven, Connecticut. 327 p.

CerFlor. 2007. Summary located and accessed at: http://www.pefc.org/internet/html/members_schemes/4_1120_59/5_1246_307/5_1123_1062.htm . 10 June 2007.

CERTFOR. 2007. Accessed at: http://www.certfor.cl/ . 10 June 2007.

FAO. 2005. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. FAO Forestry Paper 147.Progress towards sustainable forest management. Food and Agriculture Organization. http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/008/a0400e/a0400e00.htm.

Forest Stewardship Council. 2001. Forest Stewardship Council United States Principles and Criteria. Accessed at: http://www.fscus.org/standards_policies/principles_criteria/index.html. 6 July 2003.

Forest Stewardship Council. 2007. Accessed at: http://www.fsc.org/en/. 10 June 2007.

Green Tag Forestry. 2007. Certified Forest Practice. Accessed at: http://www.greentag.org/. 10 June 2007.

Meridian Institute. 2001. Comparative analysis of the Forest Stewardship Council© and Sustainable Forestry Initiative® certification programs. Accessed at: http://www2.merid.org/comparison/. 14 July 2003.

Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification. 2007. Accessed at: http://www.pefc.org/internet/html/index.htm. 10 June 2007.

Ramesteiner, Ewald, and Markku Simula. 2002. Forest certification—an instrument to promote sustainable forest management? Journal of Environmental Management 67(2003):87-98.

Rickenbach, Mark and Christine Overdevest. 2006. More than markets: assessing Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification as a policy tool. Journal of Forestry 104(3):143-147.

Sustainable Forestry Initiative. 2004. The Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standard, 2005-2009 Standard. Sustainable Forestry Board. Washington, D.C. Accessed at: www.aboutsfb.org. 25 April 2005.

Sustainable Forestry Initiative. 2007. Accessed at: http://www.sfiprogram.org/. 10 June 2007.

Posted 11 June 2007