| 
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forest
Initiative (SFI) Comparative Analysis: Market Rewards through
Labeling! Or A Rising Tide That Raises All Boats
By Carol Goodwin
Hardwood Floors
Of the progress we’ve seen as wood industry environmentalists,
not all has been painless. The spotted owl controversy caused
some landowners to harvest prematurely out of fear that endangered
species would be found on their land. Then North Carolina
spearheaded legislation to help landowners relocate endangered
species, and we all breathed easier. Next Home Depot was boycotted
for selling non-sustainably harvested lumber. Now we have
a governing study that says our U.S. industry forest management
criteria are environmentally responsible.
With the study, published October 16, 2001, our country now
has an opportunity to prove that environmentalists and industry
can work side by side to achieve sustainable harvests. And
hopefully the study alleviates our industry’s concern
that margins will be hurt by sudden price increases for mandatory
certification.
Home Depot, the Forest Stewardship Council-US (FSC) and the
Sustainable Forest Initiative of the American Forest &
Paper Association (SFI) sponsored the study, a comparative
analysis of the FSC and SFI certification programs. Congratulations
to SFI for a positive report on U.S. forest monitoring and
to FSC for encouraging environmental and social forest improvements
worldwide.
An FSC consultant, Yuri Behan, says, “We need more
public involvement in developing the certification standards
and that takes time. SFI is well established now and FSC and
SFI need to deal more with each other. FSC certifiers need
to deal more with the economic issues of selling wood products
and SFI needs to deal more with social and chain of custody
aspects.”
According to Ron Jarvis, Home Depot’s certification
expert, “This is a gap analysis to understand the differences
between FSC and SFI. There’s more work needed to ensure
carbon banks and reduce greenhouse gases.”
The Meridian Institute, a non-profit organization in Washington,
DC, performed the comparison. Other Meridian Institute projects
include: certification of carbon emissions reductions, tax
changes to reduce fragmentation and conversion of forested
lands in the U.S. and criteria for sustainable forest management
which can be used to measure national forest trends.
Below are some brief similarities and differences in origins,
philosophies, funding and approaches to timber management
of FSC and SFI.
Both FSC and SFI originated out of the UN Conference on Environment
and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Both programs are
rooted in standards, certification processes and labels for
marketing certified forest products. SFI standards are intended
as “a rising tide that raises all boats” while
FSC provides “market rewards for products from certified
forest lands.”
The two certifiers differ philosophically, however, and have
different objectives based on their founding groups.
- FSC was founded by environmental and social Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) to ‘encourage consumers to reward
exemplary forest management’ and to address environmental
and social aspects of sustainable forestry.
- SFI was begun by the American Forest & Paper Association
in response to the public’s attitude toward management
of U.S. forests. Its focus is to ‘visibly improve
U.S. industry forest management practices and to promote
sustainable forestry among all landowners in the U.S.
Differences include funding and scope. SFI is funded roughly
82% from AF&PA members. FSC-US receives 100% of its funds
from private foundations. FSC is international in scope. The
SFI program was created for the United States within the context
of existing federal and state environmental and social laws
and regulations.
- FSC prohibits conversion of natural forests to plantations,
although plantation operations are certifiable.
- SFI presumes that planting is necessary and widely accepted
in the U.S.
- FSC requires harvests “not to exceed levels that
can be permanently sustained.”
- SFI requires that sustainability be recalculated periodically
based on updated forest inventory.
- FSC requires clear cuts to mimic non-catastrophic natural
disturbances.
- SFI limits average clear cuts to 120 acres and has “green-up”
requirements before contiguous units can be cut.
- SFI has a pervasive emphasis on participants funding
research and using research results for continuous improvement.
- FSC has no such parallel requirement, but talks in general
about using knowledge gained for monitoring.
Both address roads that protect soil and water and aesthetic
considerations in harvesting and road building.
If your business needs to choose a forest products certifier,
analyze the fine points before you pick the best fit. For
example, FSC restricts “active management of intact
old growth forests and stands” while SFI requires “identification
and appropriate management” of ecologically sensitive
sites. Leon Neel of Thomasville, Georgia, has managed old
growth longleaf ‘heart’ pine stands for over 50
years. Leon says, “The original forest was burned periodically
by fires started from the frequent lightning in the southeast.
You can produce longleaf pine cellulose without fire, but
the ecosystem itself requires fire. Without appropriate forest
management we will lose the last little bit of old growth
longleaf remaining.”
Forest management is a complex job and forests in different
regions will have different issues. To review the entire report
and draw your own conclusions visit www.merid.org/comparison
[Woods] [History]
[Gallery] [Products] [About
Us] [How To] [Contact
Us] [FAQs] [Sitemap] [Home]
|
