Certification

Two main systems. Both are audit based and depend, for their success, upon
people being prepared to pay for certified timber (rather like the “organic”
foods process).
Forest Stewardship Council http://www.fscus.org/standards_criteria/

Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund,

and The Nature Conservancy.

Sustainable Forestry Initiative http://www.fscus.org/standards_criteria/

American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)

Certification cost Pack Forest $8 per acre.

 Comparison of some features

“This Report is the product of a panel formed in December 2000 by the Meridian Institute at
the request of The Home Depot Company, the Forest Stewardship Council-U.S. Working
Group (FSC-US), and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) of the American Forest & Paper
Association (AF&PA). The sponsors requested the Meridian Institute convene and facilitate a
balanced, diverse panel of experts to produce a factually accurate, consensus-based comparison
of FSC and SFI certification programs.”
FSC standards emerged out of a desire to provide market rewards through the labeling of forest
products with a logo designed to distinguish products derived from lands certified as complying
With a global set of Principles and Criteria of exemplary forest management or forest
stewardship.

The SFI program operates under the philosophy of “a rising tide that raises all boats.” It consists
of a set of standards aimed at all aspects of the forest industry from landowner to producer and
it establishes a baseline of performance that builds on the concepts of sustainable forestry.

The two programs differ significantly in their sources of program funds.

FSC International receives about 85% of its funding from private foundations. The remaining
15% comes from membership and accreditation fees. The FSC-US receives 100% of its
funding from private foundations.

The SFI program receives about 82% of its funds from AF&PA members through dues to and
member contributions to the SIC. The remaining 18% comes from grants and revenue from
meetings, publications and the Licensee Program.
The two programs differ in their approach to certification itself.

The FSC is a third-party certification program only.

AF&PA member companies are required to annually report to AF&PA the results
of first-party verification (self verification) against the SFI standard as a condition
of membership in the AF&PA. Second-party verification by a customer is
optional. Third-party certification to the SFI standard is also optional; however, it
is required for all AF&PA members and licensees who desire to use the newest
version of the SFI program logo or use the SFI on-product label when it is
authorized by the SFB or AF&PA.
The FSC is international in scope. The principles and criteria do not presume that local
laws and regulations assure exemplary forest management and thus they are comprised
of a broad array of environmental and social criteria. The award of certification is
regularly accompanied with prescribed actions (conditions) designed to address
deficiencies in the forest management program.

The SFI program was created for the United States within the context of federal and state
environmental and social laws and regulations. The SFI program often implicitly
assumes that compliance with U.S. laws and regulations assures adequate landowner
performance relative to the issues that are addressed by those laws without elaborating
parallel requirements within the SFI standards.
SUBJECT AREAS THAT ARE ADDRESSED BY BOTH PROGRAMS
USING ESSENTIALLY THE SAME APPROACH:

Water Quality and Riparian Zone Protection

Soil Protection
Forest Protection from Fire, Pathogens, and Disease
Periodic Monitoring of Environmental Conditions and Adaptive
Management
Identification and Protection of Cultural, Archaeological and Historic
Resources/Sites
Public Access and Use Opportunities
Efficiency of Resource Utilization
SUBJECT AREAS THAT ARE ADDRESSED BY BOTH PROGRAMS,
BUT WITH DIFFERENT APPROACHES:

Clearcutting and Even-Aged Forest Management

FSC standards require green retention within even-aged units and require the size of clearcuts to mimic
non-catastrophic natural disturbances; it limits clearcuts to 40 acres in plantations in most cases.

SFI standards limits the average size of clearcuts to 120 acres and has “green-up” requirements for
harvested areas (i.e., height of the new crop of trees) before contiguous units can be cut. It permits
even-aged management within the context of landscape level measures that promote habitat diversity.

Forest Regeneration and Reforestation

FSC standards emphasize natural forest attributes and require natural features among plantations.

SFI standards emphasize early successful regeneration irrespective of silvicultural methods.

Sustained Yield

FSC standards require harvests not to exceed levels that can be permanently sustained. The long-term
focus is on the balance of harvest and growth that are measured over rolling ten-year time periods
following attainment of a balanced age/class distribution.

SFI standards require that planned harvests be sustainable over the long-term and periodically
recalculated based on updates of forest inventory information and new information.

Forest Plantations

FSC standards emphasize the value of natural forests and prohibit the conversion of natural forests to
plantations (in the FSC nomenclature, a “plantation” is a managed forest lacking most of the
attributes and characteristics of the native ecosystem). Planting, in and of itself, does not imply a
“plantation” under the FSC definition. While conversion of natural forests to plantations is
prohibited, plantation operations that do not entail natural forest conversions are potentially
certifiable under Principle 10 that deals explicitly with plantation management.

SFI standards do not address the conversion of natural forests to plantations. SFI presumes that
planting is a commonly accepted forestry practice in the U.S. and is a necessary and widely accepted
component of industrial forest management.
Use and Management of Exotic Species

FSC standards allow the use of exotic species under carefully controlled conditions and stresses
responsible use and control.

SFI standards do not explicitly address the use of exotic species.

Maintenance and Conservation of Biological Diversity

Both programs explicitly address the maintenance and conservation of biological diversity, but they
differ in approach, level of detail and degree of prescription.

FSC standards explicitly require that “forest management shall conserve biological diversity and its
associated values” and includes a detailed list of prescriptive requirements including establishment of
conservation zones and reserve areas; protection of rare, threatened and endangered species habitat;
and assessment of impacts prior to site disturbance.

SFI standards focus on habitat diversity and landscape level planning for the maintenance of habitat
diversity. SFI standards also require investments in research related to biodiversity and the application
of the findings from that research into the management of the forest.
Forest Regeneration and Reforestation

FSC standards emphasize natural forest attributes and require natural features among plantations.

SFI standards emphasize early successful regeneration irrespective of silvicultural methods.

Long-Term Financial Viability of the Forest Operation

FSC standards require an assessment of economic viability of forest management operations.

SFI standards require participants to use sustainable forestry practices that are economically and
environmentally responsible but an assessment of financial viability is not mandatory.
Two years after SFI started it had “certified” 50 million acres—i.e., almost the
entire US industrial timber base. This was about as much acreage (70 million)
as FSC had certified to in 54 countries in 9 years. (greenpressinitiative.org,
2002).

It is easier to get certified under SFI than under the FSC

Changes to management/operational practices are more substantial with FSC
Annual audit is required under FSC so practices must be sustained

Consumers rarely know the difference between the two schemes

Desire to buy certified wood has begun to grow slowly domestically
Information about the benefits of certification and the differences between
schemes is not widely available = search costs for consumers who do care
Strategy of the AF & PA

•Saw threat to business practices in the FSC

•Created a competing scheme with a similar label and equally appealing name
but with less stringent standards in response
Created alternative for the entire industry
•Depend on consumers’ inability to distinguish between the two schemes?
•Consumers’ desire to purchase “sustainable forestry” but not really caring
which certification they support. “SFI certification is probably good enough…”
Strategy of a firm: so why get FSC certified?

•International recognition
•New markets for FSC labeled products, acquiring market recognition for responsibl
•The opportunity for interaction and cooperation among the various players involved
•The assurance for future generations that they will enjoy the benefits of the forest; a
•The opportunity to use the FSC trademark on products.
•Control and entrance into downstream markets
–Home Depot is phasing in a preference for FSC certified wood
–Vertical restraint on retailers: must sell product as-is or get FSC certified as well