Print Window Close Window Forest Certification Wood products – including everything from raw lumber to high-grade paper – are a necessary and functional part of almost everybody’s lifestyle, yet conservation-minded consumers are often left with a conundrum when it comes to choosing what to buy. Wood is a renewable resource, and in that sense it can be a “greener” choice than plastic or metal. But not all forests – or even most forests – are harvested sustainably. A ream of computer paper and a beautiful bookcase may be the products of an old-growth ecosystem that will never return. On the other hand, they may come from wood that has been selectively harvested from a second-growth forest by a responsible manager who is looking hundreds of years into the future. It’s not easy to tell the difference. Moreover, how can we be sure that protecting or conserving forests in our own part of the world won’t merely accelerate destruction elsewhere? This is where forest certification schemes come in. A MORI poll conducted in 1990 showed that 80% of consumers would buy 'green' products given the choice. Forest certification programs are meant to provide the consumer with reliable assurance that the products they buy have been harvested responsibly. Around the world, different groups are rushing to provide such certification. However, not all such programs are conducted on the same principles. If you buy a wood product or a paper product labeled “certified,” what does that really mean about the origins of the product? How are claims of “sustainability” substantiated, and does a forest need to be sustainable from the point of view of all its native flora and fauna in order to be given credit, or does it merely have to continuously grow a particular species of marketable trees? In other words, is it worth paying extra for a label – and if so, which label? Unfortunately, most certification schemes are still in their infancy – and most do not show any real promise of providing trustworthy information. An authoritative study by the World Wide Fund for Nature found that of a sample of 80 different environmental claims found on wood and paper products, only three could even partially be substantiated. In addition, a recent analysis, performed in collaboration between 7 different environmental organizations from all over the world, gave a depressing summary of the situation. Only one of the four biggest forest certification schemes – the Forest Stewardship Council – received a passing grade. Not only have none of the others yet reached a stage at which they can provide labels for consumers products; they also fall far short when it comes to how they assess forests, whether they include all stakeholders in the process, and whether they make their methods open and accessible to public scrutiny. The analysis focuses on the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Pan-European Forest Certification (PEFC), the Canadian Standards Association’s Sustainable Forest Management Standard (CSA) and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). They found the following major flaws:
Clearly, forest certification has an important role to play in the future of forestry. However, there are not yet nearly enough appropriately certified forests to meet demands. The FSC has yet to certify any forested land in Alaska, and coverage elsewhere in the US and Canada is sparse. Europe is markedly ahead of us in FSC certification, but even there, the work has only just begun. As market pressures on all of the world’s forests increase, it becomes more and more necessary to ensure that effective and widespread forest certification becomes the norm, and that consumers insist upon it. For more information, see:
|