Green Certification

The pros and cons of green certification of forest are being discussed as industry gets a grip on what it means.

By Stephen Bratkovich

USDA Forest Service--Northeastern Area State & Private Forestry

Forest products manufacturers, foresters, timber owners and others are asking many questions today about forest products certification, often referred to as "green certification." Where and why did certification start? What steps are involved in certification? What are the controversies surrounding certification? Are there companies in the U.S. selling certified products? Are there any local or regional certification programs in the U.S.?

This article will address these and other questions, concerns and opportunities relating to the certification of forest products in the U.S.

Global Perspective

Although the debate continues on the pros and cons of certifying forest products, most experts agree that tropical deforestation is the central issue that brought "green certification" to the forefront. Worldwide environmental groups were alarmed at what they perceived as the pending demise of tropical forests. Studies have shown that industrial logging (for domestic and export timber) is not the major cause of tropical deforestation (15% versus 85% for agriculture, ranching and other uses). However, environmentalists proposed and implemented numerous strategies targeted at logging.

Some environmentalists call for governments to ban imports of tropical timber and tropical wood products. They also call upon consumers to boycott the purchase of tropical products. However, many environmental groups (and others such as trade economists) view a ban or boycott as impractical. The moderate environmental view is that if tropical forests have no economic value, they are unlikely to survive. Consequently, environmental moderates promote trade in wood that comes only from sustainably managed timber sources. Since consumers purchasing wood products would be unable to determine if the wood had been sustainably produced, a mechanism had to be developed to verify sustainable production. Green certification of forest products is a method which developed to regulate and encourage sustainable forest management.

A number of environmental groups realized, however, that they could not criticize tropical timber producers and implement certification programs without looking at forest management practices within their own countries. Several certifying organizations have responded by expanding their certification programs to other regions of the world including the U.S.

The concept of sustainability is at the heart of the certification process. The term "sustainable," however, can be abused just as "organic" has been abused in the food produce business. Most people agree though that "sustainable development" is development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The Rainforest Alliance, based in New York City, is an environmental organization that has established a certification program called Smart Wood. The Smart Wood program is based on sustainable development principles which have been defined to include 1) silvicultural, 2) ecological/biological, and 3) social/community perspectives. Other forest product certifiers have developed similar guidelines.

The Smart Wood program, as an example, certifies both "sources" and "companies. " "Sources" are entities that manage forests and can be certified as either "sustainable" (state-of-the art management) or "well managed" (good but room for improvement). Companies" are entities that process or distribute forest products from certified sources. "Exclusive" certification is awarded to companies selling products made exclusively from wood from Smart Wood sources. A "Non-Exclusive" Smart Wood company sells products from both Smart Wood certified sources and other non-certified origins. As of 1993 Smart Wood had certified six sources and 18 companies worldwide.

Steps in the Smart Wood source certification process, which are similar to the steps followed by other certifying organizations, are as follows:

1.Application is completed by the source.

2.Adequacy review and report (which is a desk study) is based on the forest management plan and other pertinent documents.

3.Field assessment is conducted with an interdisciplinary team of specialists including experts from the local geographic area.

4.Draft certification assessment report is prepared by the assessment team.

5.Confidential peer review of the report is conducted by three independent specialists.

6.Internal review of the report is conducted by Smart Wood staff.

7.Interaction with applicant involves presentation and discussion of the results of the assessment report and review.

8.Final certification decision is made and conveyed to the applicant.

9.Periodic review and monitoring.

In addition to the Smart Wood pass/fail type of certification, other certification options are available. Scientific Certification Systems, a California based firm that certifies forest products under the Green Cross label, provides performance scores to all applicants on a scale of 0 to 100. A Green Cross score of 60 or more in the three program areas of timber resource sustainability, forest ecosystem maintenance, and financial/socioeconomic considerations qualifies for certification as "well-managed." Green Cross certified sources can be directly compared with one another on the basis of their program area scores.

In an effort to establish continuity and credibility in the third-party certification process, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) was founded in 1993. FSC is an international organization which seeks to evaluate, accredit and monitor certifiers of forest products worldwide. FSC is currently working to establish the principles of forest management to which all certifiers must adhere.

Problems And Concerns

High costs of certification, differences in not-for-profit versus for-profit certification organizations, and lack of accountability in the certification process are examples of issues currently being debated relating to green certification. Additional problem areas and concerns are noted below.

· Is there a consensus on certification standards and definitions? No. For example, a practice may be sustainable from a country perspective but unsustainable when viewed from a state or county-wide level. The appropriate sustainability time frame could be argued to last from only a few years to many decades or centuries. Reaching agreement with all stakeholders on standards and definitions is a major challenge for the certification movement.

· How much does certification cost and who pays? Initial certification can cost tens of thousands of dollars plus smaller amounts for annual renewals. Many people believe consumers or landowners will ultimately bear the cost of certification, resulting in undesirable consequences. Others argue that the strength of the program is that consumers will pay for certification through traditional market forces.

· Will certification drive up the cost of wood and reduce demand for forest products? Some industry analysts predict that certification will lead to more expensive forest products which will encourage substitution in the marketplace by materials such as steel, concrete and plastic. Others cite survey results indicating that a segment of the population is willing to pay higher prices for "environmentally friendly" forest products.

· How will certification affect small businesses such as loggers and sawmillers? The real question here might be: Can the average logger and small sawmill owner compete with larger forest products corporations if certification becomes a reality? Given the fact that certification can be expensive, some argue that small operators, unable to pay the certification fees, may be forced out of business.

· Why doesn't sustained yield forest management carry more "weight" in the certification process? Traditionally, foresters and the forest industry have viewed sustained yield forestry (for timber products) as "good" forestry. Certification organizations, however, broadened the concept of "good" forestry to include factors such as long-term ecosystem health and social and financial considerations. This has led to a division between some environmental groups and forest resource managers as to what factors should and should not be included in the certification process.

· Is the "processing" of forest products evaluated in the certification process? In most instances specific processing steps such as sawing, edging, trimming and drying are not included in the certification guidelines. Although a sawmill, for example, can become "green certified," the certification process will focus more on the source (origin) of the timber and lesson the utilization efficiency of converting logs into lumber products.