Dovetail Report: September 2004
A Land Manager's Guide to FSC & SFI
To Certify or Not To Certify: Is That a Questions?
Dr. Jeff Howe

To request a hardcopy, please call or email for ordering information.
The full text of this report is available in Adobe PDF format (620 kb) .

Summary  

Over the past decade, two forest certification systems, that of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) of the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA), have had a significant, positive impact on forest management in the United States. Today these two systems are directly competing in an effort to expand their bases of certified acreage and to develop a clear differentiation in the marketplace. Appendix A provides a summary chart with the details of these two certification systems as well as information on the American Tree Farm System (ATFS) and the International Standards Organization (ISO). This paper provides a discussion of the issues related to selection of a certification system and the differences between FSC and SFI as might be seen from the perspective of a landowner or land manager. The goal of this discussion is to aid land managers in the process of selecting an appropriate certification system for their specific needs. Logically, the cost of the certification process is a consideration as well, and while anecdotal evidence suggests that there is generally very little variation in direct certification costs between the two systems, only through the development of comparative bids on a specific project can actual costs be identified.   Therefore, the costs of certification are not addressed in this discussion.  

At their heart, it appears the FSC's guidelines are geared to preserve natural systems while allowing for careful harvest, while the SFI's guidelines are aimed at encouraging fiber productivity while allowing for conservation of key resources.   Given the current trend toward uncontrolled consumption growth, both approaches are probably not only valuable, but also necessary. Distinction between the two should be directly linked to the organization's vision.                                                         

Introduction

In the late 1980s and early 1990s environmentalists began to seek proactive ways to address growing concerns about tropical deforestation.   Some of these organizations began selective boycotts of wood products companies like The Home Depot (THD) in an effort to curb THD's usage of wood from threatened tropical forests.   Shortly, it became apparent that this broad-brush approach was painting good forestry with the same palette as the bad, and that these boycotts were having a significant negative impact on small, local forest enterprises in particular, and incurring a devaluation of tropical forests in general.   Thus, a more positive approach and one that rewarded good forestry, was sought.   A major collaborative effort between environmental organizations, industry representatives, and those representing social and community concerns was undertaken. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) arose out of this process.   Early on, the FSC developed international standards, principles, and criteria for good forestry with the goal of identifying the “ideal” forest management system.   The FSC then developed a means of verifying that these standards were being followed, and a worldwide certification and accreditation system was born.   These developments were followed shortly in the U.S. by the development of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) of the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA).   This separate initiative by industry was based on the belief that the industry was best equipped to develop workable solutions to growing concerns about forest management, and in part on the desire to preempt regulation or having other interest's solutions imposed on them.  

To a certain extent, their very origins forced these two programs to start at opposite ends of the spectrum.   In defining the ideal and being international in scope, it was important that FSC take into consideration the worst case scenario and develop extensive control mechanisms that addressed the need for strong monitoring and enforcement.   To accomplish this level of quality assurance FSC felt it was necessary to build most of the systems, processes, and procedures from scratch.   The SFI, on the other hand, exclusively represented U.S. industrial forestland, which is some of the best-managed forestland in the world.   SFI's originators sought to incorporate as much of the existing regulatory requirements, business systems, processes and procedures into the process as possible, viewing third-party oversight as unnecessary.   For both, the goal was to increase the opportunity for the marketplace to support, and fund, good forestry practices.   However, it soon became obvious that the creation of a market demand resulted in a demanding market, and both FSC and SFI have needed to adapt significantly over the last ten years such that the differences between the systems have narrowed considerably.
 
Download the full text of this report. (PDF)


Jeff has a B.S. degree in Biology from Bates College, a M.S. degree in Forest Products Marketing from the University of Maine, and a PhD in Marketing from the University of Minnesota.