Point, Counterpoint: FSC

[Corey Brinkema]

In this marketplace awash with ecolabels and green claims, it’s important that the public (and your readers) take time to learn who’s behind the labels and the rigor of standards behind the claims. This concern is heightened in the area of forest certification and the eco-labeling of forest products. Forests comprise the some of the world’s most important ecosystems as well as the most endangered. In addition to the critical habitat, watersheds, carbon sinks, and numerous other ecosystem services and functions they provide, forests also provide a livelihood for nearly one billion of our own species.

Recognizing that the world’s governments were not moving swiftly enough to confront these issues, environmental and social advocates joined with progressive forest products companies in 1993 to form the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). FSC enshrined a set of core values that to this day are unique in forest certification and comprise the foundation of FSC’s on-the-ground impact and market credibility:

• Open membership in which anyone, any company, or non-governmental organization may join and influence.
• Balanced decision-making by environmental, social, and economic chamber members (through an international General Assembly) and by electing respective chamber directors.
• Comprehensive and prescriptive standards that encompass all social, environmental, and economic components of exemplary forest management and clearly articulate what is required for conformance.
• Protect indigenous rights on private and public lands through engagement and safeguarding of traditional places and practices.
• Ensure community benefit through stakeholder consultation, social impact assessments, fair labor practices, and stakeholder grievance procedures.
• Maintenance of ecosystem structure and functions so that natural forests retain their many vital functions; also require restoration of degraded forests.
• Prohibit conversion of natural forests to plantations and non-forest uses.
• High conservation value forests are identified through a landscape scale analysis, require consultation with social and environmental stakeholders to verify such designations, and necessitate careful planning to preserve their integrity.
• Ban genetically modified trees
• Prohibit use of highly hazardous chemicals designated as such by the World Health Organization.

The above tenets garner the respect of the world’s leading environmental organizations including World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace, and Sierra Club. It’s not simply that these values have proven crucial to forests and forest community health. The broad and deep support for FSC stems from the fact that these organizations have been there at the table, along with social and business interests, setting the standards and influencing policy. This support engenders market credibility that has encouraged Home Depot, Lowes, and Canada’s Rona to give preference to FSC certified wood. The FSC label now makes its way into almost every American home through catalogers like Crate & Barrel and Pottery Barn. And in an unprecedented move, Barack Obama printed his one million inauguration invitations on FSC certified paper.

In fact, in just the past few years FSC has emerged as the dominant force in conservation of the world’s forests. To date, more than 264 million acres of forestland are certified to FSC’s rigorous standards and more than 12,000 companies are certified to trade in FSC certified products. And as the saying goes about mimicry and flattery, FSC can take credit for compelling the conventional forestry industry to improve their own certification programs.

I’ll close by describing a recent experience that I believe captures some of the essence of FSC and why FSC certification needs to grow. Two weeks ago I had the opportunity to observe a forest ownership transition in California’s redwood country. A working forest had just changed hands from a controversial owner (PALCO), operating in compliance with the SFI program, to another owner (Humboldt Redwood Company or HRC) that is committed to achieving FSC certification. PALCO’s large clearcut and old growth harvest plans were immediately ceased. HRC seemed to be succeeding in instilling in the staff a new stewardship ethic and a respect of community interests. The new management plan would focus on uneven-aged management, selective harvesting, and improved protections for riparian areas and threatened species. FSC certification would require engagement with stakeholders and a plan to redress some ecological damage caused by previous management.

Local and national press coverage focused on the first encounters between HRC management and local “tree sitters” - environmental activists defending old growth redwoods. Mother Jones described the story in an article titled “When Tree Sitters Hug Lumberjacks”. That same article featured a quote from Ron Lord, one of PALCO’s veteran loggers in which he remarked on the change in forest management: “I think if somebody takes care of the land, it will be a good operation again," he said, "but the way they was raping it, it will never be anything.” I think Ron has it about right...a good operation and taking care of the land can go hand in hand.

Corey Brinkema
President, FSC-US

Make sure to read this article's companion blogs "What's the FSC-ing Deal?" and "Point, Counterpoint: SFI"