Companies large and small have made great strides in relying on forest certification standards for sourcing wood and paper products. Unfortunately, a group called ForestEthics is engaged in a campaign to pressure companies to choose only one standard, the Forest Stewardship Council, to the exclusion of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, which I run, and all the others. FSC is certainly a strong option, and both of our programs have grown stronger because the other exists. However, this campaign is undermining not just SFI, but all of the valued forest certification programs. And it could have unintended consequences for forests and communities across North America.
Recently, ForestEthics announced that several Fortune 500 companies had stopped using SFI. We checked with most those companies and found that many were caught in the unfortunate position of managing ForestEthics pressure tactics and had no desire to take such a public stance.
These companies, as we currently understand it, have not stopped using products from SFI certified companies, but most have been pressured to drop the use of the SFI label on products as a mechanism to appease ForestEthics.
Why it is acceptable to ForestEthics that companies still source from SFI forests, provided they don't label it? Could it be that ForestEthics only cares about appearances? Does ForestEthics understand that FSC-labeled products can include a substantial amount of SFI-certified content thanks to complex supply chains? Why is it acceptable to ForestEthics that the FSC label be put on products containing SFI content and yet it is unacceptable for the SFI label to be put on products containing SFI content?
We hope those supporting ForestEthics will take a closer look at its contribution to responsible forestry, and also take a closer look at SFI's contribution. We hope they will recognize that 37 SFI implementation committees have trained or recognized training for more than 100,000 loggers. We hope they will come to realize SFI's contribution to landowner outreach and education, and the training and awareness that is provided for adherence to best management practices for water quality. For example, our program participants have invested more than $1 billion in forest research to help drive continual improvement.
Any company that spends half
Any company that spends half of it's money on advertising each year is garbage.
Saying FSC and SFI are
Saying FSC and SFI are equivalent here in the Pacfific NW is a lie. Neil, you work for the SFI so perhaps next time make that disclosure. First, even the large timber companies, like Hancock, have publically admitted that FSC would cost them about 30% more in operational and "leave" cost...yet some of you folks say the two systems are the same? C'mon, industry, what's it going to be: are you "equivalent" or different? Second, SFI managment on Pacific NW forests is the same old bull-in-a-china shop forestry that has gone on out here for two long: major clear-cuts on steep and unstable slopes, skimpy buffers on salmon-bearing streams and NO buffers on small non-fish bearing streams, logging of habitat occupied by rare species such as the Northern Spotted owl and marbled murrelet; rapid conversion of forests to other uses, intensive reliance on forest chemicals. Third, SFI contains no standards whatsoever; it's standards are such that any company can do anything that's legal under state law (which is not saying too much, especially in Oregon and Idaho).
SFI is built on a house of cards and is doomed to fail because it is based on falsities.
As president of a forest
As president of a forest management company that manages lands certified to both FSC and SFI, I can assure people that, at the forest management level, the difference between the two standards is minimal, as both standards continue to refine and mature. Managing a forest that meets both standards is no problem; we do it every day. The distinctions are largely political; created and funded by the those who have a strong vested interesst in FSC.
It is an ongoing frustration
It is an ongoing frustration that so much creative energy is put into the debate of FSC vs SFI when that same energy could be going toward expanding the level of certified forests.
As a chain of custody certified paper supplier, Sappi, we advise our customers to take a balanced approach to their procurement practices. We are certified in accordance with FSC, SFI and PEFC chain of custody standards. We work hard to drive higher levels of certified content and still have less than two thirds of our fiber from any certified source. A quick scan of the competitive landscape will reveal roughly the same levels of certification by other suppliers. As Kathy points out, the supply chain is complex but the data is clear - there is more SFI fiber in the US than FSC because SFI has worked so hard with landowners and loggers. We need to shift the effort to more certified fiber and spend less energy on labels.
While my company is SFI
While my company is SFI certified, I still find the ForestEthic's claims very unsettling and the most unnerving have been unanswered by SFI. I keep seeing more and more mudslinging, but little justification. Instead of "Nu-uh. That's you!", I want answers.
And the comment about ForestEthics only being about the apprearances of labels, I don't think that was ever their decision, but the customers. And I believe they support the use of FSC because of their track record, backing companies, and solidity in design.
For the sake of full disclosure, let's look at both sides and decide!
http://www.forestethics.org/downloads/SFI-Certified-Greenwash_Report_For...
http://www.sfiprogram.org/settingtherecordstraight/
Wow! Hbk’s well-thought-out
Wow! Hbk’s well-thought-out arguments are deep and convincing! This is typical of the usual uninformed cheerleading we keep seeing from the FSC crowd. I'm not about to line up blindly behind any single eco-label (whether it's Sustainable Forestry Initiative or Forest Stewardship Council) but I find it refreshing to see Abusow’s article. So far it seems the ecosheep are getting all the airtime. Thank you Greenbiz for giving us some balance.
If a "responsible procurement
If a "responsible procurement professional" seeks to protect and enhance environmental values through purchasing, it seems she should start by asking trusted organizations who can help, such as Environmental Defense, WWF, Greenpeace or National Wildlife Federation. These and hundreds of other mainstream environmental (and social) NGOs would tell her the same thing: FSC is the only way to translate purchasing decisions into truly exemplary forest management where it matters most - in the forest.