Cam Brewer
What is happening with certification in BC these days? What are the big-picture issues facing the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) in BC? What are the political battles being fought?
As is the case on many political fronts, the struggle around certification boils down to a few philosophical questions. In the case of certification, there are three big questions: First, do we want high volumes of certified wood, or do we want to ensure that all certified operations meet high standards? Second, do we want to certify industrial logging now, and hope for incremental improvement over time, or do we demand that the improvement comes first? And finally, do we rely on large-scale corporate demand for certified wood, or do we slowly build community-based opportunities through sustainable links between supply and demand?
The answers we choose to these three questions are intimately linked, and will together map out the future for certification in BC. As the stakes get ever higher, there is a real concern that the industrial drive for market access will compromise the integrity of certification. For those concerned with promoting ecoforestry, understanding the threats to eco-certification is both an important lesson and a call to action.
High volume or high standards?
Certification has captured the attention of people across Canada because it offers a promising alternative to the negative ecological impacts of industrial logging. Strong market pressure, consumer boycotts, and a vocal citizenry concerned about logging practices have come together to push certified ecoforestry to centre stage. But the promise of certification can only be fulfilled if certifications are meaningful. Unfortunately, there exists strong pressure to certify status-quo logging operations in an attempt to placate genuine consumer concerns. Indus-trial logging companies are exerting the pressure, and they want to acquire that certified label as soon as possible. Market access for high-volume, commodity lumber is their end, and the weakening of certification standards is their means. But shouldn’t eco-certification be granted only to those operations practising genuine ecoforestry?
When you buy organic produce, for instance, you aren’t hoping for "less pesticides than usual" or "more gentle pesticides." You are buying a guarantee that the fruits and vegetables are free from harmful chemicals. And the same should apply to eco-certified wood products. When you purchase eco-certified wood products, it should mean that endangered wildlife is protected, drinking water is safe, ecosystems remain intact, First Nations and local stakeholders are meaningfully consulted, and that a diversity of forest uses are supported – not that you are supporting industrial "business-as-usual" logging.
In British Columbia, there are a number of issues that must be addressed prior to a credible certification taking place. These include the identification and maintenance of "high conservation value" (HCV) forests, the calculation of an ecosystem-based Allowable Annual Cut (AAC), the consent of First Nations within whose traditional territory the operation is taking place, and the protection of ecologically sensitive sites.
HCV forests are defined by the FSC as those that "contain globally, regionally, or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values . . . contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems . . . provide basic services of nature in critical situations . . . or that are fundamental in meeting the basic needs of local communities." The identification of HCV forests must be done through meaningful consultation with all stakeholders, and properly identified HCV forests must be protected through application of the precautionary principle to timber management plans and activities. Without such protection, forest ecosystems will be fragmented, unique habitats will be lost, and communities will be jeopardized – certainly not the vision of certified ecoforestry.
In order to protect forest ecosystems, the planned rate of cut, or AAC, must be based upon the ecological limits of the forest. Plans and practices of timber management that are not secured with an appropriate AAC, are essentially meaningless. That is, if an operation is planning to protect forest ecosystems, the cut level must be determined appropriately. The current AAC in British Columbia exceeds sustainable levels, and therefore high cut levels and high certification standards are mutually exclusive. If the AAC is not reduced, the result will be insufficient ecological protection and com-promised long-term economic stability. The Silva Forest Foundation (SFF)’s certification standards require that the AAC be adjusted to account for protection of ecologically sensitive sites, riparian ecosystems, old growth nodes, landscape linkages, rare, threatened and endangered species and ecosystems, and unique habitats. Full-cycle trees – trees that are never to be cut – must be netted out of the AAC, and longer rotations need to be taken into account.
FSC Principle 3 requires that "Indigenous peoples shall control forest management on their lands and territories unless they delegate control with free and informed consent …." Since British Columbia is largely unceded First Nations land, FSC certification must not be granted to any timber management operation without the "free and informed consent" of the First Nation within whose traditional territory logging is taking place. Ignoring the rights and title of First Nations has been the standard practice of industrial logging since it began in BC and, only through adherence to Principle 3, can certification start to address this long-standing injustice.
When planning for the protection of ecologically sensitive sites, an essential tenet of ecoforestry to recognize is that logging is not appropriate everywhere and anywhere there are trees. SFF’s certification standards require that ecologically sensitive sites are either taken out of production, or are managed in a way that embraces the precautionary principle. In general, ecologically sensitive sites include shallow soils, very dry or very wet sites, steep slopes (generally greater than 60 percent), complex terrain, climate-limited forests, and riparian areas. Many of the concerns related to industrial logging centre around the abuse of ecologically sensitive sites. This abuse often leads to stream degradation, landslides, and reduced habitat. Once again, for certification to be credible, respecting ecological limits must be non-negotiable.
High bar vs. low bar
As the FSC takes shape in British Columbia, a nagging question underlies the many debates between conflicting perspectives: Should high standards be demanded, and only those operations that meet these rigorous standards be certified? Or should an initially low standard be acceptable so long as continual improvement is promised? In other words, should a "high bar" be insisted upon, or should there be a "low bar" initially, with continual improvement hoped for over time?
Industrial interests are pushing for the latter, but such an approach is presumptuous. The "low bar" approach assumes consumers have an unshakable faith in the FSC logo and will wait patiently while the standards become meaningful. In reality, consumers only have faith in a certification logo if it has meaning now. As soon as a certified operation is revealed to be damaging salmon spawning grounds, or clearcutting intact watersheds, all credibility will disappear. Once credibility is gone, even if the bar is raised, it will be very difficult to convince consumers that the tarnished certification logo has begun to represent meaningful standards.
A strength of the FSC has always been its "performance-based" approach to certification that allows FSC certifiers to make credible assurances about what is actually happening "on the ground." By certifying an industrial logging operation on the assumption that things will improve, the performance-based approach has been abandoned. This does not mean that continual improvement is not a positive approach. In fact, such improvement is a keystone to SFF’s certification program, and is written into "conditions" of certification for all FSC-certified operations. The issue, however, is the level at which minimum standards are set. For a certification logo to remain tenable, the entry level minimum standards must reflect quality ecoforestry.
The development of these minimum FSC standards is a process whereby the globally applicable Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship are adapted to the social, economic, and ecological realities of various regions. This process has been taking place in BC since 1996, with a draft set of regional standards released in May of 1999, and a second set of standards being drafted throughout 2000. As these standards take shape, the "high-bar/low-bar" debate will underlay every standard being written and as a result, the credibility of certification hangs in the balance. If a "low bar" is adopted in crafting the regional standards, market rewards will be made available to industrial logging companies that have a vested interest in ensuring the bar is never raised any higher. Trusting that substantial improvements will be made once markets have been reached is a case of being paid before the work is done. The lure of market access is a powerful force for change, but this access must be earned. Otherwise, concerned consumers will have been misled, certification claims will be vacuous, and destructive logging practices will continue unabated.
Market pressure
The demand for certified wood products has increased sevenfold over the last two years, and is currently far in excess of supply. Groups of European companies have banded together in their demand for certified wood products – demands that are in the billions of dollars per year. Large North American companies such as Home Depot have made somewhat ambiguous proclamations about their intent to source certified wood, and the effect of such announcements has been to significantly increase the demand for certified wood. As the demand grows higher, BC timber companies are feeling the need to become certified which translates into one of two options: either industrial logging operations adopt ecoforestry practices; or, great effort is put into co-opting certification. It is a critical time for concerned individuals to get involved and ensure that only the former option will work.
Eco-certification is about more than simply identifying and rewarding ecologically responsible logging operations. Meaningful certification is about supporting a diversity of human and non-human uses of the forest, about providing a broad range of economic benefits, and about fostering strong human communities. That is, the import of certification extends beyond the forest, and reaches deep into the fabric of local communities. Certification should support users of certified wood that are locally owned and operated, and are physically close to a certified timber management operation.
Local manufacturers that create high-value wood products are able to reduce the pressure for unsustainable levels of timber extraction. By carefully valuing each log, by developing markets for under-utilized species, and by incorporating "character" wood (with knots, bug stain, or other "flaws"), higher value can be extracted from a lower volume of cut. This will help create employment, diversity, and stability in local communities, and break the dependency on single-product commodity mills. For example, SFF has eco-certified the Cariboo woodlot of Rod Blake, some of whose logs are milled locally by Spokin Mountain Timbers, and taken to nearby Zirnhelt Brothers Sawmilling for kiln drying. The dried lumber is then used by Ornamentum Furniture, a small BC furniture company, that makes high-value custom furniture from ecocertified BC wood. In contrast to the exporting of dimensional lumber, this market arrangement supports a strong, diversified, BC economy.
It is critical that the market demand for certified wood remains comparable to the actual volume available from certified operations. Supply and demand need to grow together. Excessive demand has the potential to create a strong financial incentive to weaken certification standards, to make misleading claims, or to focus on supplying the requisite volume of certified wood in spite of a lack of high-quality operations. Excessive corporate market demand not only inspires industrial logging operations to seek certification without first changing to ecoforestry, but also a shortage of supply may frustrate and alienate committed buyers looking for certified wood. Subsequent market work may then be necessary to repair damaged credibility from empty supply promises.
The problems with excess market demand are not just theoretical speculations, but the current certification reality in BC. In evidence of this, industrial interests have sunk large amounts of money into the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) "certification" schemes in an attempt to validate a very different approach to certification than what supporters of ecoforestry have in mind. Instead of further exacerbating the problem, it is critical that market development is done in the context of available supply. Markets need to be sought that re-quire the volumes, grades and species available from certified operations. Locally owned, value-added facilities should be given priority, as should buyers looking for under-utilized species and "character" wood.
Some final thoughts
Certification offers a straightforward way for wood products from ecoforestry operations to be identified and chosen by concerned consumers. Simple in concept and powerful in implementation, the idea of certification has attracted players with many conflicting views on how our forests should be managed. Through all the debates, however, we need to remember that eco-certification is about doing something different. It’s about protecting and maintaining ecosystems. It’s about support and respect for the fair and honourable settlement of First Nations’ land and use rights. It’s about diversifying our timber economy, and providing long-term alternatives for communities. It’s not about putting a green stamp on the current high-volume, low-value industrial model that gave rise to the need for eco-certification to begin with.
Cam Brewer has a MSc in Environmental Studies from the University of Oregon, and is currently Certification Program Co-Manager with the Silva Forest Foundation.
© 2000 Ecoforestry Institute
Originally published in Ecoforestry 15(1):22-26