Sustainable Forestry Practices  

Home > Sustainable Forestry

 

www.sfiprogram.org
December 2007

 

 

SPI employs modern forest management practices that closely mimic natural forest events. We have invested in state-of-the-art equipment to optimize every fiber of every tree. We are a voluntary partner in the Sustainable Forestry Initiative to help ensure our forests are here for generations to come. The expertise of our registered professional foresters and natural resource specialists guarantees that wildlife habitats, water quality and other forest values are protected.

 

The SFI program (www.sfiprogram.org) is a forest and paper certification program. The SFI program calls on participants to practice a land stewardship ethic that combines the perpetual growing and harvesting of trees with the long-term protection of wildlife, plants, soil and water quality. Simply put, the SFI program provides the assurance that the wood and paper products you buy come from sustainable, well managed forests.

 

The SFI contains broad policy goals that address objectives beyond the ability of forest and paper companies to achieve on their own. These goals include:.

 

 

The following analysis provides a detailed account of the SFI program and some comparisons to the Forest Stewardship Council certification scheme.

 

Fact or Fiction in Forest Certification?


Many organizations appear unaware of the numerous improvements the Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI®) has made over time to strengthen its certification program. As a result, SFI recently made market acceptance its new strategic objective, and is taking steps to raise understanding in the marketplace of what SFI can offer and how SFI-certified products demonstrate a company’s corporate social responsibility.

Campaigning organizations that want to promote a preferred brand at any cost often base their claims on information that is out of date or inaccurate.

Here are some of the facts to help your sales representatives present a realistic and accurate view of SFI:

 

[top] Claim: SFI is not an independent organization.

Fact: SFI is a fully independent, registered non-profit charitable organization with a 501c3 status. Its three-chamber Board of Directors governs all aspects of the SFI program, with equal representation from the environmental, economic and social sectors.

Fact: The American Forest and Paper Association no longer has any control over the SFI program. As the U.S. industry’s trade association, AF&PA still makes participation in SFI or other North American forest certification programs endorsed by the Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes (PEFC) a condition of membership to improve forest practices, not to influence SFI. The situation is similar in Canada where the Forest Products Association of Canada has made certification to SFI, the Canadian Standards Association or the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) a condition of membership.

 

[top] Claim: FSC has NGO endorsement, and SFI does not.

Fact: SFI has the support of and works in partnership with numerous conservation groups, including The Conservation Fund, the American Bird Conservancy, Pacific Forest Trust, Ducks Unlimited (US), NatureServe and others. These are solution oriented, constructive organizations that work to improve forest management and meet conservation objectives.

Conservation groups demonstrate their support of SFI in a number of ways:

Current members of the SFI Inc. Board of Directors in the environmental chamber are:

  1. George H. Fenwick, President, American Bird Conservancy
  2. Jerry McCollum, President and CEO, Georgia Wildlife Federation
  3. Laurie A. Wayburn, President, The Pacific Forest Trust
  4. Steven A. Williams President & CEO, Wildlife Management Institute

 

Conservation groups represented on SFI’s independent External Review Panel include the Land Trust Accreditation Commission, the National Association of Conservation Districts, the American Fisheries Society and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The panel conducts an independent review of the SFI program while seeking steady improvements in sustainable forestry practices.

Conservation groups work with SFI through partnerships and pilot projects to improve the SFI standard and its implementation. For example:

 

Note: SFI differentiates between conservation groups and ampaigning groups. SFI and program participants welcome opportunities to work in partnership with conservation groups that conduct research and work on the ground to improve forestry and/or meet conservation objectives. SFI would welcome an opportunity to engage constructively with campaigning groups such as Greenpeace, ForestEthics, and Markets Initiative.

Unfortunately, these organizations tend to use dated or inaccurate information about SFI in an attempt to pressure organizations in the supply chain into moving in one direction, i.e. to buy and or demand FSC in the marketplace. For this reason, campaigning groups tend to oversell FSC and undersell SFI and, to date, have shown no interest in working with SFI to improve forest practices.

 

[top] Claim: There is no guarantee that products marked as SFI certified have any connection to SFI-certified forests.

Fact: SFI tracks exactly which organizations have achieved forest certification to the SFI 2005-2009 standard and the location of those forests. SFI requires that public audit reports are posted on its website to ensure that a claim to SFI certification is accurate and traceable. SFI also tracks exactly which organizations have achieved SFI chain-of-custody certification, and requires that evidence of certification is posted on the SFI website.

Fact: The complexity of the supply chain both in North America and globally means that all certification programs (SFI, FSC, CSA, PEFC) have chain-of-custody standards that allow for percentagebased methods to track certified wood flows, and do not require the products to be separated. As a result, there is never an absolute guarantee of a direct link between the certified product and the certified forest with any of the programs. However, organizations must track the percent-certified content coming into their facility over a period of time, and sell the same percentage amount as certified leaving the facility. As a result, SFI can guarantee that the same percentage amount of certified content coming into the mill is being sold as SFI-certified content leaving the mill.

 

[top] Claim: Other background info on labels, if needed.

Fact: Under SFI's chain-of-custody average percent method and volume credit methods, an organization is required to disclose what percentage of the product comes from certified lands, from recycled content (if applicable), and from uncertified lands.

Fact: Under SFI’s certified content labels, the organization is required to disclose the percent certified content found in the product, much like recycled content labels disclose the percent recycled content in the product. SFI is the only forest certification program that communicates to the buyer the percent content in the product.

Fact: SFI has a fiber sourcing label, distinct from a certified content label, which speaks to the procured wood requirements found in objectives 8-13 of the SFI standard. This label can only be used if 100 percent of the fiber flows through a third-party certified SFI procurement system. A certified procurement system requires that organizations have an auditable system in place to track all the wood they use, whether it comes from a certified forest or not. If it does not come from a certified forest, it has to meet the procured wood objectives related to best management practices, reforestation, and critically imperiled and imperiled species. This encourages companies to use trained loggers in sustainable forestry practices and avoid illegally logged fiber and fiber from biodiversity hot spots.

Fact: Under all of SFI's labels, the non-certified fiber cannot come from controversial sources (illegal logging, biodiversity hotspots, etc.)

 

[top]Claim: FSC is more rigorous than SFI.

Fact: Independent criteria-based assessments have demonstrated that SFI and FSC meet legality and sustainability expectations. SFI staff can provide examples of such assessments, upon request.

Fact: SFI has one single standard with auditable objectives and performance measures that are the same no matter where that standard is applied across North America.

Fact: FSC has 13 standards that vary significantly across North America, nine in the U.S. and four in Canada. To say FSC is more rigorous than SFI is highly misleading. Here is just one example: o Campaigning organizations like ForestEthics and Greenpeace give the impression that FSC is the preferred choice because of its approach to clearcutting, which they claim is a poor forestry practice. They leave the impression that FSC does not allow clearcutting. In reality, FSC standards vary significantly. The FSC Canada Boreal Standard, which is responsible for 60 percent of the FSC-certified acres across North America and provides most of the FSC-certified products used in North America, has no maximum clearcut size limits. As a result, there are thousands of acres of land clearcut under FSC certifications in the boreal. The FSC Pacific Coast standard in the U.S. Pacific Northwest has a clearcut size limit of about 40 to 60 acres, however, few companies have pursued certification to this standard. There are almost 45 million acres certified to the FSC Boreal Standard and less than two million acres certified the FSC Pacific Coast Standard.

 

[top] Claim: SFI allows clearcuts (Refer also to Q&A #4 above.)

Fact: When used appropriately, clearcutting is an acceptable harvesting method that can mimic natural disturbances such as wildfire, and benefit many plant and animal species that require openings in the forest.

Fact: Yes. SFI does allow clearcuts and SFI does have a limit on clearcut size of 120 acres average across a certified area.

Fact: FSC standards also allow clearcuts and some have no limits including the FSC Canada Boreal standard, which covers 60 percent of all FSC-certified lands in North America and provides much of FSC’s certified fiber in the U.S. marketplace. Performance Measure 5.2. Program Participants shall manage the size, shape, and placement of clearcut harvests. Indicators:

  1. Average size of clearcut harvest areas does not exceed 120 acres, except when necessary to respond to forest health emergencies or other natural catastrophes.
  2. Documentation through internal records of clearcut size and the process for calculating average size.

 

[top] Claim: Plantations are "bad forestry".

Fact: All certification standards, including SFI and FSC, recognize plantations and allow for their certification.

 

[top] Claim: FSC does not allow forest conversion, SFI does.

Fact: A forest that is being converted to other uses could not be SFI certified as it would not meet many of the standard requirements, including forest regeneration. Wood from these forests cannot count as SFI-certified content under SFI label use requirements.

 

[top] Claim: SFI allows use of GMOs.

Fact: Currently, GMO forest products are not commercially available in North America. SFI lands are certified only in North America.

Fact: Limited government-approved trials involving GMOs in North America do not result in the commercial sale of products.

Fact: Research is important to the future of the world’s forests. For example, it can help to find new ways to make trees resistant to insects and disease that can destroy significant tracts of forest land.

Fact: SFI recognizes that the topic of GMOs cannot be ignored, and that research involving biotechnology has the potential to restore trees with important ties to North America’s natural heritage, such as the American Chestnut. The SFI standard requires that program participants that utilize improved planting stock, including trees derived through biotechnology, shall use sound scientific methods and follow all applicable laws and international protocols.

 

[top] Claim: SFI allows use of chemicals.

Fact: All certification standards, including SFI and FSC, recognize the important role of chemicals and allow for their use in forest management. When used properly, chemicals can promote regeneration after harvest and limit invasive species, pests, and disease without compromising the natural environment.

Fact: The SFI standard auditable Performance Measure 2.2 and supporting requirements makes it clear that Program Participants shall minimize chemical use required to achieve management objectives while protecting employees, neighbors, the public and the forest environment.

Fact: The SFI standard requires the use of least-toxic and narrowest-spectrum pesticides necessary to achieve management objectives and the use of integrated pest management where feasible.

Fact: The SFI standard requires monitoring of water quality or safeguards to ensure proper equipment use and protection of streams, lakes, and other water bodies as well as use of methods to ensure protection of threatened and endangered species.

[top] Claim: SFI does not adequately protect old growth or endangered forests.

Fact: SFI’s Performance Measure 4.1, indicator 6 requires support of and participation in plans or programs for the conservation of old-growth forests in the region of ownership. Note: The terms old growth and endangered forests mean different things to different organizations. The U.S. Forest Service alone has recorded more than 200 definitions. The following is SFI’s definition of old growth:

 

[top] Claim: SFI allows logging in the most biologically diverse and sensitive areas.

Fact: Objective 4 of the SFI standard requires that program participants manage the quality and distribution of wildlife habitats and contribute to the conservation of biological diversity by developing and implementing stand- and landscape-level measures that promote habitat diversity and the conservation of forest plants and animals, including aquatic fauna.

Fact: SFI and FSC require the conservation of biological diversity and protection of endangered species and communities. SFI-certified companies that source wood from non-certified land must identify sources from outside North America to minimize the risk of purchasing fiber from illegal sources or biodiversity hotspots.

Fact: An independent scientific study by The Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences concluded “landowners that were certified sustainable under either SFI or FSC had significantly stronger biodiversity practices than landowners not certified. There was no difference between FSC and SFI in terms of overall biodiversity practice scores.” Report #MCCS-FCP-2005-1: Changing Timberland Ownership in the Northern Forest and Implications for Biodiversity, December 2005.

 

Fact: SFI Objective 6 and Performance Measure 6.1 and supporting indicators make it clear that special sites must be identified and managed in a manner appropriate for their unique features. Objective 6. To manage Program Participant lands that are ecologically, geologically, historically, or culturally important in a manner that recognizes their special qualities. Performance Measure 6.1. Program Participants shall identify special sites and manage them in a manner appropriate for their unique features. Indicators:

  1. Use of existing natural heritage data and expert advice in identifying or selecting sites for protection because of their ecologically, geologically, historically, or culturally important qualities.
  2. Appropriate mapping, cataloging, and management of identified special sites.

 

[top] Claim: SFI allows practices that are harmful to habitat and water quality.

Fact: Under objective 4 of the SFI standard, participants must meet performance measures and indicators related to managing the quality and distribution of wildlife habitats. They must develop and implement measures at both the forest stand and landscape level that promote habitat diversity and the conservation of forest plants and animals, including aquatic fauna.

Fact: Under objective 3 of the SFI standard, participants must meet performance measures and indicators that protect water quality in streams, lakes, and other water bodies.

Fact: Larry Selzer, President and CEO of The Conservation Fund and a former member of the SFI board, says: In terms of wildlife habitat, biological diversity, water quality, air quality and recreational opportunities, the SFI standard is unmatched in the marketplace.

 

A few more facts: