Certification is such a simple concept: the provenance of wood is made visible and known. Yet, it is part of a complicated network and has far-reaching implications. Recent articles in the Journal of Forestry and the International Journal of Ecoforestry have addressed many aspects of certification, but many of the long-term implications remain invisible.
Certification is driven by consumers, but consumers are reacting to forest degradation and destruction, which are partly caused by consumer demand for products made from wood. Consumer pressures have often influenced the extent of exploitation in a landscape. Consumers have indicated now that they want forests for wood products, but also for habitat for other species, aesthetics, recreation, and other values. Certification itself is a demand. As consumer demands change, however, the uses of the forest landscapes may change. Certification may bring about other far- reaching changes.
The product (or practices) approach (2) measures specific characteristics related to the origins of the product with performance indicators (ecological, economic, or social)--the primary goal is the health and continuity of the forest itself. This type of certification involves contracting with a third party for an audit to rate performance in order to receive a seal of approval. It is associated with low-intensity and uneven-aged management. A Society of American Foresters study group called this a prescriptive approach (meaning rule-guided) in their April 1995 issue on certification. Prescriptive forestry is considered unnecessary by some foresters, since there are already federal regulations prescribing the practice of forestry in the US.
Since existing laws do not protect forests from being clearcut, however, something more is needed. The environmental management systems (EMS) offered in place of prescriptions only avoids conflict with traditional industrial forestry by ignoring the health of the forest for the meaningless continuity of the management process. It gives timber addicts a gold star on the forehead and lets them have a cheap fix
Many of the distinctions between these two approaches are based on misunderstandings or faulty logic. Furthermore, the product approach does not use a prescriptive logic but a proscriptive (prohibiting) one. That is, from Œwhat is not allowed is forbidden¹ to Œwhat is not forbidden is allowed.¹ Thus, in a product approach, it is forbidden to destroy the forest to get products; we must leave the components, structures, and functions that satisfy the constraints of survival and reproduction.
The product approach is associated also with low-intensity and uneven-aged management--the very systems that have forest health as their goal. Of course, a product approach must include good management, even if it is benign neglect, and its goals are far more ambitious than simple management.
The product approach (just certification hereafter) not only uses a proscriptive logic, but it is an inclusive program rather than an exclusive one, that is, it affirms rather than denies--it affirms the integrity of the forest and human needs. The product approach strives for balance within important ecological limits, which cannot be compromised. Ultimately, it is an on-the-ground approach that is sensitive to changes in the forest.
Independent, or third party, labels seem most likely to make public participation part of their process (which has the advantage of increasing the independence of the approach). Third party systems, however, are criticized for making decisions based on arbitrary and unscientific indicators and criteria--this is in fact its strong point, since not all criteria are or can be scientific or nonarbitrary (unnatural). The forest not only contributes to human populations and the human mind, it is a living system. Third party systems are also criticized for removing the motivation for improvement once a "green" label is awarded, but there is no more incentive to improve in first and second party situations, other than lip-service to improvement.
Everyone (certainly all three kinds of certifiers) will be offering certification at first, until the differences are sorted out. What is certified will be different in many cases. The certification may be based on scale (local, regional, or global), or on the kind of forest (wild or plantation), or on managerial or ecological concerns. Eventually, some universally accepted principles will be held in common. More than basic principles, however, uniform definitions, procedures, and a common moral ground are needed.
Certification will be blamed, as the US EPA and ESA are now, for management failures and social problems. Certification will be seen as a restriction on the freedom to harvest at will. GATT and other agreements will protect destructive harvesting under the guise of equal access.
By denying the use of fertilizers or pesticides, the ecological product approach of PCC certification will seem to be antagonistic to production objectives. Those objectives, however, may be revealed to be detrimental to the long-term health of the forests.
Standards will seem to be set too high, and arguments will be made to lower them on country by country situations. The Long Beach Model Forest Society suggests that certification could lead to a "levelling [sic] of the playing field internationally." But they may just mean enforcing the lowest common denominator for standards. It will be argued that certification will accelerate deforestation in poor countries. And, under current economic practices it may. This means that the practices need to be changed at the same time for certification to succeed ultimately.
Certification will become more refined as it develops. At first it will seem that every aspect of forestry will need to be modified. Later, certification will identify particular areas where improvements can be made in management.
Certification acknowledges environmental limits and costs. It implies acceptance of limitations that cannot be expanded or erased or ignored. It implies acceptance and understanding of environmental costs. Yields may be lower to match the productivity of the forests. There will probably be an increase in the dollar costs of production. The use of wood itself might be reduced on a per capita or total basis. A wood use reduction program could dramatically reduce the global draw on tropical, temperate, and boreal forests. Certification could identify and recommend optimal policies that promote improved forestry practices, reduce the demand for wood and wood products, and encourage cooperation between corporations and local communities. Certification could expose the roots of wasteful practices and propose improvements that could lead to ecologically sustainable practices.
Many demands are used to support unsustainable lifestyles, which increase the demands for more forest products. Certification should be tied to some extent to more frugal, but not necessarily less rich, cultural practices.
Independent certification may mean a disruption of business as usual, which has invested many millions of dollars in setting up plantations. Of course, tremendous one-time profits were realized in clearcutting forests to start the plantations.
As certified wood replaces or competes with plantation wood, prices may rise dramatically. However, these prices may also be reflecting the true costs (previously externalized) of growing trees for hundreds of years, as well as harvesting wood with unfairly recompensed human labor.
Catherine Mater¹s research indicates a majority of people would be willing to pay a premium price for certified products. Over 90 per cent of wood product manufacturers stated a preference for certified lumber for their operations. Over 70 percent of consumers said they were looking for independent certification as opposed to government or industry certification. Consumers also indicated a willingness to pay a premium for certified wood products.
Plantation wood has an advantage in the short-term: it has a positive cash flow. Wild forests often take hundreds of years to develop. Of course, many nonindustrial woodlands are fairly old--as are their owners (average age 67)--and may have started to acquire some old growth characteristics. These forests are the ones the players will be competing for with certification proposals.
Certain perverse incentives, such as massive road-building, may disappear. Other special industry subsidies, such as land grants and low-interest loans, may also fall as barriers to community forestry. The kind of certification stressed by PCC may result in a shift from artificial plantations to naturally regenerated forests. Perhaps this shift is necessary, if plantations are doomed in a generation or two-- some plantations cannot sustain more than three rotations of trees. This shift may protect forests in the very-long-term. This would mean in general, less human influence on and intervention in wild forests.
There may be a long-term shift from industry forestry to community forestry.
Certification can contribute to a needful awareness among political representatives, who have been hypnotized by the flow of money. Certification has the potential to increased desperately needed revenue for regeneration, management, and research. It has the potential to increase revenue to local communities, rather than contributing to the flood of cheap raw materials exported elsewhere. In a very real way, it can encourage community forestry.
Certification should also create millions of jobs and generate billions in expenditures. By comparison, almost 4 million environmental protection-related jobs were created in the US in 1992. Environmental protection expenditures totaled $170 billion, more than the largest US industrial corporation (GM) that year ($124 billion).
Finally, the public expects certification to assure that future generations will have equal opportunities to benefit from forests. Michael Toman in Defining Sustainable Forestry, suggests defining a "safe minimum standard" to address intergenerational fairness, resource constraints, and human scale in place of some vague, unenforceable intergenerational contract. Damages to a forest, for instance, are characterized by two attributes--expected cost and degree of irreversibility, which can be treated economically. The standard draws a fuzzy dividing line between the "moral imperatives to preserve and enhance natural resource systems and the free play of resource tradeoffs."
Living generations are responsible for limiting their actions within a reasonable framework of cost and irreversible change. The standard requires conversation and some consensus about the limits, which are never exact. Ecological value has to be balanced with socially optimal resource allocations (that consider future generations as well).
Certification is a way for ecologists, foresters, managers, and retailers to interact with consumers to define and refine demand. But, it cannot be isolated from the large-scale economic and political trends that shape human culture. Problems are part of a matrix of industrial social practices and policies, but there are now pressing economic and ecological reasons to revamp them.
To be successful, certification must address economic shortcomings and industry expectations. Recognizing that some attitudes and problems lead to unsustainable forest practices and demands, certification can contribute to greater efficiencies and reduced demand.
Certification can identify the issues that must be examined to bring about sustainable forests and societies. The concept of sustainability is being incorporated into every level of forest planning and management, from forestry cooperatives to global strategies. The concept of sustainability can be used to develop practices that decrease depletion and waste and reduce the threats to future generations. One goal of an independent product approach to certification is to establish a framework within which meaningful revisions and realignments can be formulated and examined. In summary, forests are critical for human welfare. They provide materials that we consume‹of which timber is a small part, as well as recreation, historical and mythical values, immense ecological services from water flow to wildlife, educational and scientific opportunities, and land for living and grazing.
The language of certification must address economic and management concerns, but it can never forget that the forest is a living, breathing being, and not a resource or a machine. Certification works to let us see forests as living systems composed of interacting beings. Furthermore, it contributes to the image of all forests as one ecological system, connected by water, birds, weeds, humans, and numerous other elements.