4/3/08



## Forest Certification

And Its Implications for America’s National Forests

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

This Q&A paper provides basic background informatio n on this issue, including the history of the U.S. government’s involvement, describes the steps the F orest Service will take next, weighs some of the po tential pros and cons of National Forest certification, and addr esses several additional questions of particular im portance. As the issue continues to evolve, further information and updates will be provided.

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

1. What is forest certification? Forest certification is a non-regulatory means of p romoting responsible forest management practices, and is one of the most significant innov ations in forestry of the last quarter century. It was developed in the 1990s by a variety of non-gove rnmental interests around the world who sought new approaches for improving forest manageme nt. Certification was designed to provide assurance by an independent, third party that a for est management operation meets standards set by a particular certification program. It is norma lly open to all types of landowners, who apply voluntarily to have their forests assessed to deter mine whether they meet the standards. The most credible standards typically cover a comprehen sive range of environmental, social and economic attributes, and establish requirements not only for planning and management systems, but also for measurable performance on the ground. Although the harvesting of timber or nontimber forest products is not necessarily required, certification is usually associated with the ecolabeling of such products, and with “chain-of-custo dy” certification which ensures that the labeled products originate in a certified forest, t hereby creating a market-based incentive for good forest management.

While there are four certification programs operati ng in the U.S. today, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Sustainable Forestry Initiati ve (SFI) are the two major programs and are most suitable for large areas of public lands. The area of SFI and FSC certified forests in the U.S. has increased from virtually none in 1998 to over 6 0 million acres today. Over 14 million acres of primarily state-owned public lands have been cer tified in the U.S., mostly to both SFI and

FSC standards.

2. What has been the role of the U.S. government in ce rtification to date? Internationally, the U.S. government, through such agencies as the State Department U.S. Forest Service and the U. S. Agency for International Deve lopment, has been active in numerous forest policy arenas where certification has been extensiv ely discussed over the last decade. Throughout this period, the basic U.S. approach has been to regard certification as an important market-based tool to promote and create incentives for the improved management of forests, and as a private sector activity that should remain ind ependent of government. Accordingly, while it is appropriate for our government to establish nati onal legal and institutional frameworks to encourage responsible forest management, U.S. gover nment agencies believe that it would be2

inappropriate for them to endorse, or be perceived to endorse, any particular certification program, or to set standards or policies for such p rograms.

The U.S. has long sought to encourage and assist ot her countries in building their legal and institutional capacities to improve the management of their forests. Many countries have expressed interest in certification as a means of s uch improvement, and much of the land certified worldwide to date is owned by national go vernments. The International Programs office of the Forest Service has been actively supp orting international partners in their efforts to improve forest management and monitoring and has pr ovided technical assistance to that end in numerous countries, including Mexico, Honduras, Bra zil, Bolivia, Peru, Guyana, Russia, China, Indonesia, Cameroon, Liberia, Ghana, and Gabon. In many instances, these improvements have allowed land owners to pursue independent certifica tion. Increasingly, countries that have worked closely with the U.S. on these issues over t he years have asked why our National Forests

have not been certified.

3. What is the history of Forest Service interest in t he question of National Forest

certification?

The Forest Service’s interest in forest certificati on began to develop in the 1990s, both domestically and internationally. However, at that time FSC auditors had little experience on public lands and SFI had not yet launched a third p arty certification program. In the late 90s, the FSC also developed a Federal Lands Policy which set some special conditions that would need to be met before the FSC would be willing to consider National Forests to be open to certification

assessment.

During this time, Forest Service policy has been to not seek certification for National Forests, and this policy is still in effect. Nevertheless, over the years the Forest Service has been approached by various outside organizations and com munities who have encouraged the agency to explore certification, and some have suggested c arrying out pilot tests of certification on National Forest System (NFS) lands. As certificati on has become more widespread globally among landowners of all types, and as more question s have been raised internationally about why our National Forests are not certified, the For est Service decided in 2005 to participate in an independent pilot study involving five units of the NFS.

The study was funded mostly by Forest Service appro priations (except for contributions from the non-profit Heinz Foundation and the Collins Pine Co mpany to cover the costs of the certification audits on two of the study units). The study was ca rried out by the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, an independent non-profit research an d education organization. The Pinchot Institute used existing SFI and FSC standards to as sess the current management of the five units (although the tests were completely independent of SFI and FSC and were not designed to lead to actual certification). A number of additional c onsiderations were added to the standards to reflect the unique role of National Forests in Amer ica. The goals of the study were to see how current NFS management aligned with the two sets of certification standards, and to enable the Forest Service to more effectively evaluate the ben efits and costs of certification as it develops related policy and management options for the futur e – including whether to formally pursue

certification.

The final report of the Pinchot study was released in October 2007 and is available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/forestcertification/i ndex.shtml

.3

NEXT STEPS AND PROCEDURES

4. What will the Forest Service do next? Although the results of the Pinchot pilot study wer e very encouraging, the Forest Service has not yet decided whether it will seek certification for the National Forest System. The Forest Service already has what it believes are the most comprehen sive laws and regulations for forest management in the world, and the National Forests a nd Grasslands are already managed in a transparent public process which is also subject to judicial review in the Federal courts. Certification would present some challenges, as wel l as some costs, risks and uncertainties, but also several potentially significant benefits.

The next step will be for the Forest Service to fur ther evaluate the potential costs and benefits,

and to seek the views of stakeholders and other int erested parties to promote a broader and deeper dialogue on the question of certification as it relates to National Forest lands.

5. If the Forest Service were to seek certification of NFS lands, what process would need to

be followed?

If the Forest Service were to decide to seek certif ication, several things would need to happen. First, both the FSC and SFI certification programs would need to make a number of internal policy decisions.

SFI has already expressed a willingness to work wit h the Forest Service to certify NFS lands, but SFI would likely need to consider how certain eleme nts of its standards would apply to such lands. With respect to the FSC, the pre-conditions in its Federal Lands Policy, which apply to any federal land management agency or system seekin g FSC certification, would have to be met. The three conditions are: (1) a willing landowner, e.g., the Forest Service; (2) a determination that public consensus exists regarding management o f the NFS; and (3) development of a set of new standards specific to the NFS to more effective ly evaluate its unique legal, procedural, and governance mandates and structure. To date, none of these FSC conditions have been met.

In addition, a landowner seeking SFI or FSC certifi cation must formally commit to reporting and management measures specific to each certification program. How and whether the Forest

Service could make these commitments would need to be determined.

SOME PROS AND CONS

6. What might be some of the benefits and costs of NFS certification?

Potential benefits of NFS certification could include:

• Certification would provide independent review of N FS management practices by a credible third-party organization, giving the Forest Service another perspective on how its management compares with the current ‘state-of-the- art’, enhancing NFS quality control, and helping the general public better understand and as sess how National Forests are managed.4

• Certification could result in management improvemen ts. For example, if an independent certification audit team identifies management weak nesses that need to be corrected before the forest could be certified, the Forest Service m ay decide to make such improvements. If the forest is certified with conditions attached, c alled ‘Corrective Action Requests’, the Forest Service would be required to take the correc tive actions in order to maintain the certification. Finally, once corrective actions ar e recommended by a credible, independent auditor, stakeholders and the Congress may have an incentive to support and encourage the

Forest Service to take such actions.

• The addition of certified forest product supply fro m National Forests could help expand the market for such product, thereby providing addition al certified market opportunities for the private sector and further incentives for managemen t improvements on privately-owned

forests.

• Becoming certified could increase the credibility a nd influence of the Forest Service’s work with other countries to help improve the management of forests around the world.

Potential costs of NFS certification could include:

• The FSC’s special standards for NFS lands may end u p being inconsistent with existing management plans and/or federal resource management policies.

• After the Forest Service commits to certification, FSC or SFI may modify their standards or change their requirements in other ways, complicati ng compliance and increasing costs.

• Meeting certification standards may add procedural burdens to existing NFS management systems. There are also requirements that the land owner make various formal commitments to FSC and SFI as a prerequisite to becoming certif ied, and the full implications of these commitments are not yet understood.

• The direct monetary costs of a certification audit, and of Forest Service staff preparation for it, are not insignificant. Based on the Pinchot stu dy experience, costs would include the initial certification audit ($70-80 K per National Forest); annual audits (c. $20K per year); a full re-audit every 5 years (c. $60-70 K); some ad ditional annual monitoring and paperwork requirements; and staff time to prepare for and pa rticipate in the audits (between 50 and 150 person days per forest).

• Certification assessments by an independent auditor do not automatically lead to certification. The Forest Service may spend funds for a certification audit, but, if management weaknesses and performance gaps are foun d, the agency may be unwilling or unable to spend additional funds to change forest m anagement enough to qualify for certification, thus reducing the value of the initi al expenditure.

• Failure of a National Forest to become certified ma y generate adverse public reaction with potential political or legal consequences.

• If major performance gaps are identified by a certi fication assessment, there is some uncertainty over how the Forest Service would addre ss them if they are outside the control of individual National Forests, particularly if they m ight take several years or require actions by other federal agencies or Congress to resolve (e.g. , those requiring additional appropriations).

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

7. If the Forest Service were to seek certification, w ould all NFS lands be involved, or only

some of them?5

This question has not been resolved and will be det ermined by several factors, including SFI and FSC policies and requirements. For example, FSC po licies strongly encourage large landowners to have all of their lands certified, and restrict public statements and claims when only some parts of the ownership are certified. Further dial ogue with NFS stakeholders and with FSC and SFI will help illuminate the options.

8. Would becoming certified require changes in current National Forest management? It depends. Landowners seeking certification do so with the policies, management objectives, and systems they already have in place. Certificati on programs assess whether these policies and their implementation meet the certification standar ds. If they do not meet the standards, it is up to the landowner to decide whether to make any changes in management in order to comply.

The Forest Service has numerous executive and legis latively mandated processes for determining how NFS lands are managed. Such mandates address t he amount of forest products harvested, the extent of roadless area and Wilderness designat ions, and other management decisions affecting natural resource restoration, biodiversit y protection, water quality and watershed protection, fire fuels management, grazing, mineral and oil exploration and extraction, development of water storage and distribution facil ities, motorized and other recreation, and other developments. Existing statutes also govern the processes through which the Forest Service makes decisions and carries out management activities, such as those requiring the evaluation of potential ecological effects, and the collection and consideration of public input. Pursuing certification would not exempt the agency from meeting these mandates, or from carrying out its normal planning and budgeting proc esses. However, meeting certification standards may require the Forest Service to modify its management in specific ways, and it is possible that some modifications would require the support of Congress and the public.

9. Would certification interfere with or preclude Fore st Service compliance with existing laws or regulations?

No.

10. Would NFS public involvement procedures be affected by certification? Any public involvement procedures already required by law would still apply, regardless of the outcome of an independent certification assessment or the certification of a National Forest. If certification audits were to uncover performance ga ps that required corrective actions, any major Forest Service action that would normally trigger e stablished public involvement and environmental review procedures (including those un der the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act) would still do so.

11. If a National Forest were certified, what would hap pen if action by the courts, Congress or administration resulted in the inability of that forest to continue to comply with the

certification standards? Normally, a certifier would create a Corrective Act ion Request with a deadline by which the

landowner would have to take the action in order to comply with the standards. Provided the Forest Service could comply by the deadline, the ce rtificate would likely remain valid. If not, the certificate would typically be revoked by the c ertifier. However, court action or acts of Congress resulting in the inability of the agency t o comply with certification standards would probably be considered final, and thus more likely to lead to revocation of the certificate for that

forest.