Sustainable Forestry Practices

Written by:  • Edited by: Niki Fears
Updated Aug 13, 2010
• Related Guides: Fuel

The services our forest eco-system provides to humanity and our planet as well as a brief overview of sustainable management practices and the organizations which oversee them.

Importance

The forest eco-system includes areas dominated by trees that completely or partially form a closed canopy. The importance of forests to humans is difficult to understate. In addition to the many goods they provide us including paper, lumber, pharmaceuticals, and fuel there are services that are at times overlooked. These include aiding in maintaining water quality and biodiversity, controlling floods, tourism, and carbon storage. These services, such as the increasingly important carbon sink capacity and water quality, do not operate with the same efficiency in young growth and/or plantations. This limits the appeal of the “just plant more argument”. Logging industry practices in developing nations are often comparable to those of the diamond industry in reference to worker exploitation. Considering the implications of not managing this system correctly, sustainable forestry practices demand to be explored, understood and utilized.

Who’s Regulating Who?

Complicating the matter of management is the number of watchdog organizations which establish and track sustainable forest management (SFM). A rather cursory search generated about fifteen of these organizations around the world. There are some key issues where they differ and no real way to verify they are doing what they claim. Even with this confusion there is some progress being made and trust being built by some of these organizations. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) are international and widely accepted as progressive. I argue the FSC is superior, as it better protects the biodiversity and the eco-system as a whole, for reasons which will be further expanded upon.

Future?

Sustaining forests is a complex issue. What is best for one forested region may not be so for another. Any issues which involve the changing of an institution in which many people rely create a multitude of economic and social issues. Biodiversity must be maintained and humans must be able to use the forests in the foreseeable future. The answer lies not in certification programs but in international agreements that mandate scientifically conclusive sustainable practices. For now, if you want to do your part to protect these resources, my suggestion is to consume less wood products, and when you do look for the Forest Stewardship Council seal.


Comments

Showing all 5 comments
 
Don Shepard Aug 20, 2010 8:49 AM
RE: Sustainable Forestry Practices
Chris, thanks for acknowledegment that comparing systems is indeed a good idea. While I am not an industry "expert" I do have some knowledge of these certification systems, and am leary of "experts" anyway. Yes I'm sure there are some factors that are not so simple and not having thouough knowldedge of the industry hurts in comparing them. This article was originally written over a year ago, and references were taken out. At the time I found a PEFC statement on GMOS as stating only varieties producing negative impacts on ecosystems or not yet thoroughly evaluated should not be used. I don know PEFC changes their wording on GM forests often, and likely did so again in 2010. The deleted portion of my article stated I was agreeing with the World Resource Institutes evaluation of the two certs. I am indeed leary of WRI "experts" as well, but the gen public needs ways of evaluating these certs to make proper decisions, otherwise I see little point to them and they will likely be overun with misuse and untruths like every govt agency and most other environmental certs.
Chris Spitta Aug 20, 2010 3:38 AM
Sustainable Forestry Practices
Don, fully agree that we should do the best.

However, "comparing" PEFC and FSC requires a good knowledge of their respective systems, plus knowledge of forestry in general - and is incredibly difficult even for experts, so I am not sure whether it makes sense to do it in such a forum such as Bright Hub.

You mentioned for example GMOs and chemicals.

GMOs are also not allowed in PEFC: "GMO cannot be considered as part of PEFC certified material." (http://pefc.org/forest-issues/sustainability/biodiversity).

Chemicals: It is true that FSC prohibits WHO 1a and 1b, while PEFC does not. But do you know how many chemicals listed on those two lists actually occur in forest management? Very few. And do you know that you may also be able to use them under FSC under their "derogation" policy? And do you know that forest owners have difficulties with this requirement, because they need to use chemicals to deal with pests, and while they may finally be granted a derogation, this process takes up to three years, so forest managers need to use chemicals and risk loosing their certification because pests simply don't wait three years?

On the other hand, FSC certifies way more plantations than PEFC. And as you may imagine, chemical use in plantations is pretty high.

On the other hand, PEFC requires compliance with the fundamental ILO conventions in all countries - FSC doesn't. Also, under PEFC all standards need to be developed in multi-stakeholder dialogues, while the majority of the FSC standards are so called "interim" standards - developed by certification bodies themselves, with limited staekholder input. Certification bodies then certify agaist the standards they themselves have developed - not really third party certification in my opinion.

I could go on about such differences, but I think that these points already show that both standards have their strength and their weaknesses, so preferences are based on value judgements rather than which system is "better"
Don Shepard Aug 19, 2010 2:33 PM
RE: Sustainable Forestry Practices
Chris, certainly a fair question and one that was addressed before some editor apparently decided it best to take out an entire paragraph of the article, ewhich explained why I state FSC is better the PEFC. It boiled down to the FSC taking a more forceful stance against the use of certain chemicals and GMO's in forests. I do agree that more forests need certified, and the which is better issue is certainly debatable.
However, not comparing certification systems seems akin to the types of practices that got us to this point in the first place. Full speed ahead with the "right" way, whether proper evaluation is done or not

Read more: http://www.brighthub.com/environment/science-environmental/articles/39735.aspx#ixzz0x4vOZvlP
Chris Spitta Aug 19, 2010 11:04 AM
Superiority
Looking forward to your explanation of why you think FSC is "better" than PEFC.... Though I am not even sure that any such comparison is useful - with more than 90% of the world's forests not certified, first priority should be to expand certification.
Teri Stewart Aug 17, 2010 10:46 AM
help
what is being done to preserve the white deer species
 
blog comments powered by Disqus
Email to a friend