State by State

Bill,

Your list of things that FSC should do to push back on SFI's propaganda is a good one. Facts such as those you call for won't stop SFI and its allies from pressuring states and federal agencies to turn away from LEED and to favor instead Green Globes and NAHBGreen (the SFIs of green building), but they will equip LEED and FSC's supporters and allies with a better set of arguments in what should be a vigorous countervailing effort to defend and promote high standards, whether for green building in general or forest management in particular.

Regarding comparisons of FSC and SFI, here are a links to a couple of recent pieces that I think do a pretty good job of laying out the key differences:

http://www.jasongrantconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/FSC-v-SFI...

http://www.jasongrantconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TrimTab-S...

Cheers

Jason

Jason, that is indeed a good list regarding environmental impacts and governance, but it says nothing about local economies. I like Bill's idea of FSC fighting back with statistics. They don't win over the public, generally speaking, but they can be good for educating legislators. I don't think it will stop SFI's attempts, but it might convince enough of the right people. Additionally, I think FSC could do a lot of education about local environmental impacts, telling some stories to legislators in targeted states about how FSC protects specific habitats and species that tourism dollars rely on. But deciding to spend those dollars on lobbying instead of on directly protecting forests is something they must struggle with.

Bill

I would amend your list as follows:

FSC
- Open membership and democratically elected governing board with 3 equal chambers (environmental, social, economic). BoD majorities required in all three to make changes. Major decisions are put to the membership, where each chamber has equal voting power.
- More rigorous standard and audit process. Typical forest management audit is done over 29 days by 5 people (1160 hours) with an average 51 page public summary.
- Audits focus on on-the-ground performance
- Requires 3rd party certification.
- Harvest never exceeds growth.
- Clearcutting not allowed in some forest types and limited in others. In natural forests in the U.S., max. clearcuts 2-20 acres based on region. Max. clearcut size 80 acres for plantations
- Prohibits changing forests into tree plantations.
- Protects old growth
- FSC labeled product lines require inputs from FSC-certified forests into the production process (relative quantities depend on whether it is FSC 100% or MSC Mix)
- No GMO’s are allowed to be planted.
- Goes above and beyond laws and state-level "best management practices" to protect habitat, species, and use of chemicals.

SFI
- No membership and self-appointed governing board with 3 chambers. BoD majorities required in only two to make changes.
- Typical audit is 6 days by 2 people (96 hours) with an average 5 page public summary of mostly boiler plate information.
- Audits focus more on systems/process than on-the-ground performance.
- Allows self-certification with an option for third-party certification.
- Harvest can exceed growth over a rotation or longer and offers no protection against cumulative depleting activities. Harvest level is calculated by ownership rather than at the planning level, thereby allowing over-harvest on portions of large ownerships with 'compensatory' growth far away.
- Clear cutting common no size limit on individual clearcuts. Clearcuts must not exceed a 120 acre average across an entire ownership which may span multiple states. This can be manipulated by combining larger clearcuts with much smaller ones in the same harvest period.
- Allows converting native forests into tree plantations.
- Requires "plans" to protect old growth, but this can be satisfied by, for example, supporting the protection of old growth in nearby parks. No specific requirements for protecting old growth on the ownerships of SFI-certified companies.
- Products with the SFI fiber sourcing label can contain zero inputs from SFI-certified forests into the production process of the labeled product(s)
- GMO’s are allowed to be planted.
- Does little beyond the legal minimum to comply with protecting habitat, species, and use of chemicals.

Paula, your points are good ones, but FSC lacks the resources to do a state-by-state lobbying effort. FSC US has a full-time staff of 6.

"FSC lacks the resources to do a state-by-state lobbying effort. FSC US has a full-time staff of 6."

This tells you that the SFI has more funding for lobbying adventures. That money is all, or nearly all, provided by the industry members supporting SFI. If you could follow the money-chain to the supporters/donors you are likely to find companies that do not comply with FSC. They either tried and decided that the effort to comply was too expensive, or they never tried at all.

This is all too true. I'm not sure if you saw, but a few years back ForestEthics did a report that contains a sort of diagram of the lines of funding and influence between the major timber companies and SFI:

http://forestethics.org/re-straightening-the-record-stop-sustainable-for...

Sadly, this is all part of a much larger and very well-funded lobbying effort that now includes the chemical industry. Fighting that is going to be really difficult for any organization, which means a lot of this is going to be up to consumers.