| U.S. weighs sustainability seal for national forests |
|
|
|
|
The Forest Service is considering joining the ranks of private and
state forest managers who have had their lands and timber products
stamped with a "green" label.
At issue is whether the federal agency should apply for an independent certification of one or more national forests — an effort that is gaining momentum following a report last month from the nonpartisan Pinchot Institute for Conservation. Certification for the wood products industry is a voluntary, nonregulatory, market-based promotion of responsible forestry practices that ensures wood is harvested from sustainably managed forests. For the Forest Service, which already operates under strong environmental laws, certification would offer an image boost. "The national forests out of all land ownerships in the United States have had 30 years of intense controversy," said Al Sample, president of the Pinchot Institute. "When it comes to the question of providing public reassurance and rebuilding trust, they feel third party certification could be something of great value." Forest Service senior policy analyst Doug MacCleery said the agency could benefit by having an independent, third-party evaluation of its activities, comparing them with international standards and reporting to the public and stakeholders. "It's a feedback loop and it's also a communication mechanism to let you understand how we're doing," MacCleery said. Certifying U.S. forests could also boost efforts to promote certification overseas, helping Brazil, Indonesia and Madagascar address sustainability problems and reduce illegal logging, according to the Forest Service's associate chief, Sally Collins. "To be fully credible in encouraging other countries to consider forest certification, it seemed critical that we explore certification of the lands we ourselves manage, the national forests," Collins said at the Society of American Foresters annual meeting in Portland, Ore., last month. But some environmentalists are skeptical about the service's efforts. Franz Matzner of the Natural Resources Defense Council, for one, characterized the certification talk as a prelude to try and bypass federal regulations and public participation. "It quickly transforms into an attempt to substitute the certification for those environmental laws and regulations designed for public lands for something that's designed to work for a private market system," Matzner said. Pinchot report The Forest Service took a major step toward certification last month with the publication of a $500,000 Pinchot Institute study of five national forests: Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin, the Lakeview Federal Stewardship Unit on the Fremont-Winema National Forest in Oregon, Mount Hood National Forest in Oregon, and the National Forest in Florida. Pinchot flagged several major problems national forests have been wrestling with for years including the road maintenance backlog; declining forest health due to wildfires, insect infestations and disease; increased use of off-highway vehicles; impacts of oil and gas development; and, problems with training and safety standards for contractors on national forests. Notably, the auditors found the forests weren't cutting enough trees. "In all cases harvests did not reach levels necessary to achieve a future condition reflecting their social, economic and ecological goals," the audit stated. In the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, auditors said a backlog in timber harvests could lead to increased disease and pest outbreaks. A backlog in Florida means forests have been unable to meet habitat objectives for the red-cockaded woodpecker. And Oregon's Mount Hood and Fremont-Winema have been unable to cope with "overstocked conditions" that could lead to wildfires. "The forest managers are already aware of the problems," Sample said, but they often lack the money or the resources to address them. "In some ways this could be really good to the Forest Service," Sample added. "If they want to make this commitment, it could result in significant improvements in forest management on the ground." Auditors were impressed with the level of analysis that went into plans and projects at the forests it studied, citing the "completeness" of management information and the "quality and thoroughness of scientific data used in planning for projects." Auditors also praised the agency's level of consultation with stakeholders, especially American Indian tribes, as several of the forests have working agreements with nearby tribes. Pinchot used the two major certification schemes — the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). FSC, an international process that emphasizes environmental and community stewardship, has certified more than 220 million acres of forest worldwide and 23 million acres in the U.S. SFI, founded by the U.S. timber industry but now with an independent board of conservationists, scientists and industry representatives, has certified nearly 54 million acres in the United States. About 14 million acres of public lands — in states including Maryland, North Carolina and Pennsylvania — have been certified by both standards. Pinchot did not attempt to quantify how close the forests are to meeting the FSC or SFI marks, but Sample noted the five forests met or exceeded most certification standards. The Forest Service will host a series of meetings with stakeholders to review the report and determine whether or not to pursue certification for individual forests. Strong laws "In a well-managed forest, the harvest of timber for wood products is entirely compatible with a variety of other uses, including water, wildlife, biodiversity, aesthetics and recreational use," Collins said in her Portland speech, but if the Forest Service pursues certification, that balance could be put to the test. Although NRDC endorses FSC on its Web site, Matzner said the certification program was not designed to monitor management of national forests, which already are protected by strong federal laws including NEPA, the National Forest Management Act and the Appeals Reform Act. "FSC is the gold standard but that is in no way relevant to this proposal," Matzner said. "We're talking about national forests that have a different place and multiple purposes," Matzner said. "They benefit from the regulatory system and environmental laws that we have that specifically require public participation and evaluation to meet the changing needs of the American people." Collins said certification could add new burdens for the agency on top of existing regulations. "We already have the most comprehensive laws and regulations for forest management in the world, and the national forests and grasslands are already managed in a transparent public process," Collins said. "Certification would require the Forest Service to take a number of steps that might include adding new procedures to management systems that are already fairly process-heavy." Auditors cited NEPA as an administrative process that potentially delays on-the-ground activities but noted its utility in engaging stakeholders and acquiring public input. Collins acknowledged that certification could be perceived as reinforcing an emphasis on timber management. "However, what is being certified under the FSC and SFI systems is not timber management, but rather sustainable forestry practices," she said. "The whole suite of ecosystem services that flows from a certified landscape, such as clean water and biomass, could potentially be certified as well." Click here to view the report and evaluations for individual forests.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (0)
 Write comment
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
