iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

Good or bad..?

Started by Edo, May 28, 2002, 04:05:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Edo

Forest Stewardship Council   (FSC)..

supposedly they exist in order to control and minimize unsustainable deforestation.

What do you think about it..? Do you work with it...?  Does it work as a tool for you..? Is it GOOD or BAD...and why..?

Do you know of an alternative...?

 :P curious  ;)

Jeff

Edo,

I take care of the Michigan Sustainable Forest Initiative website. www.michiganforestry.com I guess that is our alternative.

First paragraph on the website page called What is SFI?

The Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI)SM program, a program of the American Forest & Paper Association., is a comprehensive system of principles, objectives and performance measures, that integrates the long-term, sustained growing and harvesting of trees, with the protection of the environment in which they grow.  The concept of sustainability came from the findings of a 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, and was subsequently adopted by the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
Just call me the midget doctor.
Forestry Forum Founder and Chief Cook and Bottle Washer.

Commercial circle sawmill sawyer in a past life for 25yrs.
Ezekiel 22:30

Ron Wenrich

We had a discussion about the FSC on another thread.  You'll find it here:  https://forestryforum.com/cgi-bin/board/YaBB.pl?board=edu&action=display&num=1015252358

The FSC has certified the forests in our state forestry department in Pennsylvania.  That means they can put the FSC stamp on lumber harvested from those stands.  The government heads felt that was a good move, since they are promoting PA hardwoods to Europe.

For export, FSC or Pan-Euro would be a good certification.  SFI, which is American industry based, does not have as much recognition.

The usefulness of certification depends on your markets.  I have heard that the Europeans are getting more into the certified wood, especially rainforest wood.  However, I have never heard of any American firms that have had any inquiries for certified material from wholesalers.  Just no market force.

I think it is a bunch of hype, and is viewed as a marketing tool.   It can open some small niches, but is it worth the expense?  All bets would be off if a major retailer demanded certified wood and stuck to it.

We took a poll on certification about a month ago.  Unfortunately, I lost the data, but I do remember that our #1 choice was no certification at 42%.  It was followed by undecided at 21%.  FSC was the top of the 4 certifiers, followed by Tree Farm, then SFI, then Pan-Euro which received no votes.
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Tarm

I am having one of my woodlots certified under the FSC/Smartwood banner. Besides paying the forester $200.00 more for the extra work involved I'm not really required to do any forestry practices that I would not do anyway.  Since in my small sawlog stands most of the thinnings are still pulpwood and sawbolts I also do not expect any market premium. I am disturbed by the poor forest management and rampant high grading  that is occuring in private woodlots here in Wisconsin. If certification is a way to bring some of this under control through market forces and without the government mandating forest practices then I think my $200.00 is money well spent.  

Frank_Pender

I sure agree with you last sentence, Tarm.  I see most all of these such groups as a potential to telling me when and how I will cut my timber.   We about had such an order by way of a public vote a couple years ago, here in Oregon, with measure 64.  It went down with a sound no vote.   However, there is still a subtle movement about to resurace such a qustioning measure with more assumptions between the lines.  I had better get off my soapbox as it is beginning to get a bit slick. :-X
Frank Pender

Ron Scott

What extra work did the forester have to do that cost you an extra $200.00 for the service??
~Ron

Ron Wenrich

But, certification has no guranatees, either for consumer, producer or grower.

From a consumer aspect, they can only go with a stamp on a piece of material.  I bougt something that was certified, only to find that it was a certain process in the manufacturing, not in the growing or harvesting.  Consumers won't pay any extra premium for certified stock, as of yet.  And, there can be uncertified material mixed in.

Who oversees the producer?  Sure, you have a chain of custody, but no one checks every log.  You could buy junk from a certified stand, and put good material from uncertified stands as a replacement.  I've seen enough things on the manufacturing end to not trust it.  

Growers don't get any extra premium for certification.  They get premium for growing quality material.  If you allow high grading (and most landowners don't know it as high grading), then you've sold your future premium.  

For landowners to be effective, they should be organized into a cohesive management and marketing unit.  Letting sharecroppers come in and mine timber is a process that should have been dropped years ago.  

Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Tom

 I'm right in there with Ron.  I don't feel as strongly about the landowners being organized as he does but I feel they should stand together. It's the joining together of individuals into groups that ends up diminishing individuals.   What I mean by that is that a group must be managed and that creates a hierarchy.  Hierarchies create politics and minimize the voices in the lower echelons.  Before it is all over there is a class structure created where the "individuals" that started the organization to protect themselves are relegated to the position of surfdom and answer to the governing body.

I think we are too concerned with 'pigeon-holing' people from every aspect of life. We do it from the very beginning of a relationship to keep from complicating our lives with too many different things.  Everything has to be put in a minimal number of boxes regardless of whether they really belong or not.  It causes us to not have friends because they are in a different box than we are.  It causes us to use or not use products, live in specified areas, eat certain foods, etc., etc.

Perhaps it is just human nature, and as such is unavoidable, but it always scares me when things begin to be divided up and moved from the middle of the table to the corners.

Rather than try to get everyone on the same bandwagon by proving the virtues of the argument, we select a leadership so that we will have someone to follow, and begin to badger and intimidate and threaten non-compliance with failure.  

Perhaps I wish for a Utopia but why do we seem to have to always join a group and follow someone else.

I've seen the "self-imposed, industry policing of construction wood" create "laws" that are inforced by people who don't know how to judge right from wrong except by an ink stamp put on the product by someone who is assumed to know what he is doing.  

Now we find that a person isn't even doing the assigning of grade anymore and the job is being turned over to machines.  The fallacy of the system becomes evident when the product offered for sale doesn't meet the guidelines for the grade and nobody knows any different except for the inkstamp.  Not only does the general public not know what they are buying but legislators don't know what is being sold and can't provide inspectors that can prove the validity of the grade.

In the end it all boils down to the consumer going through a pile of wood in the Mega-Store and selecting the clearest and straightest stick that possesses his desired grain structure.

As a result there are producers and manufacturers who are shut out of the market because they can't produce the stamp to put on their product.

I see the same general dilema developing in the certification of forests, logs, lumber, product, and the licensing of people. (we need to draw a distinction between licensing and certification but it still creates a hierarchy.)

I'll ditto the statements Ron made about certification having no guarantees and would further the statement by saying that certification should not be used unless each and every item of product, or individual, could carry the guarantee of compliance.  Now if someone wants to argue "utopia", let them smoke that for awhile.

If they find that they like the taste then they should quickly make up their mind as to whether they are to live their life as one of the surfs or one of the monarchs.

Individualism will not be part of the equation.


Frank_Pender

Amen, Brother.  I will run my fiefdom without harm to my neighbors, lest they attempt to run mine or bring harm.   :)
Frank Pender

Edo

Thank you all for your responses.

I realize that any kind of control from the "outside" on a private company is a sensetive matter.

I brought up the subject, because my employers are in the business of "green timber"..and they make a lot of money with it.. and... people ARE willing to pay a little bit more for a product that is ethically  (whatever that means) better.

Hypocrite...?... Absolutely.....at least a part of it. As I told before.... I work with the FSC rules on a dailey basis... and the rules are...."bendable".....to say the least, and a lot has to be learned.

I do believe though that it is a good idea a step in the right direction.... BUT ...it will not work... if the governments do not cooperate. In Holland for example... the government educates and convinces the dutch population that buying timber that is grown, processed, bought or sold in a sound way, is ethically better than buying regular timber...this has resulted in a nearly full coverage of "green timber" in all stores..

I realize as well that the "top end" level of the deal (buying) will only work in "rich and comfortable" countries, where people can afford to pay a little bit more for a good consious.

Besides the market value of the timber product, certification does also promote "forestry education". Teaching the buyers that forestry does not have to be a "destructive" field of work, but must be seen as a crop industry, similar to for example Corn....with the only difference that it takes 20, 40, 60 or 80 years to grow.

In a world that is turning more and more "environment consious",....The forestry industry will have to grow and improve ...to be able to defend itself in front of the critical eye. Forestry sectors that have not done this in the past are in BIG trouble now.... looking at reforestation and deforestation companies all over the world (Africa, South America, etc.)

environmentalists --> it's naieve to think that people will stop buying wood... so timber production will not stop

foresters ---> it's naieve to think that because of this...forestry stands above all

Compromise is the way to a stable future for the forestry industry



Tom

Compromise for the sake of compromise leads to mediocrity.

I'm not convinced that Governments can do a job better than individuals.  

I would sooner lend my fate to a forester than an environmentalist any day.  Environmentalist are notorious for believing that the human race has no place or at the very least a minimal place in the ecology of the world.

Most foresters will spend there lives trying to make eco-systems work and work together rather than locking one up and hoping it doesn't get changed.

The Wall of China didn't promote advancement
The Romans, although a little messy about it, did by trying to teach what civilization was all about.

Ron Wenrich

Our state foresters do a better job of management on the state lands than most foresters do on the private lands.  They are not burdened with instant profits, fragmented lands, or short term management.  They also can do eco-system management better since they have a lot more specialists at their disposal.

Individuals always do better in the marketplace as a bigger unit.  Farmers have been doing this for years as co-ops.  Some, such as Blue Diamond and Sunkist, go all the way through with manufacturing and the farmers are better off.

The Swedish forest industry is represented by 25% co-op production.  This has afforded the members better marketshare, and better management.  They control everything from land to finished product.  The profits are retained by the members, who are the shareholders.  But, the co-ops there are more long term landowners, where land has been in the family for generations.

Edo:

Consumers in the US are not driven by the ethics of buying certified wood.  They only care about the cost.  Most environmental talk is a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of ethos.  Its all about power and money.

Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

timberbeast

I agree with Tom 100%.  A point made far more cogently than I could,  so I'll leave it there!
Where the heck is my axe???

Edo


I am positive that the general US citizen will be interested in green timber as well....

The Dutch are famous about being cheap and economical..... and many people (not all)..do agree on paying more...

It's all about education and explanation...in my opinion the Dutch government had a great deal to do with the acceptance of green wood by the population.

I forsee that the "green way" will be backed up soon by laws in the netherlands, making the market for "regular" timber not interesting.

In Africa many laws are already been implemented. For example, many countries have prohibited the export of round logs, with the intention to benifit economically and socially more from the timbertrade.

Ofcourse, corruption is inevitable.... but in my opinion it's a step in the right direction.

I agree that many "environmentalists" are TOO extreem... and they turn to ILLEGAL acts. such as trasspassing lands, hammering nails in trees, boobytrapping the forests and forestry vehicles...etc...
I do not simpathize with them at all.... ALL extreems are negative...

In my opinion FSC is saying nothing more than what a good forester would do anyway:

* maintain a friendly profile with your neigbours and workes.
* make sure you harvest...keeping in mind a fluent timberflow in the future
* Keep your accouting books well organized...
* keep track of the materials and manpower you use
* try minimizing the use of chemicals...

to name a few...

Ofcourse.....they should resprect desision making on a company level on certain aspects... and that's where some changes have to be implemented



Tom

Edo,
I like that little bulleted list you started at the end of your post.  It would be an interesting thing for all of our foresters to add to a list like that, designating what they feel a proper foresters attitude should be.  What an awakening we may have in the end when the list is finalized.  Perhaps it is the kind of list that may never be finalized.   :P :)

Ron Scott

I agree that FSC and all certifications are just saying what proper land and resource management should be and how it should be implemented by a professional forester.

Nothing new for an ethical forester with knowledge of management for sustainable ecosystems while practicing sustainable forestry.

"Integrate all resources so as not to violate the minimum resource standard for any one resource".

"Use Best Management Practices"

"Monitor and Evaluate the implementation of your practices"


~Ron

Ron Wenrich

Edo

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for our government to advocate green lumber.  Look at what they've been doing on the global warming debate.

It will only come from a consumer driven desire, and I don't see that happening in our marketplace any time soon.  If we have a larger dependence on European markets, then that could change.

You are going through the process of FSC certification.  How often will they check your operations after certification?
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Edo

First there's a pre-scoping visit....an overall evaluation of the farm.

Second there's the scoping visit, during which the farm is evaluated on specific fsc terms...

After that a yearly update and / or visit is recuired...

But that's for tropical plantations... where some of the trees grow 10 times as hard....so I can imagine that the pase of action is lower in colder climates and / or slow growth regions.

We help our clients in obtaining the FSC certification... and it is in some way of help to us... because it gives us an extra force, when our clients need to be convinced of some sylvicultural activities.

I do not know if the general objectives of the FSC differ between regions. But my experience with the certification...is that it does not go as far as many people might think.... and it's not that drastic a change to sound forestry policy...

although I believe that a lot of work needs to be done to finetune the rules and objectives and the way they need to be implemented..


Thank You Sponsors!