Some Thoughts on Sustainable Forestry

[caryr]

I attended a seminar on sustainable forestry earlier this week and thought I would share a couple of things I found interesting.

The keynote speaker was talking about sustainability from a global perspective. One of his key points was that we are not doing a good job balancing the ecological preservation of the planet as a whole. There are many islands and tropical regions that have a large number of species, many endangered or threatened, that have no reserves while we have huge tracks in other countries set aside for a couple of species. These differences are also found within countries. The Spotted Owl (West) vs the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (South) is but one example of this disparity.

His talk was more to get people thinking about the problem vs proposing solutions, though one obvious solution for the intra country disparity is to use a REIT as the financial vehicle to acquire needed habitat and then trade it with the government for land in an area that has a disproportionate amount of habitat. The inter country disparity is a bit harder to solve.

The second item was from a panel session that had both SFI and FSC representatives. The basic statement was that they should stop the oneupmanship mentality they have been practicing and try to do something to bring the global average up. The perspective this was coming from was that they (SFI and FSC) are making the best better, but are not really helping to address the problems caused by inadequate timber practices in developing countries (illegal logging, over reliance on fuel wood, etc.). Helping to fix these problems would likely have a much larger impact on the global endangered species than their current focus.

I may be able to get the slides from the key note address if anyone is interested.

Cary

[Sprucegum]

Forhive my ignorance - what does REIT stand for and what does it do?

[crtreedude]

Boy, perhaps I should not say anything here - but that has never stopped me before.  :

I LIVE in the tropics. The issue isn't really illegal logging - it is food. Hard to eat bark folks. Yes, there are too many monocrop forest - but honestly, that doesn't really bother me - as long as other areas are protected that have biological diversity.

I have plantations - and I DON'T pay for FSC to tell me I am doing it right. We picked up roots, we moved here, we took our life savings and planted trees to help in reforestation - and FSC has the gall to say that they need to approve me?  >:( What little extra I have is not going to someone to say I am doing the right thing!

Also, Costa Rica has strict laws - perhaps much stricter than in the USA. For example, we have trees - valuable trees - that can not be cut - period. Heck, if they die and fall you still can't cut them. Jail time if you do. Is there anything in the USA or Canada like that?  I am not sure of the laws up there - but I sure know them here!

Yes, the tropics is very very important - but I am not sure FSC has the right to stick their face in it. Costa Rica is stricter than they are as far as I know. After all - FSC can't throw you in jail.

So far, my take on a lot of the sustainable forestry is a way for the same old practices to be dressed up for the public. One of my biggest issues with FSC is that I have driven by plantations that are certified by them - they are poisoning the streams with pesticides and fertilizer on a wide scale. They have planted in areas that are not suitable, and some of these plantations have been some of the biggest scams out there. I don't want to be associated with them.  It is bad enough that since I grow trees in Costa Rica at times people think it is a scam.  :(

The following is a good article about one of the plantations: http://www.treemail.nl/teakscan.dal/files/sting.htm The author is one of the experts in teak plantations down this way. Notice that Rainforest Alliance said they were just fine. Don't try to make their numbers on a plantation - pure fiction. They also planted on some of the worst soil in Costa Rica. (They have since gone belly up and reformed under a new name. )

This is my take on the whole thing - I have yet to receive a penny from any environmental organization - however, I have more than a few hard working people who have trusted me with money for their future to help grow trees. Often I believe that the only thing that some of these environmental groups do well is take peoples money. Too much talk, not enough action. I hope I am wrong.

Okay, off soapbox for a bit...

[wesdor]

I like the concept of Sustainable Forestry and would appreciate seeing the slides from the conference you attended.

However, getting a local forester to give much attention seems just about impossible (I know there have been major funding cuts in Illinois).  I hear what you are saying CRTreedude - about the organizations that should be doing the most are caught up in the politics of the movement.

http://www.timbergreenforestry.com/page103.html

Above is a site I ran into a while back.  I've never met the gentleman, but he seems to have some real world experience with organized sustainable forestry, and not much of it is very good.

I think this topic is vitally important and hope the discussion continues.

[caryr]

A REIT is a security that trades like a stock, but invests in property or mortgages. There are a number of REITs that already invest in forest property as their focus. The reason you would use a REIT for this type of activity is to raise the money needed to purchase the land initially.

CR,

Please don't misread what I typed. There was no implication that FSC or anyone else should be regulating things. The point was that there are other, probably more important, things for them to be considering than we only allow a five acre clear cut while the other guys allow twenty. I like you manage my property to my standard. If it happens to be congruent with a particular certification standard that's fine, but it is not why I do things the way I do.

I agree that food is a big problem and has been the primary cause of much deforestation, but what I find unique about the rain forest situation is the extremely high percentage of nutrients that are contained in the living matter. Remove all the living material and the ground becomes almost useless. I wonder how much better your forest will grow in a few generations once the ground has been recharged and do those other species that are suppressed in a mono crop contribute to/accelerate the soil rebuilding.

To me sustainable forestry is as much about the ecosystem the trees grow in as it is about the trees. Yes I still expect a reasonable ROI from my forest, but I'm willing to give up a little to make my little piece of the world a better place.

Also, It was my understanding that pesticides were prohibited by FSC and fertilization was either strongly discouraged or prohibited as well.

Take care,

Cary

[Jeff]

I am all for sustainable forestry but am somewhat disillusioned on how sometimes the term is used by industry as a badge of responsible business practices when sometimes in reality its nothing more then a badge without a body.

Case in point:

The mill where I worked sells pulpwood to several of the "big boys".  The big boys in the name of Sustainable Forestry INSIST that the loggers and contractors are certified under the Sustainable Forestry Initiative and stay certified through on going classes and continuing education every year. This all sounds good, but in reality the Almighty dollar still comes first before wise use.  When these companies pushing the SFI agendas fall short of raw materials to run their plants, their tune changes. A couple years ago our mill could hardly buy an aspen log. Why? Because most of the loggers around were under contract to the big boys. The big boys put the word out that EVERYTHING was to be brought to them by anyone that was logging on their stumpage, or had been fronted money to pay for the jobs they were on or they would lose their contracts. One of our usual suppliers was in some snow white stuff running around 16" DBH. No better saw logs can be had when you are talking aspen.  He HAD to send them to the OSB plant. No choice.

This of course drove up the price of logs beyond reason.  Wise use? Wise is based on profit.

[Riles]

The forest soils folks will tell you that you can't really "recharge" a tropical soil, except through fertilization. Tropical soils are poor because they're extremely weathered, the nutrients are long gone or in the vegetation. If you remove the biomass, you remove the nutrients. Now you CAN plant nitrogen fixing plants that will add nitrogen to the soil. Nitrogen is a nutrient, but in this case it won't be the limiting factor. Phosphorus and Potassium are going to hold back growth.

I guess if you're not allowed to add fertilizer to the soil, you could add organic matter to get the same effect. Can you imagine a shipload of slash shipped to the tropics to replace the nutrients lost by logging?

[crtreedude]

Caryr,

No offense taken - I guess it hits a sore point with me. What some of these certifications systems cause is a kind of blackmail.

I think education creates sustainable models. You will always have the rape and pillage crowd - but they won't do it on my lands. Pretty soon - they die out. We have sawmill after sawmill closing - why? Mainly because they survive on wood being cut from often areas that shouldn't be. As these areas dry up, so does the wood, and then the sawmills close.

I would be all for certification - if it wasn't so political. If someone were to say, fine, we agree you are doing a good thing - I would be for it, but if I have to toe the line and do it their way, instead of running my own experiments - well, that I don't agree with.

The purpose of the plantation needs to be taken into effect - not if you are doing what they agree with.

Case in point:

The government here will give no assistance in planting Mahogany. Now, I understand this because it is difficult to grow - there is a butterfly that will cause major problems. That is fine, I am growing it myself and having some success - and plan on having more in the future. Because it is nearly impossbile to grow  in plantations - the price just keeps going up and up. The lastest price is 1,500 dollars per cubic meter - and just not available. There was an article about a year ago that said smuggling mahogany is actually more profitable than cocaine.   

What I did do for certification was have a major ecological site I actually like because it tries to balance the issues come down and investigate us - and I paid for the trip.  I gave him total freedom to write whatever he wished about us.

If anyone wants to read it, here is the link. http://www.ecoworld.com/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=369

[crtreedude]

Just to correct a misunderstanding that is very common - not all tropical soils are poor. We have a 1/2 a meter of volcanic topsoil at one finca and 1 meter at the other.  Stick a stick into the ground - and it will grow. We have to prune our fence posts. 

The key is being near volcanoes. But not TOO near!  :

FDH has seen our plantation - you can ask what our growth is like.

But, overall - you are correct - most tropical soils are very poor.

[Riles]

I stand corrected. I was referring to Oxisols and overlooked Andisols. That said, Andisols are 1% of the world's ice free surface and are associated with cool climates (volcanic slopes), not something you normally thing of when you hear "tropics."

[caryr]

Jeff,

If transgressions like this are common I would have a talk with their certifier. If this was an abnormal situation. I can understand possible altering the rules a bit, but this should only be based on a plan with an extensive post review to ensure this didn't happen again in the future. It is unfortunate that all that good Aspen was turned into OSB, but that is what can happen in a free market economy. It's also a shame that old growth is still turned into structural lumber instead of something you can see and appreciate.

Riles,

I understand what you are saying. By recharge I meant the reestablishment of a normal nutrient cycle. Which does have some of the nutrients decomposing in/on the soil.


I see certification as an environmental audit. We are all familiar with companies having their books audited by an external entity. To me certification is basically the same thing. An external entity verifying you are doing the right thing.

Cary

[Texas Ranger]

REIT.  Real Estate Investment Trust.  A large percentage of old timber company land in south east Texas is being turned into (bought) by REIT's.

[crtreedude]

I think one of the problems is that much of this is "feel good" stuff. A law is passed, but they don't realize the reprocussions. For example:

Here, because of the need, a law was passed prohibiting cutting trees within 15 meters of a water source like a river or a stream if the land is flat, if it is steep - it is 50 meters. I agree with this as a method of protecting the water ways from siltration.

All fine and good, except the law was passed, without the funds to enforce, and people knew that (as in, what else is new...  : ), so, the people who didn't care started harvesting the trees around the rivers and streams as fast as they could before they started to enforce it!

So, the law which was to curb the activity - generated a lot more of it.

In my not so humble opinion, I agree - these certification programs are an audit - and you can see just about how much that matters when applied to a large client in the case of Enron and Arthur Anderson.

Beware - often certification programs are a way to squeeze out the small producers - who are often not the problem anyway. You see, the big boys can work around the rules or have people to fill out the paperwork - but not the startups.

wesdor, I have seen that website and I am on his mailing list - he definitely has opinions about certification!

Regarding recharging the soil - what is the rate in the North? Isn't like rebuilding 1" of topsoil per hundred years? It just takes longer for the erosion to occur because you have a lot more depth. By the way, we have a lot of leaf litter in the plantations - it just doesn't occur at one time of the year. It is like early fall, all the time. As the trees grow, there are always leafs falling. Teak leaves sound like sandpaper due to the high silicone content. It takes them a while to break down too. Also, a teak leaf often is 2 feet long and about 1 foot or more wide.

Many of the grasses and trees here are nitrogen fixing. I have read what you are saying before - but honestly, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me living here when I see people doing what is supposed to be impossible. For example, we don't even use fertilizer except when we first plant on our lands - if I want a shot of nitrogen (which we like to do) we just cut the grass and prune the fences. Since they are nitrogen fixing, by cutting back the vegetation, we get a big boost in growth. It is really amazing to see. We don't remove the grass - after all, it is producing fertilizer for us. If someone gets a piece of land, they can grow the native grass for a few years and it really will help - they do it all the time. Brazilian grass (which I gather is really from Africa) will go from cut to 6 feet tall in 3 months, produces a huge amount of organic matter - especially as roots. Let it grow for a few years, have cattle eat it producing the obvious by products and then kill it off - and you have significantly improve the ground, the roots will create channels for the water and oxygen from the dying roots.

We mow the grass at least 4 times a year - mowing a square kilometer of land is a job I can tell you!

Riles, my lands are not cool - it is tropics - you can come visit and I promise you that you will not need anthing besides t-shirts! Our plantations are about 82 to 85 degrees every day and we are at about 500 feet above sea level. What is forgotten in the tropics is that we are on the ring of fire - most of the land building in Costa Rica is based on volcanic action. Look at the map of Costa Rica sometime and you will see.

One thing you might not know is that the Mayans pretty much denuded their lands about 500 years ago - those areas are all forested now (and being cut down again) If the soil was destroyed, it sure came back fast!

I do think you might be right regarding the Amazon Basin since there are no volcanoes nearby. The tropics is as varied as the North. I was born in Missouri, the home of red clay and rock - but I grew up in a part of Western NY that had deep loam. It just depends where you are for the soils.  The insanity is to try to grow a tree like Teak in clay - it doesn't prosper. It will grow really nice corkscrews for you though, but a little too big for wine bottles...  : Of course, that doesn't stop people from offering to grow it for you in the Amazon basin as part of reforestation...  >:(

[Fla._Deadheader]

Only thing I can offer here is, when I was cruising the Internet, looking for markets for tropical lumber, 90% of all adds, either wanting to buy, or, wanting to sell, stated that the wood IS FSC (Forestry Stewardship Council) certified.

  I see it as an organization that has "Coined a phrase" of saying "we certify that the wood is NOT being removed from Tropical Rainforests. They cater to the "Tree Savers" that still want wood, but, NOT from damaging Rainforests ??  Can alyone say Tropical without thinking Rainforest ??

  Even Fred has a little Rainforest on the newer Finca, I believe ??

[crtreedude]

Actually, I have about 30% of a square kilometer of rainforest on the fincas that you can't get your grubby hands on.  ;D The reason - it is against the law. These are the protected areas.

And I need FSC - why? By the way, people are more impressed on our plans than us being certified. Also, a lot of the environmental groups consider it "Green Washing"

just my dos colones,

Fred

[MemphisLogger]

Some hopefully thought provoking insights from someone inside the environmental movement . . .

(But just a few cuz I gotta get back to sawin' a mess of Oak)  ;)

The basic statement was that they should stop the oneupmanship mentality they have been practicing and try to do something to bring the global average up. The perspective this was coming from was that they (SFI and FSC) are making the best better, but are not really helping to address the problems caused by inadequate timber practices in developing countries (illegal logging, over reliance on fuel wood, etc.). Helping to fix these problems would likely have a much larger impact on the global endangered species than their current focus.

Cary,

I like that you bring this out. Sadly, I see much of the "forest protection movement" (read treehuggers) spending far too much time beating down SFI in favor of FSC. It's a waste of time and energy that should be applied to actual solutions.

Personally I like FSC better because it was established by environmentalists, ecologists and sociologists. It's standards are based more on longterm ideals than immediate economics and provide clear goals in terms of ecological and socio-economic indicators. I feel confident that FSC will remain true to these ideals. SFI, on the otherhand, was industry born and as such favors criteria that are more focused on sustained yield of fiber. I fear that SFI will not hold up under economic/supply pressures as they develop--there, I wasted my time on that again  :

The REITs and TIMOs that are busily buying up timberland as industry sells off are, in my opinion, the most important target for FSC certification. Without commitments from these funds to practice sustainable forestry, we are likely to see them parcel-off the choice timberland for yuppie housing and, should the economy falter, liquidate growing stock for shorterm dividends. I felt much more comfortable in the days of industry owned timber as I knew they wouldn't want to cut themselves out of future supply.

So far, my take on a lot of the sustainable forestry is a way for the same old practices to be dressed up for the public. One of my biggest issues with FSC is that I have driven by plantations that are certified by them - they are poisoning the streams with pesticides and fertilizer on a wide scale. They have planted in areas that are not suitable, and some of these plantations have been some of the biggest scams out there. I don't want to be associated with them.  It is bad enough that since I grow trees in Costa Rica at times people think it is a scam.  

crtreedude,

I'm with you on the situation detailed in your links. I know many dozens of folks that own extremely well (plan) managed forestland that I believe ought to be automatically certified for a nominal fee. Toward that end FSC has moved to implement a cheaper, streamlined certification process for land already being managed under a FSC comliant plan. (see http://www.fscus.org/standards_criteria/family_forests_program.php  

Unfortunately, much of the initial groundwork for FSC was laid out by primarily environmental activists. Many incorrect assumptions/projections were made about market access benefits and or price premiums associated with certified products. Most environmentalists don't have the foggiest idea about how the market works let alone the projection of yields, grades, costs and potential losses.

Fortunately, greater understanding along these lines has and is emerging in FSC and they are not selling so many pies in the sky anymore.

On the domestic front, FSC advocates are realizing that FSC only works if primary and secondary processing capacity is in place to carry the certified forest product all the way to the marketplace where many consumers will pay a premium for the stamp of approval.

I'm currently party to a push to get FSC to ease up on the cost of certification to sawmillls, millworks and manufacturers. Heck, they wanted more than $2000 dollars to audit me for sustainability when ALL I handle is logs diverted from the landfill and salvaged timbers.  :-\

http://www.timbergreenforestry.com/page103.html
Above is a site I ran into a while back.  I've never met the gentleman, but he seems to have some real world experience with organized sustainable forestry, and not much of it is very good.

         

Wesdor,

It's my understanding that the case you cite above was a horrible calamity involving bad personal relationships within the coop, unrealistic plalns and goals as well as a good dose of outside non-profit interference. FSC itself was not, in my understanding, to blame for the failure of the coop.

At the same time, Jim rightly points out the prohibitively high cost of FSC certification as currently structured and alludes to the need for FSC to work more on developing local markets in the form of value-adding manufuacturing maintaining a certifiable chain of custody to the "global market" that FSC has been able to create.

Many of us treehuggers are pushing hard behind the scenes to fill in the blanks that currently exist in the certified chain of custody.

The market model I advocate works like this . . .

1) Non-profit enviros identify and recruit "good" foresters in their targeted area. By "good", I mean foresters that are currently managing multiple properties that prequalify under FSC criteria. The non-profit can then put its money where its mouth is and subsidize the cost of those "good" foresters getting an FSC certificate which they can then apply to any properties they manage which meet FSC criteria.

2) After securing enough FSC commitments within the area, the non-profit can then move on to recruit local primary processors and secondary manufacturers to provide a chain of custody market for the subsequently harvested certified timber. This proves to be the trickiest part as the additional costs/hassles of keeping certified products separate from non-certified ones is most often perceived as prohibitive in addition to the direct costs of the cahin of custody certification itself. This is another place where the non-profits could put there money where there mouth is. In West Virginia, the Conservation Fund is doing this thru their new Natural Capital Investment Fund. They're actually capitalizing private enterprises that support certified forestry. (see http://www.conservationfund.org/?article=2194&back=true We are working to see these opportunities grow in other states.

3) FSC and enviros are already doing a great job of leveraging market opportunities thru participation in the USGC LEED program and institutional, corporate and government purchasing agreements secured thru education or under threat of boycott. Now they need to do a better job of putting the suppliers together with the buyers. Heck, it does no good to get Home Depot to promise to sell FSC wood if the certified product isn't readily available.

Key to my model is that the market should bear the cost of certification, not the landowner, mills or factories that produce the product. Non-profits can and should assist with the necessary initial costs of certication until the market's promised price premiums catch up.

I am all for sustainable forestry but am somewhat disillusioned on how sometimes the term is used by industry as a badge of responsible business practices when sometimes in reality its nothing more then a badge without a body.

 

Jeff,

This is exactly why enviros are so adamantly opposed to SFI.

Beware - often certification programs are a way to squeeze out the small producers - who are often not the problem anyway. You see, the big boys can work around the rules or have people to fill out the paperwork - but not the startups.

crtreedude,

We are trying to fix this as it is a real problem.

Gotta get back to sawin',

Huggin' 'em when their standing, and again just before I slice 'em up,

Scott    

 

   

[crtreedude]

Nice comments UrbanLogger,

This issue is and will remain, the bread and butter of this programs are the large players - the small guys can't afford it. Growing trees is EXPENSIVE - and then someone wants more money before a single penny is realized? You have to pay forestry engineers, taxes, labor, certification programs,etc. - and then, after many, many years you hope to get a return.

How about this - if FSC (or whoever) wants to certify my place, come and do it for free? If they think it is important, they can pay for it. Then they can raise the money from others for it.

I don't need their approval - normally my issue is finding trees - not selling the lumber. I have yet to have a single person ask me if I am FSC certified - my standards are higher.

[crtreedude]

One other thing on FSC - I started research on Finca Leola about 4 years ago - and back then they were saying the same thing - they realized they were too complex for the small guys...

And I see from you comments - there is no change, still talking. I still see the certification programs are hostile to the small guys. Just so you realize, I was small, but I am rapidly becoming much larger. I could easily absorb 2,000 dollars for certification now - but the issue remains.

Not trying to be mean - just pointing out the issue. Certification is not a bad idea in theory, but in practice... I rather doubt it will work. 

For example, imagine if you had to certify yourself over and over on your sawmill that it was safe. It sure wouldn't leave much room for profit - or time to work.

just my dos colones

[MemphisLogger]

That's what we're getting at.

Most local scale enviros I know are much more aware of the economics and silvics of sustainability and probably share more in common with the Grange movement than the Enviro-Regulation movement.

We all have to buy in to sustainability and the cost of product certification must be borne by the demanding consumer, not the voluntarily restrained producer.  ;D

and we must remember that sustainability means keeping as much of the value-added as close to the stump as possible  ;)

LIVING WAGES FOR LOVING LOGGERS!

posted since I started typing . . .

Not trying to be mean - just pointing out the issue. Certification is not a bad idea in theory, but in practice... I rather doubt it will work.

I don't think you're being "mean". You're just being honest.

I agree one hundred percent that FSC must be made much easier for the small guys.

I also believe that third party certification will be successful in, if not essential to, the future of sustainable forestry in a worldwide marketplace. If we can't fix FSC, we may have to try a different approach but FSC is there already and I haven't givin' up on trying to redeem it yet.

I'm going to bite the bullet and pay my fee this year. Not because I need to to sell my product--my customers all realize the value of my products and services already--but because I WANT to further the market impact of current certificate holders by taking their product one step further down the certified chain of custody.

       

[crtreedude]

I definitely respect your point of view UrbanLogger and your honesty. I too hope that the certification programs will be come something that is worth their costs.

One idea might actually be to act like a broker for the wood - this way, you have a ready market for wood if you are certified - sort of like paying your dues to sell wood. This way, a person who took care of his property will be ensured of a good market and good price. That just might fly!

Fred

P.S. Not that I need it, but I know it is one of the big problems small guys have - how do I sell all these trees!

[SwampDonkey]

The industry here uses 'certification' as a scare tactic. They say if a certain percentage of wood being used isn't certified then they won't be purchasing it. They say nothing about giving me a higher return on my 'certified' wood or guaranteeing me market access. And most woodlot owners wouldn't even know what certification was if the marketing board didn't provide information and courses. There are still a majority of folks that have no idea what it's about. I see no air time on TV to even make people aware of it, I see nothing in the papers.

[Ron Scott]

Sustainability & Forest Certification:

Accreditation of British Columbia Forest Stewardship Council Standards

November 23 – The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) of Canada has announced the accreditation of the British Columbia (BC) forest management standards by FSC International for small operators and large industrial forests. According to a FSC news release, the standards demonstrate consensus between First Nations, environmentalists, forest communities, workers, and the BC forest industry.

Brent Rabik, chair of the FSC Canada Board of Directors and Strategic Projects Director for Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries, Inc. said that, "Bringing together such a diverse group of interests to collectively develop and agree upon the BC standards is a major achievement and all participants should be very proud of their accomplishment."

For more information, visit the FSC Canada website.

[crtreedude]

Here is something I see - in fact, a group just left who are wanting to buy a lot of wood - and I do mean a lot, like 20 containers a month. Great. Not the best wood either, they are willing to take the poorer quality stuff.

This could be great, but, there is a catch. They deal with the big boys who buy tons of stuff - but these companies are scared not to buy FSC wood because they could be picketed.

So, even though this could be a great thing for the small plantation owner here (say 5 to 10 acres), they are cut out, because there is no way for them to be FSC certified.

So, the farmers here in good faith grew trees according to Costa Rican law - which is stricter than FSC, but because of FSC's efforts, they are being starved out and cannot sell their wood to export - which would probably get them a better price. It would definitely give them a way to sell poorer quality trees.

Real story, real people, happened today.

[SwampDonkey]

Crtreedude, that's just exactly what I'm afraid of happening here. And the big companies can do it because they have free rein over crown wood at lower prices. They can cut the woodlot owner off entirely. It isn't right, but that tyrant, former premier Mckena, kicked the legs out from under woodlot owners in New Brunswick when he took away primary source of supply that was written into the Crown Lands and Forest Act. And these misfits we have in the provincial government now have promised to restore it, but have done nothing. I'm 'afeared' that if Nackawick thinks they can buy wood at $70/cord at a steady flow, they'll be in for a surprise over the next year.

[Gunny]

I'm going to wake up an old bear here and ask a simple question:  Just  whom is all this ruckus to satisfy?  My experiences (much of the last four decades) would suggest that all this energy being spent about SFI or FSC or Mr. BIG vs Mr. Small is but another smoke-screen which tends to keep folks occupied with something other than a resolution that works best for them.

I was fortunate enough to have had an article published by ISW a few years ago that had the working title "The Ten Tree Tally" which considered the actual NET income the private woodlot owner might realize through the value-added process (since I've been doing it myself for many, many years) should he close off his private woodlot to loggers, sawmills, foresters, etc. and produce end-products from the maximum resource utilization of just ten (over)mature trees each year.  You see, something tells me that the more we sweat for volume--always expected from us by those who will pay us a pittance to plunder our own resources-- the less we put into our own pockets.  Then, one day, we take a look at our once plush woodlots and realize that everything of value is gone, at least for the next 50 years.

What's wroing with thinking small?  I don't mind not having to shell out a couple hundred thousand bucks on equipment that is designed and designated solely for thousand-acre clearcuts when my one Husky, '48 Farmall "Super M" and ground-mounted bandsaw mill produced more income for me in a month than I might have gotten from some Timber Pirate who wanted to plunder my riches into oblivion. 

Must head to the snows.  And then to the kiln and workshop.  See you all later.  Happy Holidays.

[crtreedude]

Gunny,

I think you have a point. (by the way - could you point me to your article?) Gather around the campfire my friends and let me tell you are story...

Once upon a time there were these really big machines. It took a lot to buy one and maintain them, so the average person, even business, couldn't have one, so what people had to do is share them. You got charged either for the work that was performed - or they did it all and sold it themselves.

But, eventually something happened - some rather bright people figured how to make smaller machines which would do roughly the same thing, but a lot cheaper. At first, these machines were pretty lame, but over time, they got better and better.

Now, these machines are totally replacing what are commonly called old dinosaurs. The companies who built and ran the old dinosaurs are either nearly out of business, or are now making the new smaller machines. There will always be a few of the monsters - but very specialized.

Figured out what I am talking about? Nope, not sawmills - computers.

Think history might just repeat itself?  ;)

The industrial revolution was the idea of an investment in equipment could make business more efficient - but usually it required a lot of capital.

The micro revolution is about reducing the size of the equipment, and the amount of capital required. If it holds true to form, pretty soon, a lot of middle men will be removed. After all, if I have a tree and I turned it into a board - you can buy the board from me - and you buy it for less, and I make more.

Also, I can make exactly what you want - where as in a big box store, I have to accept what they make - just like with PC computers - you can easily customize them. No, they aren't as fast as or as efficient to operate as a large mill - but they can be more flexible.

just my dos colones - oh, and if anyone wants to argue - I have a lot of emails saved from my early days in computers where people said that these PCs that have invaded the world would never amount to anything... You really don't want to go there.  :D

By the way - we aren't done on the shrinking things yet - heard of nano-technology?

[crtreedude]

Just to throw something on the other side - I was talking to someone yesterday that need to invest 5 million dollars in device to be able to use wood otherwise people would throw away. This way, he gets his wood for about free - less the expense of the equipment of course.

So, by investing in the big equipment, he is going to do very well I think. The break point is when a small mill, or small computer, can now do the work of a larger one.

The automated systems of the WoodMizer and Peterson's are creeping into the territory of the sawmills.

So, there will always be people with the big systems - either computers or sawmills or whatever you think - but there are lots of people now who can make a living off their wood lot - which is also a good thing.

The small computers have not replaced the mainframes completely - but I doubt anyone who is reading this is using a mainframe to do so...  :D

The next 20 or so years should be really interesting.

[Fla._Deadheader]

but these companies are scared not to buy FSC wood because they could be picketed

  This is exactly the point I was trying to make, yesterday. Don,t like it much, but, for export, looks like you have to play the game, sorta.  : :

[Gary_C]

It is hard to imagine that certification can survive when it is NOT market driven. Can it be achieved by blackmail?   ???

The other subject of endangered species may also be in trouble in the US because of funding. At the present time when various groups are trying to add hundreds of species per year, the congress is asking just what are we getting for the money spent to date. Turns out that many of the species were erronously listed in the first place and there very few if any species that have been "saved"  with all this money spent.  What little money that will be spent needs to be focused on the truly needy species and not just spent on getting more species listed.

[MemphisLogger]

Gunny,

What you are talking about is kinda what Jim Birkmeier (referenced by crtreedude above) was trying to help happen with the coop he was involved with.

The idea was that small landowners would cooperatively operate a kiln and value-adding operation (flooring moulder) and market the product directly themselves for a higher return that would make low-intensity harvest economically feasible in competition with high-volume harvesting.

It failed, not because the model is not feasible, but because of bad personality problems, unrealistic expectations, poor cash flow planning and perhaps, to some extent, because they operated as a non-profit with almost all of their production costs being covered by grants before the market was realized.

This is just one case of failure, however, other coops are thriving and new ones are coming together.    

The unfortunate result of capital concentration, merging and consolidation amonst the big boys of timber is that logs are being transported long distances to concentrated facilities where large volumes are bought dirt cheap with little to no competition in the market.

Truckers and loggers can't afford to eat the increased transportation costs and/or investment in high-volume equipment (they haven't got a raise in decades) and they can't pass the costs on to the big mills (they won't pay it) so it's the landowner who eats it with low stumpage.

Smaller scale value-adding markets close to the source is the solution to this--sawmills, planer mills, manufacturers, pallet shops and even mulchworks within the forest dependent community creates more competition for timber closer to home. Transportation costs are lower, local employment is greater and more diversified and local tax revenues (schools) benefit.

Some regions in some states still enjoy this sort of local, diversified, value-adding forest product economy. South central Missouri, eastern Kentucky and western Pennsylvania have all held on to some extent in this regard.

Other areas--notably parts of Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Louisiana-- have seen much more concentration of capital in primary processing and suffered the low stumpage and seen vast volumes of good growing stock lost to the high-volume, short rotation forestry that pays in these non-competitive markets.

Heck, I regularly get calls from all over TN and MS offering to sell Walnut stands that were planted 50 years ago when there were local diversified specialty markets. Now, they can't find the buyers. Logs form a typical harvest in my area travel as far as 200 miles before finding their markets--not much money in this unless you haul a heck of a lot of wood.

Good hardwood forestry--uneven aged 50 year+ plans--can only exist if there are strong markets for all grades and species. This is only viable when you have a healthy LOCAL market for logs.

This is where I believe FSC (or other third party certification) can benefit the forest dependent community. Certified wood is a growing market both globally and domestically. FSC has created this market and vast acreage of timber is already certified. The next step is getting all that certified wood to that market while maintaining an auditable chain of custody. This requires FSC specialized sawing, kilning, brokering, rough planing, moulding and manufacturing. This is an opportunity to establish, restablish or recruit new value-adding industries into our forest dependent communities. Once these markets are established, smaller landowners can also benefit through certified cooperative management plans and enjoy the returns of higher stumpage in a more competitive market.

I passed up a job opportunity last spring doing FSC outreach to small mills in the Appalachia. I now wish I'd taken it because I've come to firmly believe that the future of sustainable forestry AND sustainable forest dependent communities lies in taking back value-adding opportunities that have been allowed to accumulate in the pockets of a few large companies.

The fella that ended up doing this job, Harry Groot, would fit right in here . . .
http://www.nextgenwoods.com/

Again, I say, the Grange must rise!        

   
   


       

[SwampDonkey]

crtreedude, in the day of the C=64, IBM wouldn't even sell the home user a computer, at least not here. They were selling them to businesses only. There were several computer superstores around the small cities here and it was like going into an Office in the Bank of Nova Scotia. It wasn't like going into Staples. In fact you had to go through security.  :  Most every department store and hardware store carried a C= computer product back then. I only started to see Tandy PC's in Radio Shacks that started popping up in the late 80's. When I went to University most anyone with a computer had a C=64/128 in the late 80's. The university started getting IBM models, with monochrome screens. In my facaulty every professor bought Apple Macintosh, E-VER-Y 1 did. The forestry department had 100 % TRS80 computers in their classroom labs, the Engineering Department had IBM XT's.  IBM only sold in volumes, not to individuals until the PS/2 came out. :D

Did anyone else witness a similar trend?

[SwampDonkey]

I'm curious as to how profitable that Blue Ridge Cooperative is. I do realize that area takes in alot of ground. I've been throughout those hills on private woodlots and national forests and I never saw anyone cutting wood anywhere. Everyone uses heatpumps in their homes. The hills along the turnpike are so steep in places a mountain goat couldn't stand up. ;D There were some small farms on the flatter land with 4 or 5 cows, 10 -30 acres of corn, a small garden. Couldn't live off that here. :D Anyone my friend and I talk to on those lots had a University job or works in a factory such as Owens-Corning and there was a military factory near Christiansburgh I beleive. I know there was also some military ground where my friend hunted deer.  ;)

As I said above, I'm curious. ;)

[Gunny]

Fred:

That piece I referenced is actually one from the AFF's "tree farmer" magazine.  It begins on page 16 of the Sept/Oct 2000 edition.  Sorry for the misguidance to one of my other articles from the ISW during the same time-frame!  The editor renamed the thing, "A Better Way: From Raw Timber to Great Returns"--I still think my working title, "The Ten-Tree Tally", was better!  But it's a four-page piece and packed with things that just might get you thinking.  Some nice photos, too.

Also: The Nov/Dec 2001 issue has some pics of me and the kids (back then) starting on page 12, within the piece, "The True Tally."

Scott:

Forget saving the world, run behind those Huskies!  We have a pair of Alaskans and a pair of Seppala Sibes we run and we're getting some fine weather to get them on the sled.  That dryland rig gets old about this time of year and we've been blessed with some great powder, low temps and minimum humidity lately.  Nothing like a slide along behind those beauties! (Sometimes even face-down!)

Erhhhh, where were we??????

Oh--I quit thinking we could ever get this timber resource management, value-added beast organized with more than one player at a time years and years ago.  Frankly, doesn't it sometimes seem that once that second person gets added to the stew that more time is spent trying to get things accomplished in a fair and equitable manner than in actually accomplishing anything at all?

My published insights/memoirs/recollections focus upon those things that can be considered which might benefit the individual player/actor/homesteader/whatever we wish to call him/her.  I once oversaw a federal rural antipoverty operation and came to realize fairly quickly that genius rarely runs within the mob psyche.  While I was presenting owner-built housing options (log cabins, stick-built bungalows, geodesic domes) to my clientele, they were longing for the comforts of those 3-bedroom, aluminum-sided, two-car garage HUD houses that were all the rage back then (1973-74).  

That first article I mentioned to Fred pretty much says all I have--even now, some years later--to say about that particular option (and I certainly accept that so many more are out there).  It simply does not make one lick of sense to me to be offing my lumber for a buck/bf green or even $2.50 kiln-dried all the time when I can EASILY bring $10.00/BF or more for a rustic harvest table and benches or anything else I conjure with my hatchet and draw knives.  And it's a whole lot harder on my body to fell, buck, skid, saw, load and dry (and unload) lots of lumber day after day, etc., than to create a hand-hewn four poster bed from a relatively few sticks set in the rafters of the workshop for just that purpose.  

Ten good trees will easily yield 4MBF.  And that times $10.00/BF is about 3 times our homestead's annual expenses. And that doesn't even count what I do with the scraggly old limbs that I slice into tear-drop plaques that return just about $150.00 per single 100" stick!  

I know that this approach is not going to be applicable/feasible to the entire realm of rural dwellers.  But, for those who have tired of chasing carrots and/or being the whipping boy of the Mr. Bigs of this world, it sure beats heck out of watching one's treasures vanish into the void of some global market place.

Must scoot to the shop.  One of those nice little projects awaits.  

[crtreedude]

This is actually a pretty nice example - if you can sell the end product, and easily do the harvesting, drying yourself - you can make out really well.

This is because the equipment to do it has gotten cheap enough.

Just like building your own website and using computers to run a business from Costa Rica...

[MemphisLogger]

Forget saving the world, run behind those Huskies!  We have a pair of Alaskans and a pair of Seppala Sibes we run and we're getting some fine weather to get them on the sled.  That dryland rig gets old about this time of year and we've been blessed with some great powder, low temps and minimum humidity lately.  Nothing like a slide along behind those beauties! (Sometimes even face-down!)

HUH?  ???

Only Huskies we run down here in Memphis are orange  ;D

Only dog I run is a Bluetick  8)

As for adding value, I sold two clear 22" x 10' 6/4 AD clear Cherry boards last spring for $220/piece. Sold two more outta the same log a few months later after planing, scraping and joining into a table top for $1000/piece  8)

Along the same line . . . sawed 2 Cherry logs thru and thru for a customer 3 years ago--ended up costing him 30 cents or so a bdft on my hourly rate. One of the live edged flitches (about 20" wide, 9' long) just made it's way back to my shop via a broker, a kiln and a retailer. Customer paid $18/bdft for it and when he asked who he could get it finished by (countertop), they sent him to me. Boy was he depressed when I showed him a whole pile of the stuff selling for $5  ;) :D

Several of my regular customers are gentleman farmers. They pay me to saw their wood (usually blowdowns or overmatures) and then sell it to friends and neighbors off the drying stacks--makes 'em far more money than a full blown timber sale ever would and leaves their woods the way they want them.

If forests on the urban interface are going to keep producing timber, I think this is the way things are gonna have to go . . . a lot of small scale, low impact harvesting operators (cable or horse) and localized or self-value adding to get the best return on what is removed.

Gunny,

Have ya ever tried skiddin' logs with those dogs of yours?             

[Ironwood]

Fellas,

  Great discourse and I guess I am doing what you are all speaking of, small scale value added. Yes, the back aches but the satisfaction is emense. I truely enjoyed the depth of the conversation (as it were).

                                 Regards Reid

[crtreedude]

We're deep - how did that happen?

I think we are just simple...

[SwampDonkey]

Get the gum rubbers out ;D :D

[Ironwood]

 I hear it stated in the sophisticated slur of a NY Interior Designer "YOUR DISCOURSE IS SIMPLY DEEP"  We had "Tingly's" that we worn in the milk barn when I was a kid.

                     REID

[Gunny]

Mes Amis:

Scott:  Doesn't it say somewhere in your profile that you're running a "flock of Huskies"?  Aha: Husqvarnas????????????????  My all-time fave saw!

My Tingleys still fit and are always on when I think I'll be stepping into deep ^#@!.  But this conversation is exactly what keeps me coming back.

I recall trying to initiate a similar conversation here about a year ago and, essentially, gettting chuckled out of the discourse by a couple of fellows who still hadn't realized that the "Status Quo" which represents the plunder-and-pillage mentalities was on its way out as resources dwindle and private landowners begin to comprehend exactly what we're discussing here today.

If my memory serves me (which is sometimes questionable at this age!), we private woodlot owners own/control over 100 million acres of timber here in the USA alone.  Imagine if all those trees were suddenly no longer available for the pennies-on-the-stump price anymore?  Talk about "Sustainable Forestry"!

Scott & Reid:  One of my best decades-long customers (and a good pal, too) once started gawking around my workshop, amazed at the clunky things I had stacked or leaning ahgainst the walls here and there.  He spied a set of grizzled old 8/4 by 22" by 50" ant-tracked slabs of Eastern White Pine that I've been hoarding--along with about 200 more similar pieces--and gasped, "Man, put those two together and call it a table and you've got a $2000.00 piece!"  This from a Master Artisan/Craftsman who makes stuff that easily sells in the $50.00/BF range.

Not that long ago, my "treasures" would have been tossed out as "defects" by most folks and torched on the campfire.  But, to be sure, perspectives are slowly shifting and some semblance of intelligence seems to be returning to those who see the beauty of simplicity. 

Must scoot to the kiln and workshop but want to thank you all for this fascinating gab. 

Best to all.

Jim

[MemphisLogger]

I ain't deep . . .

I'm DEEP FRIED!

[crtreedude]

The cool stuff is the stuff the big sawmills don't want. This to me is the exciting part. The big guys make their money on numbers - if you are running a million BF - you don't need much per BF to have good return.

But, if you can take a "worthless" piece of wood because it isn't 1x8x8' clear and use it to create something - well, you have something pretty cool.

I think we are talking the difference between a company who quarries marble for construction - and an artist to takes a piece of marble and makes a statue.

You aren't going to make a company like the second one - but the artist might just make enough to do the work he loves and provide for his family.

[Minnesota_boy]

This is where I believe FSC (or other third party certification) can benefit the forest dependent community. Certified wood is a growing market both globally and domestically. FSC has created this market and vast acreage of timber is already certified. The next step is getting all that certified wood to that market while maintaining an auditable chain of custody. This requires FSC specialized sawing, kilning, brokering, rough planing, moulding and manufacturing. This is an opportunity to establish, restablish or recruit new value-adding industries into our forest dependent communities. Once these markets are established, smaller landowners can also benefit through certified cooperative management plans and enjoy the returns of higher stumpage in a more competitive market.
       

I like to think about how this can benefit the smaller landowners, but you can call me a cynic for thinking that all the smaller landowners will be long dead before this shows any benefit to them.  :'(

[MemphisLogger]

Well obviously, sustainability is not a short term thing  ;)

Many small landowners who have already been operating under a 50 year+ selective management plan are virtually automatic shoe-ins for FSC certification. The key is making it affordable by certifying many under the same audit to spread costs.

As for how long out premium price returns would be, if the greenies keep successfully boycotting Home Depots, Office Maxes, Victoria's Secrets, etc., there should be a demand that outstrips supply and commands higher prices in no time.

Sustainable forestry is an investment in the future and like all good longterm investments, it costs a little more on the front end for the greatest return in the longterm.

As for mom and pop that are currently counting on cashing in for fixed financial goals--tuition, retirement, etc.--conforming to a longterm select management paln that meets FSC requirements may not be realistic. But perhaps in the next rotation it's feasible(?)

I know several investors that are currently buying cutover land and view the upfront cost of FSC certification as just another part of their replanting/restoration costs knowing (believing) that by the time their timber investment achieves maturity, FSC certification will give them added market advantage.     

[SwampDonkey]

 

[beenthere]

I don't like to be 'negative' but I see this whole certification thing as an eventual 'loss of private control' of our woodlots.

Meaning, it looks harmless and good to have good management now, so let us do the 'certification' so all are 'encouraged' to do a better job of managing their woodlots (large and small). But it's like a small dustball or snowball, gathering dust (snow) and getting larger and larger. I see the future being 'committee's' that will decide what and how our woodlots will be managed.
Even now, in Wisconsin, the apparent new managed forest law (MFL) is changing (all lands under this law are now 'certified' I hear) and the new plans are requiring some sort of cutting every 15 years.  I am glad when I entered some acerage into the 'forest law' of 1968, that I didn't have to have someone cutting in my woodlot every 15 years. I would feel like I didn't own it, but someone else did.
I've enjoyed 'managing' my woodlot for the last 37 years, and have resisted the efforts of 'well meaning foresters' to cut all of the big red oak that are likely hollow. When their time comes, and I need firewood, and there are good ash and walnut seedlings coming up, I take one or two down. There are only about 6 left, and I enjoy them, and enjoy showing people what a big tree looks like. 
Used to be the 'law' was that the forest land could not be burned or grazed. That was the initial push, to save woodlots that were being kept for pasture, so burning and grazing was the norm. Next came the requirement for a management plan, and now comes the requirement for a cut every 15 years. Slowly but steadily, they are taking control of my woodlot. I don't like that much.   I see the certification game as escalating that 'control' and takeover.

[MemphisLogger]

Beenthere,

That's one of the benefits of the FSC certification approach to sustainable management--it is a voluntary affair with no enforcement beyond possible loss of certificate. Should financial need arise a landowner could always opt to bail on FSC and liquidate their timber penalized only by the loss of their investment in the FSC certificate.

Nothing in FSC requires harvesting. It sounds like your state law is aimed more at making sure that forestland stays in production.  :P 

I'd prefer to pursue voluntary over mandatory (law) any day. The same enviros promoting voluntary certification could just as easily be spending their time lobbying for forestry laws ala California.     

SwampDonkey,

I'm glad we're helping you catch up on your zzzzzzzzs.  ;D

[Paul_H]

Scott,

Good for you in pursueing FSC certification for your property/woodlot. It's good to see someone take the initiative and going for it instead of merely talking about it.Those enviros promoting voluntary certification probably don't have 10 acres between them,so it's refreshing to see this kind of commitment.

[MemphisLogger]

Paul,

Thanks for the kind words. I'm a longtime enviro myself--have even sat in a few trees here and there--but I'm also a chainsaw wielding, deer huntin', coonhound runnin' redneck  ;D

For clarification, I'm not certifying my property (not enough to be worth it) I'm certifying my sawmill and planermill operation to provide a certified chain-of-custody market for those landowners who have already certified or wiol be certifying their properties. We'll be marketing FSC certified S2S RW, S4S cabinet stock and T&G flooring and paneling to the architects/builders participating in the USGBC LEED program and other discerning consumers. Once we're online with our certification, we'll also be brokering imported FSC lumber.

Scott

[Paul_H]

What's involved in having your operation certified?How much property is needed to make it worthwhile? Is your certification basically a Bond?

Would it be fair to say that the financial burden rests solely on the property owner?

[SwampDonkey]

Paul aren't they looking at the PanCanadian Certification on Private woodlots out your way?

http://www.acoa.ca/e/media/press/press.shtml?ID=3270

[Paul_H]

I have lost track of all that to tell the truth.When the BC Forest Practices Code was implemented we had been operating under those guidlines for over a year in our District but that didn't satisfy the Preservationists.

Our entire crew spent many hours in the classroom and in the field receiving training in protecting Fish streams and wetlands,soil,oil,you name it. We learned acronym after acronym because thats how the FS likes to talk 

Then we went through the ISO 14001 (?) and then some more training so we could do work for the FS (I cleaned out a bunch of certification cards out of my wallet a couple of days ago) I think FSC was the new buzzword when we got out of the business but by conforming to the BCFPC,we had already been exceeding the standards of certification


It all boils down to butt covering and politicing and making consumers feel like they are making a difference.My feeling is the majority of forest companies in the States and Canada are already striving for sound foresty,certification or not.

[SwampDonkey]

I think in New Brunswick you need a minimum of 25 acres to participate. I have a feeling it's going down the same path as your suggesting Paul. They've been puttin on courses about certification since 1994 here. There were very few loggers at those courses and mostly weekend hobbyist. It's a good thing the database is funded by ACOA, they like to throw money around at ideas whether they are productive or not. ;D When your dealing with 39,000 woodlot owners in a little province, who's going to be employeed to run around looking at these woodlot operations, and who's gonna be paying the bill? Our average piece size is small and the quality isn't that great for the majority of wood harvested. Are we going to be able to follow certification and be able to make a living on small woodlots? The numbers suggest to me that it won't work, not for us. Very few woodlot owners (maybe 10 %) even know certification is being considered on woodlots, that's another reason it won't work. I don't even remember there being a vote by the membership and I've been to every annual meeting.  :

[MemphisLogger]

What's involved in having your operation certified?How much property is needed to make it worthwhile? Is your certification basically a Bond? Would it be fair to say that the financial burden rests solely on the property owner?

Paul,

Under FSC, you can opt to certify any size tract you'd like but the value of the certificate would rely on the availability of local market demand for the products coming off the land.

For example, certifying a tract that would be producing pulpwood would only be financially worthwhile if you had a pulpmill nearby that was producing FSC pulp and/or paper. If you're producing good grade sawlogs, you'd want to have a sawmill nearby that's producing FSC certified lumber.

Certification is basically an annually audited promise to follow a management plan that adheres to the principles of FSC. Basically, you pay an accredited certification auditor to review your plan and assure that the plan is followed.

The cost of the certification/auditing is borne by the landowner. In many cases, the lack of FSC markets or the size of the tract has made certification financially unfeasible. That's why FSC has recently adopted more streamlined, lower cost auditing proceedures available to smaller landowners. It's also the reason behind the creation of cost-sharing management cooperatives and conservation "landbanks".

In our case, we are certifying that our sawmill and planermill will only use lumber diverted from the landfill, sourced from development projects or purchased from FSC certified timberland. This is easy for us as currently only produce lumber from urban removals, trees cleared for developments or reclaimed timbers from demolitions. This makes auditing our operation relatively easy and cheap--$2000 up front and approximately $500/year thereafter.

Other operations that handle both FSC and non-FSC wood may see higher costs because auditing becomes far more complicated due to the necessity of keeping wood separated and trackable.

The benefits to a sawmill/kiln/planermill being certified include access to a growing market for FSC certified products, preferential treatment when bidding on timber from certified forests and free marketing opportunities through FSC.