iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

FSC and SFI Certification systems.  

Started by Frank_Pender, March 04, 2002, 06:32:38 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Frank_Pender

  I have just completed reading an artical in The Daily Journal of Commerce this morning.  The artical is in the Feb 25, 02 issue concerning a study done by Catherine Mater, who is vice president of Corvallis, Oregon based Mater Engineering.  She is the "first ever to compare the two prominent forestry certication systems through actual on-the-ground application."   She looked at 30 U>S> Indian reservations across America with timber operations.  they inclused the states of Maine, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Oregon.  '"The report identifiies to critical qustions.  Who ranked higher? And, regardless of who rangked higher, how does each system perform?" Mater explained.'   She also said there there was a "significant difference between the two systems, FSC and SFI.  If you are interested you can access copies of here presentation highlights at the Pinchot Institute Web site at http://www.pinchot.org.   The artical goes on to say that the full report will be available on the web site by May of this year. ::) :P :P :P
Frank Pender

Ron Scott

Yes, all these Forest Certifications are getting confusing and these are only two of them. Another cost to harvesting timber by requiring 3rd party auditors.

Hopefully the Tree Farm Program will be retained as "good forestry".
~Ron

Frank_Pender

Yes, you are correct in that, ron.  I too, belong to the Tree Farm Program.  I was certified some 8 or 10 years ago, now.  8) I hope that we can all come to an agreement that one wieghs just as much as the other for "certification".  :) If one outweighs another for some reason or another, I am afraid that to much economics we be the bottom line factor. :-[
Frank Pender

Ron Wenrich

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever had a call for certified wood?  I haven't found any lumber buyers that are remotely interested in certified lumber.  
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Tom

Hey RonW and RonS and FrankP,  What's all this certification talk.  You mean the mills aren't supposed to buy trees unless its been fed the proper nutrients or hasn't been cared for by illegal aliens, or worked with tractors, or come from a clear cut?  I have a Tree Farm Sign hanging on my barn too but for the life of me I've never known what it benefitted me. The program was sold to me as providing my Lobbyists. I would think that the only certification a mill should be worried about would be that the trees were not stolen.

Every time we human beings organize ourselves we lose options.  The more we organize the fewer are those envolved.  Eventually all we will have is the equivelant of Union members and there will be no more individual entrepreneurs. It concerns me that everyone is so anxious to become a "sheep", led by a "goat" to slaughter.

Ron Scott

Tom,
Basically all wood products need to come from timber sales meeting Best Management Practices for sustainable forestry and their ecosystems. Forest land management and harvesting practices have to meet certain standards for "certified wood".

Mills are not suppose to purchase logs or pulpwood unless they come from a "certified" timber sale harvested by certified loggers. Home Depot and Lowes advertise certified lumber, but I haven't seen any stamped as such here yet. I'm sure you will pay more for "certified wood".

The Weyerhauser Mill  here in Grayling has us consultants and their producers sign a certification form that my timber sales which they purchase wood from and the logging practices of the producer meet certification standards. 3rd Party Auditors can then check them out as such.

There are several certification standards, SFI, ISO, FSC, GREEN TAG, TREE FARM, etc. which make this quite confusing. The 3rd part auditors do get paid well however from Price Waterman.

Tom, it sounds like it hasn't caught up with you yet there in Florida. You just need to establish a chain of evidence from the woods to your mill to insure that all your logs come from certified timber harvests. Sounds like fun hey.

Check out some of the Forum Links under Forestry and Certification.
~Ron

Bud Man

Sounds like a lot of pollticians trying to justify their existance. I smell taxing authorities and Ode De IRS Parfume
The groves were God's first temples.. " A Forest Hymn"  by.. William Cullen Bryant

Frank_Pender

  You ask, "Have any of us had a call for certified wood?".   yep, I have sawn some for a customer in Montana that is using the Western Big Leaf Maple as building blocks for little children.  "What does that big word mean on the package, Mommy?" asks Tommy, who is just runing 5 years old.  "It means, Tommy, that there are no bad chemicals used on the forest where the trees grew, that made your building blocks."  said Tommy's mommy.  "That is great, Mommy!  'Cause I don't like all those bad things.  How do you say that big word, Mommy?"    "Like this, Tommy:  CER  TA FI ED. "
Frank Pender

Cedar Eater

Ron Scott said:

Mills are not suppose to purchase logs or pulpwood unless they come from a "certified" timber sale harvested by certified loggers.

This is something I've suspected. Theoretically this prevents stolen logs from getting milled which therefore theoretically protects the tree farmer, but in effect this injects middlemen between the tree farmer and the mill. I'm not sure which is worse.

A cattle farmer can take his beef to an auction or a slaughterhouse. A corn farmer can take his corn to a grainery or a feedlot. A tree farmer's market can apparently only occur at the base of a living tree on the farmer's land unless he becomes a certified logger. It reminds me of Massachusetts where you theoretically have to be a licensed contractor to fix a leaky faucett.

We're letting fear of crime (timber tresspass) limit our markets and exclude competition. I don't know that there's an easy answer, but it seems like assuming that all logs must be harvested by commercial loggers is folly.
Cedar Eater

Ron Wenrich

I don't know about other areas, but it hasn't caught on in PA.  We have the largest FSC certified forest in the world - 2 million acres.  But, no one is beating a path to their trees.

I am very suspect of SFI certification.  Industry policing industry does not work real well.  

Personally, I see certification as a marketing move for business.  It is a way of holding off the environmental dogs, for a time.  There are too many loopholes and not enough incentive to follow the hoops.  

The few pulp mills in our area have required loggers to be SFI certified.  That is OK, but those that aren't, just don't mess with pulpwood.  That leaves more low grade in the woods for the next generation.  Actually, it can act counter to what is trying to be accomplished.

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

Tom

Below this topic is Ron Scotts"Report from the States" where, on 12/19 I made a similar comment, Ron.  It was to the effect of "It amazes me that legislatures can't see the other end of the stick".

I don't know what the answer is but it doesn't seem to lie in Legislation, Certification or Prohibition.  It seems to me that there are more detrimental effects on forests caused directly and indirectly by Taxing Authorities than on loggers and landowners.  The emphasis is on Urban development (sprawl), higher tax revenues from "developed" land and the demise of the small land owner.  

A small woodlot owner can sell or develop his his land into single family housing and have the taxing authority on his side or he can manage it for lumber, pulp and firewood and have to fight city hall, the sierra club and various other organizations that try to control his life.


That is why many farmers are selling the family farm - One fight, lots of money and leave town.





Frank_Pender

Tom, I find myself in the same forest as you.  There is the very strong fact that, at the end of the next legislative session in Oregon, the Small Woodlot Owners (4,999 acres or less) will be taxed differently than the "BIG BOYS".  What do you want to bet that the "little guys" will be taxed at a higher rate than the "BIG BOYS"?  We are all growing the same type of product for the same sorts of reason, yet treated differently.  What, then, becomes the justification for such action if it is to occure.  I feel it boils down to, who has done the best job in the "lobby room" with the sales pitch. I had better get off, the soap-box is getting slippery.   :D ;) :'(
Frank Pender

Ron Scott

You hit it right, the hidden culprit affecting many private non industrial forest landowners is  the "tax system".

Yes, the SFI certification is industry initiated; a reason it is not accepted by the National Forest system.  
~Ron

swampwhiteoak

I heard a while back that Tree Farm and SFI were working towards a mutual recognition system.  Anybody heard if this is still moving forward?

Tillaway

My personnal take on this is one of skepticism.  If you are SFI certified I don't believe that will count if you are selling to a market that wants FSC wood.  My understanding (limited at best) is that FSC is "greener" (sponsored by enviro groups) than SFI (industry).  I do know that the FSC certification is done by a bunch of independent contractors.  One of the first, largest, and from what I have heard; is a bit flakey.  Just getting them to show up is a bit tough.

Most any mill / timber land owner can be SFI certified.  We have one around here that is, that operates no different than the ones that are not.  We also have one (Roseburg Forest Products) that has it's California lands FSC certified.  RFP manages their lands far better than anyone else in this area.

I think the only reason to certify is if the market you are trying to reach requires it.  

Making Tillamook Bay safe for bait; one salmon at a time.

Ron Wenrich

I think the only reason to certify is if the market you are trying to reach requires it.  

Which gets to the problem about certification.  It isn't market driven, it's political.

The way I understand the original concept of certification was a way to help protect the rainforests.  Tropcial wood was certified so some markets could feel better about using them.  These markets were primarily in Europe.

Someone on this side of the pond decided it would be a good idea to do that here.  They set up guidelines and certified some timberland.  Industry didn't want to get left behind or have someone else tie their hands on how to utilize private lands.  Tree Farm system also put in their 2 cents.

But, the average consumer has shown little interest in certified wood.  If they try to charge more for it, then interest will get to be even less.  In the end, the market will decide if certification is worthwhile.  I don't see it having much economic merit.  The added expense will cause it to fall into disfavor.
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Forester Frank

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is partly represented by the Sierra Club, and if that is what you mean by being "Greener" than I would agree.

The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) is industry driven - yes, but when you compare the objectives of each I find that I am much more in favor of SFI than FSC.

First of all FSC did not start in the USA (GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD), but in S. America where indigenous people were being displaced by big bad forest product companies that were slashing and burning the Brazillian rain forest down. So don't displace indigenous people (I believe Jeff is indigenous to Harrison). Anyway another thing that goes against the FSC standard is using herbicides - for site prep, eliminating weed species, or whatever. You also cannot plant monocultures (pine plantations). See what I am getting at here.

Now SFI accepts all those practices, except I am not aware of anyone displacing indigenous people - it could happen though. Look at Big Foot!  ;)

Seriously, intensive forestry is a bad thing with FSC. Example in Michigan's Upper Peninsula: Mead-Wesvaco aggressively removes poor quality hardwoods, herbicides treats the cut over area, and then plants red pine. The red pine is growing like crazy on these nice hardwood soils that have been enriched by falling leaves over the last 100 years. Intensive forestry? Yes. Accepted by FSC? No. Accepted practice by SFI? Yes.

What say you foresters, loggers, landowners, and alike? Is this an accepted forestry practice? I'll check back later for replies. Just reply with a short yes or no and brief explanation. We can haggle about it latter once the verdict is in.

Ron Weinrich, I believe this could be your next pole. What forest certification program is the best for forestry and the community of planet Earth?
Forester Frank

Frank_Pender

Yes, in sme circles it is accepted.  Do I agree with the practice?   No, not on my property or do I suggest it for others land necessarily.  I like replaceing the removed trees with the same as was removed or indigenous to the land.   ;)
Frank Pender

Tillaway

Forester Frank,

That is exactly what I mean by being "greener".

I am not really on board with the whole issue of certification.  

I do agree with Ron that the average consumer will not pay more for certified wood products.  I think it is a nitch market not unlike organic farm products.

Yes, I would say that I would accept this kind practice, if it is the goal of the land owner to maximize income. I guess it basically comes down to your management objectives.

Making Tillamook Bay safe for bait; one salmon at a time.

swampwhiteoak

QuoteIs this an accepted practice?
I accept that it is necessary to a certain extent but I would like to think it won't happen to all areas.  I can certainly understand where a forest industry company is coming from.




Cedar Eater

Forester Frank asked:
Is this an accepted practice?
 
For farmland to forestland, pine plantations make sense, but as a landowner who can't find a market for pine, I say leave the pine plantations to the big boys. I'm planting red and white pines and spruces for windbreak trees, but I'd rather own mixed woods than monocultures.
Cedar Eater

Ron Wenrich

I see several problems with forest industry certification.  The forest industry is basically interested in short term timber management.

Every report I've seen on private landowners shows that timber production is not a primary or even secondary concern.  They may reject any attempt to certify by industry.  Especially when there is no economic incentive.

Site conversion?  What guarantee do you have that the markets will be there when the stand is mature?

Think about a forest that is using a 75 year rotation cycle.  That would mean that forests that are ending that cycle would have been started before the depression.  Dominant specie use was quartersawn white oak for mission furniture.  A lot of wood went into car production.  Most forest products companies of that era are long gone.

All those markets have fallen away.  50 years ago knotty pine was a hit.  Not now.  Maple was a weed tree just 15 years ago.  You can't predict markets when you are starting or continuing a forest.  

25 years ago there was talk of planting hybrid poplar for energy - firewood and fuel chips.  What would have happened to those plantations?  What has happened to the Southern chip market?  Its getting killed by competition from South America.  Even Proctor & Gamble has stopped buying domestic pulp.

Grow the trees that are best suited for the site, not today's market.  Develop the markets around the resource, not the other way around.  Monocultures are just an open invitation to insects and disease.

Instead of trying to certify land, wouldn't it just make more sense to certify foresters?  Timber harvested within the guidelines would fall into the certified category.  A forester that screws up would end up losing certification.  
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Tom

Why bother certifying anything?  Why not let the people who are buying do their own certification.  If I have trees to sell and the mill doesn't want them, then they don't have to buy them.

If the Mega Store wants wood that was grown with diapers wrapped around the stump then  they need to grow their own wood or take my word for mine or go somewhere else.  

The assumption is that landowners who grow trees for profit are abusing the environment and not paying attention to BMP's.  That is a bunch of bull.   If anybody cares about the land it is the guys who own it.  I don't need some apartment dwelling, three-piece-suit professional student with a degree in art and psychology telling me not to destroy the stream that runs across my property or that my trees aren't growing fast enough ot that I can't harvest them because they are over-mature.

I believe in BMP's.  It used to be that we obeyed them because we believed in them.  Now they have been made Law.  Not because they weren't being adhered to but because of "over controlling" legislative radicals who are trying to justify their jobs.  As a society, we are losing the ability to be individuals, think for ourselves, create a market, fill a niche, sell what we can and buy what we want because "somebody" wants to control us and make us do "their" bidding.

I believe in education, foresters, loggers and landowners and their ability to create a beautiful and lucrative invironment.  Arguments of over harvested forests in the past don't hold water when they are used to put a thumb on wood producers and harvesters of today.  That is what education is all about.  We live and learn.  

I have a blue car for sale.  You don't want a blue car? Go somewhere where there is a color  of your choice, don't make me paint mine just so you can buy it.


Forester Frank

All good comments. I would like to here more, so keep them coming.

My earlier question about accepting the practice, was directed at the intensive forestry example. I wanted to know if you thought that Mead-Wesvaco's intensive forestry practice of converting poor quality hardwood species - beech, soft and hard maple, white and yellow birch into red pine plantations on their own company owned land?

Are we talking about landowner rights here?

 I am told that the company's plan is to be self-reliant on its' own timber resources in case the feds, state, or private lands cannot sustain thier timber needs to make paper products, so species related markets are probably not relavent as they are with grade logs.

As far a certifying foresters Ron, I am all for it. I am a professional forester, but I find many other timber buyers that are not and try to pass themselves off as foresters. I also know some timber buyers that will tell you right off the bat that they do not claim to be a forester, so both types are out there. Teachers are state certified, accountants are certified, surveyors must be certified, then why not foresters? I am not convinced that only foresters, certified, registered, or otherwise, should be the only ones that can put up timber. Many landowners are well educated enough to handle a timber sale on their own. Those that need help can turn to the professional forester. We can get into that subject next if someone wants to start a new post.
Forester Frank

Forester Frank

Small editing for paragraph 2 above.

Is Mead-Wesvaco's intensive forestry practice acceptable to y'all (I love the south)?
Forester Frank

Thank You Sponsors!