| |
|
Finally, after six years of often clumsy campaigning, considerable internal discord, numerous shifts in leadership and policy, and a few notable stand-offs, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) appears to be now gaining considerable strength within the U.S. forest products industry. At its inception, few could have imagined SFI's evolution to today, where industry's customers drive the now-popular program.
And while progress has been made internally, SFI's shine is less bright, currently, outside the industry. Refining program goals, sorting hyperbole-both anti and pro-from fact, assessing forest science versus public emotion, even defining industry's terminology, remain key issues, as does measuring tangible success whenever achieved. At the same time, periodic harvesting violations still occur during wood fiber shortages, and staunch SFI opposition persists from within the environmental community, which derides SFI as akin to "the fox minding the hen house."
With so many unknowns, no guarantee of success, and difficulty in even measuring or defending that success, SFI remains an enigma for most. Nonetheless, a great majority of industry participants, including many of those early skeptics, are solidly committed to the program. Such newfound critical mass greatly boosts the campaign's credibility and likeliness of success. The American Forest & Paper Assn. (AF&PA), representing industry, reports plans for a substantial investment in a 2001 SFI media campaign targeted primarily at U.S. solid wood retailers, making this year, likely, the most important ever.
Caught in the middle of the fracas are the nation's largest retailers, chaffing under the 'green' spotlight for the first time and now scrambling to stock some portion of their shelves with certified products, all the while wrestling to balance often ridged pro- and anti-forestry interests. Evidence, perhaps, of their on-going green reconciliation, most major retailers refused repeated contacts regarding evaluation of the program.
An industry sponsored effort, SFI is a voluntary set of timberland principles, objectives, and performance measures involving the growing and harvesting of timber and the protection of wildlife, plants, soil, and water quality. It is not, AF&PA points out, product certification for lumber or paper, nor a guarantee of quality logging or safe trucking.
A WORK IN PROGRESS. SFI is, supporters maintain, a work in progress, with numerous accomplishments to date. At last, with most major manufacturers now singing SFI's praises loudly and in unison, will the public at large soon applaud its performance? This year promises to begin to answer that question.
AF&PA launched SFI, its first such national campaign, in late 1994, responding to mounting fears of expanded state and federal harvesting restrictions and amid diminished public confidence in industry practices. The initiative, initially, was considered laudable-even radical-in its far-reaching concept. At the same time, it was viewed by many as flawed in content and lacked in-woods support. In fact, many skeptical logging and sawmill operators opposed the initiative outright early on.
By 2000, however, much of that discord had softened. At the same time the external focus shifted substantially from "battling tree huggers and countering bureaucrats" to convincing big box retailers that SFI was, in fact, effectively addressing the complex issues of sustainability. A critical element of third-party auditing entered the equation last year, providing what industry touts as independent verification that standards are being met.
Now bolstered within the U.S. industry via third-party certification, SFI moves outside strategically in 2001 but with at least three conflicting story lines. The newly-committed forest industry stands unified (mostly) on one side. Several equally committed environmental groups stand opposed on another. Caught in the middle, uncomfortably, are major U.S. retailers struggling to juggle fresh challenges ranging from environmental pro-tests to stocking store shelves with scarce certified product. A paradox, in the sum.
Also, as if the certification stage was not crowded enough, there remain for vendors the still unresolved issues of product availability and economic risk versus reward in fickle U.S. consumer markets. And while the broad middle-major retailers-appear sometimes confused, many on other sides express optimism that good will ultimately come from the nation's renewed interest in forestry. At this elevated next level, "diplomacy is needed" for practical and long lasting gains to be achieved, one observer points out that.
RETAILERS RAISE THE BAR-SUDDENLY. Looking back, environmentalists were quite successful during 2000 in shifting the green forum directly to the marketplace and by placing U.S. retailers under the labeling spotlight. Now, whether motivated by protest or legitimate public demand, major lumber stores have posted lofty procurement policies due online in 2002-just eight months away. It is here where the paradox is most stark.
First, scant little product will even be available by 2002 that satisfies tough environmental community standards. Next, certain activists insist that deadlines be upheld or threaten renewed store protest. Lastly, major U.S. manufacturers refuse to adopt competing certification systems. Of more than a dozen high-level experts across the spectrum, all agreed that such a timetable was untenable but none suggested a simple solution. "It's a Catch 22," acknowledged one leading manufacturer. The "best we can hope for is acceptance of third-party certified" SFI products.
The key shift in the marketplace was triggered by leading lumber retailer Home Depot Inc., which rocked industry board rooms in mid-1999 when it announced strict new purchasing policies, including the phase out by 2002 of lumber originating in "endangered re-gions"-areas as yet vaguely defined. Home Depot's action, however unclear, was the wakeup call that suddenly accelerated industry's timetable on improving its forestry and harvesting practices in 2000.
Still, significant challenges remain in 2001 and beyond, including product labeling issues, ongoing (and updating) massive logger training and third party certification routines, and, soon, the much hoped-for acceptance of SFI by U.S. retailers and secondary manufacturers. One early success for proponents is Centex Inc., the nation's largest residential homebuilder, which has now adopted SFI as its lumber procurement standard. Predictably, the ultimate success of SFI hinges on recognition and acceptance by the broad public.
Today, two unresolved issues remain key for participating wood suppliers: difficult to track gatewood/dealer furnish (so far excluded from compliance by many mills) and public disclosure of strict procurement policies and practices which prevent violations during mill shortages.
How much further must the program progress to be deemed a success at-large? Responses run the gamut, from "It's already working," according to an AF&PA spokesman, to "It had better succeed, for our sake," according to a logger's association source, to "It's completely inadequate; it still doesn't guarantee anything," according to Rainforest Action Network (RAN).
CRITICS ABOUND. Rainforest Action, a leading harvesting critic, has detailed its opposition. The bottom line for compliance with the SFI "is unclear-but clearly very low." And while members are expected to show continuous improvement, "it is also unclear to what extent they must comply now. Companies may be claiming to be certified as practicing sustainable forestry before actually doing so."
The group continues: "Members of the SFI have a weak set of standards and are free to monitor their own compliance. A few examples of these 'standards' allow for no protection of old growth, no goals or standards for biodiversity protection, no limits on toxic herbicides and fertilizers, no limits on genetically engineered trees, and massive clearcuts exceeding 120 acres." AF&PA vigorously refutes each of these claims.
SFI sources say that some environmentalists "will never be satisfied" with SFI or other industry greening efforts, regardless of success. There exist certain groups which have a "vested self-interest" in forever combating the forest sector and which subsist on continuous fundraising. Without a bad guy image, there is no fight and thus no funds, goes the thinking. But not all conservation groups are conflicted, and change in the woods was clearly in order, even overdue.
Industry leaders as well as respected scientists and moderate conservation groups vigorously maintain that with third party certification, SFI adequately protects primary forest elements and that for the U.S. timber market, unique as it is, SFI serves as the best model. For evidence, the program's own Expert Review Panel wrote recently, "While the sample of site visits is still quite small- and we have identified some problem areas-overall, the early returns show significant compliance and progress on the ground."
COSTS, REDUCTION EFFORTS UNCLEAR. Mostly absent from the debate has been public discourse on monetary costs of the effort. What will SFI compliance cost the consumer? What is the financial incentive for participating landowners and loggers? And, ultimately, who pays for the ongoing effort-buyers or sellers? Also, for those who choose not to participate or cannot achieve compliance, what is the risk to their ongoing business? Lastly, regarding the contentious chain-of-custody issue, is it necessary or even realistic?
Also absent, strangely, from the debate have been vigorous calls from either pro- or anti-forestry interests to 'reduce'-the first leg of the elementary "three Rs" mantra, which includes 'reuse' and 'recycle.' While quite vocal about its successes in mill efficiencies and paper recycling, industry is apparently, and predictably, reluctant to advocate less wasteful practices by re-manufacturers, retailers, and consumers, steps which would reduce overall consumption.
While uncertainty hangs over SFI, the economic outlook for timber growers remains threatened, with little evidence of a turnaround in log and pulpwood markets on the horizon. All of these changes occur in a marketplace where real stumpage prices are at, or near, 10 to 15 year lows. Not surprisingly, many are uncomfortable with 'reduce' efforts and compliance cost responsibilities.
Looking back, wrangling between the program's early advocates-Westvaco's Scott Wallinger and Champion International's Dick Porterfield-and skeptical loggers, as well as some AF&PA member companies, had sewn doubt in 1993 and 1994 about the legitimacy of SFI's claims. As the program rolled out in 1994 and 1995, several member companies resigned or were expelled for non-compliance with SFI's standards. Over time, however, many of those fiber supply issues were resolved, and most of the reluctant minority signed on with SFI, seeing it as the best, perhaps only, path to securing public approval, considering the uniqueness, huge size, and diversity in the U.S. market.
MASTER LOGGER CERTIFICATION. Related, but independently, the American Loggers Council (ALC) is now rolling out an impressive 'Master Logger Certifi-cation' (MLC) program intended to bridge SFI or alternative certifications with harvesting and transportation. MLC lists 12 areas of in-woods performance standards which complement the three programs currently under way in the U.S.: SFI, the Forest Stewardship Council (a European-based program), and ISO 14000.
Yet bruising debates remain outside the industry surrounding alternative global standards. In particular, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and its advocates initially ensured that SFI faced challenges in bringing together the forest industry with a generally under-informed public and retailers wary of protest. RAN and others strongly advocate FSC's standard, which claims actual product certification and includes product tracking from stump to market via its own labeling.
But SFI advocates point to recent comparative studies that, while still narrow in scope, find FSC and SFI to be quite similar on the ground. The sharpest differences are "ideological more than practical," according to one major producer. And with perhaps nine million independent landowners and nearly 500 million acres of timberlands, U.S. manufacturers can never reasonably track all the estimated 20 million truckloads of raw material flowing from stump to the consumer annually, as required under FSC. Instead, SFI will provide its own hybrid label this summer, identifying lumber produced by third-party certified companies. The board itself, however, will not be certified.
HURDLES REMAIN. Hurdles remain, however, for SFI even within the sector. Some major manufacturers are "holding back" progress, explains one insider. Also, the soon to be released label and media campaigns are "premature," he added. "It is critical that public relations not get out ahead of performance, thereby compromising public perception," explains the Expert Review Panel.
Separately, debate over key issues finds some companies at odds with other members. Determining the composition, authority, and relative independence of the recently formed Sus-tainable Forestry Board (SFB), the new SFI governing body which moves SFI away from the AF&PA, is one such issue yet to be resolved, according to SFB members. Still, such a move to independence is considered "paramount" to the program's credibility, said one source.
Until then, the debate continues-and grows-to include U.S. paper retailers. OfficeMax Inc. received in mid-December its "ultimatum" from the Coastal Rainforest Coalition and the Dogwood Alliance, demanding the immediate phase-out of all old-growth and public land wood fiber and a commitment to achieving 50% post-consumer paper content in two years, according to reports. In November, the groups reportedly marched on Staples Inc., making similar demands.
MOVING FORWARD. If improving practices and pursuing sustainability are the ultimate and honest 'new' goals within the U.S. forest sector, then the debate-which system best achieves those goals -risks becoming more a detractor than a contributor to the overall process. Most industry contacts now agree: SFI supports honest and increasingly rigorous commitment and certification deserves to follow.
Emotional and complex by nature, charting the best course to sustainability is more akin to an ongoing journey (continuous improvement) than any particular destination (a singular label), an industry leader explained. Yet the tensions between competing certification systems in the U.S. "have been positive," acknowledged one major grower and manufacturer. And the conflict has "definitely raised the bar," pointed out a leading environmentalist. Eventually, however, "its time to say-let's get on with it" rather than persist in fingerpointing, suggested an SFI veteran.
A key first step moving past the debate, perhaps, was taken in mid-February. Together, Home Depot Co., the U.S. Forest Stewardship Council, and AF&PA contracted with the non-profit Meridian Institute to convene and facilitate a unique panel that will produce a comparative analysis of the FSC and SFI programs, according to Washington, D.C.-based Meridian.
This bipartisan analysis, the first of its kind, will include a comparative review of the key elements and features of each program currently and is due out in June. It will not, however, seek to evaluate whether each program is achieving its stated goals, Meridian pointed out.
Meanwhile, SFI, FSC, or ISO? "Blah, blah, blah," chided one private lumber manufacturer, expressing a minority- but legitimate-perspective. "We are more concerned about staying alive" financially than voluntarily adding "another layer of bureaucracy or cost" to the family operation. "As long as I can sell lumber without a stamp, I don't need it."
To the contrary, the larger U.S. forest product sector actively pursues its certification label and for a variety of reasons. SFI leadership readily concedes that many customers have good reason to be skeptical of industry, based on numerous historical sins. Recognize, however, that for generations there existed few rewards for good practices-and even fewer penalties for regrettable ones. As such, timber harvesting was no different than other resource providers, such as farming, mining, or fishing, and operated with a relatively primitive mind-set.
Today, motivated at the marketplace, better practices are at center stage. And the largest U.S. manufacturers are aligned convincingly behind SFI and express confidence in its new label certification program due out this summer. "Continuous improvement" is no longer an excuse for procrastination but instead a legitimate-and rising-set of standards, lately borne out via third- party certification, explained one of the nation's largest lumber producers. In fact, certain manufacturers now see "market share as the clear reward" for achieving certification, well beyond the old (and vague) "good steward" adage.
Yet not all is calm in the woods-or within SFI. Emerging retailer requirements, persistent questions regarding gatewood, Sustainable Forestry Board independence and funding, small non-industrial private landowner concerns, AF&PA's media campaign, the soon-to-be-released Southern Forest Resource Assessment-all remain key challenges (and some even threats) in 2001 and 2002.
So, is SFI ready for prime time? The market's answer is still uncertain, but the effort seems better prepared to achieve desired retailer and public acceptance at this early stage. And the Meridian report may prove key in providing retailers confidence in their own choice or choices of certification systems.
Still, rather than swallowing whole SFI, some domestic retailers and consumers clearly prefer FSC products that are already on store shelves around the country. Already, as well, hundreds of U.S. manufacturers-along with several large timber growers-supply an ever-widening variety of FSC-certified products. Perhaps this year and next, the marketplace will begin to sort things out. And perhaps all the varied interests will agree that, however achieved, real progress is being made. n
CHRIS LYDDAN is forest products editor for Pulp & Paper and editor of the International Woodfiber Report. He is based near Richmond, Virginia.
 |
