The climate change bill pending in the U.S. Congress should include provisions that prevent the “destructive dynamic” of deforestation.  So says the New York Times in a recent editorial.  The editorial included some mind-boggling stats to support its case:   “Deforestation accounts for one-fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — about the same as China’s emissions, more than the emissions generated by all of the world’s cars and trucks. And the world is doing far too little to stop it. An estimated 30 million acres of rain forest disappear every year, destroying biodiversity and pouring billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

A major contributor to deforestation is illegal logging, which is exactly what forest certification programs like SFI are designed to avoid.  In fact, voluntary third-party forest certification began in the 1990s in response to market concerns about forest management and illegal logging, primarily in developing countries. In the U.S, The State of America’s Forests report prepared by the Society of American Foresters (and based on U.S. Forest Service data) concludes that forested acres in the U.S. have remained relatively stable for the past 100 years (about 755 million acres).  And while it’s true that tremendous progress is being made, the fact remains that only 10% of the world’s forests are now certified.  SFI is doing its part address the remaining 90%.

I’ve been involved in the forest sector for 20 years and I can honestly say I don’t remember a time when the sector faced as many challenges as it does today. It seems every day I am hearing of more mill closures, consolidation, layoffs, etc. I’ve seen some tough times in the sector for sure, and yet I’m always impressed by the resiliency of the sector and its passion for our forests.

This commitment to the environment is evident in SFI’s record growth over the past year. We’ve averaged more than one certification per day, and today we have more than 1000 locations certified across North America and more than 700 organizations are involved in our program. From land owners and managers to wood procurement companies to lumber yards, furniture makers, printers and paper makers and packaging companies to governments and customers – we are witnessing a unprecedented commitment to responsible forest management. This at time, when as a sector, we are clearly hurting.

I can’t say for sure what 2009 will hold for the forest sector, no one can. I can say this though, our forests in North America and globally are still a priority, that sustainable forest management and sustainable communities are paramount. However, with only 10% of the world’s forests certified, the health and sustainability of forests and our communities depends on us working together not against one another. This is not the time to support a monopoly, we need choice in forest certification programs, it’s time for us to work together to ensure our forests are there for future generations, that our customers have choice and consumers have access to forest products from well-managed forests. Whether you’re a printer, a forest company, another certification program, an environmentalist or anyone that cares about the world’s forests, I invite you all to work together with us at SFI to address the challenges facing our forest sector and seize the opportunities to promote sustainable forest management globally.

I never associated “monopoly” with sustainable forestry standards. At least not until today when I read Craig Webb’s story in ProSales, “FSC Hikes a Fee, Goes After Competitors.” Webb reports that the Forest Stewardship Council’s General Assembly approved a policy motion directing FSC’s administrators to prohibit certifying bodies “from falsely promoting less rigorous competing standards as equivalent to the forest management and chain of custody standards of FSC.” It calls for a review of those certifying bodies’ promotional media when those groups come up for accreditation, and predicts that one result of this initiative will be “fewer certificates being issued for competing schemes.” Unlike other motions for the General Assembly, which often are initiated by global, European or Third World organizations, this one was proposed by Bill Hayward, president and CEO of Hayward Lumber, Monterrey, Calif., and chairman of the FSC’s U.S. arm.

Webb writes that “FSC dislikes this trend in part because it sees its standard as being better than the others.”

We all may feel that way about our standards. But if we are all truly dedicated to managing our forests sustainability, we would focus on the fact that only 10% of the world’s forests are certified. There is a lot of catching up to do. Why spend our time arguing over who the A+ student is? Why don’t we focus where we should – on the 90% that isn’t certified. Sure, I want SFI to continue its rapid growth, but I also want to see more certified land. Attempting to force everyone to use a single standard is a step backwards. The last thing our forests need is a “monopoly” certification standard. Monopolies serve no one’s interests: they drive up costs, limit improvements and reduce choice for customers and consumers. The increase in dual and triple certifications over the past year clearly indicates that the market place also supports this position.