Federal Land Certification Discussion
4/24/98
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Title: Federal Land Certification Discussion
Source: Jamison Ervin
FSC US Contact Person
R.D. 1 Box 182
Waterbury, VT 05676
Tel: 802 244 6257
Fax: 802 244 6258
email: jervin@igc.org or fscus@together.net
web: http://www.together.net/~fscus
Status: Distribute freely with proper credit to source
Date: 4/24/98
The purpose of this letter is to formally invite you and your colleagues to
participate
in an open discussion regarding certification on federal lands. Attached to this
letter
is a discussion paper that outlines many of the issues related to the topic of
federal
forestland certification. The purpose of the discussion paper is to solicit a
broad range
of opinions and views about the possible implications of certifying federal
forest lands,
and to guide the FSC US working group in developing an appropriate policy.
If you have comments regarding the questions raised in this paper, or if you
have
additional questions you think the FSC US working group should be considering,
please:
£ Post your comments on FSC's US web discussion page on federal forest lands
certification at: (www.digitalfrontier.com/publiclands).
£ Subscribe to FSC's email discussion forum, at
(fedlands@ns2.digitalfrontier.com).
People can subscribe by sending a message to that address with the subject
"subscribe."
Likewise, they can unsubscribe by sending a message with the subject
"unsubscribe."
£ Send written, faxed, or email comments to the FSC US, P.O. Box 10, Waterbury,
VT 05676,
fax: 802 244 6258, or email fscus@together.net
Please also circulate this letter and the attached discussion paper to anyone
whom you
think may be interested. An electronic copy can be downloaded from the FSC US
web page on
federal lands.
Sincerely,
Jamison Ervin
FSC US Contact Person
DISCUSSION PAPER ON CERTIFICATION OF FEDERAL LANDS
This paper has been developed by the FSC US to solicit feedback on the issue of
certification on federal lands. Please send your comments to: FSC US, P.O. Box
10,
Waterbury, VT 05676, or email: fscus@together.net
BACKGROUND
Since 1995, 29 forest management certificates have been awarded to private,
tribal, state
and county forest lands in the United States, covering 3,530,712 acres. Of
these, 25
certificates, covering 1,691,712 acres, apply to privately owned forests. These
private
forests range in size from 20 to 975,000 acres and involve several hundred
landowners
through seven group certificates. One certificate applies to the Menominee
Forest, a
tribally owned forest of 220,000 acres. Two certificates have been awarded to
sections of
Minnesota and Pennsylvania State forestlands, representing 361,000 and 1,200,000
acres
respectively. One certificate, representing 58,000 acres, has been awarded to
Quabbin
County in Massachusetts. To date, no certificates have been issued on federally
owned or
managed forests.
Recently the FSC US working group has begun a national dialogue on the topic of
certification on federal forestlands. This dialogue was begun partially as a
result of
two events. The first is a local community's interest in certification of
federal lands
within their county; the second is the concern expressed by some FSC members
that a
national approach to certification of federal lands be taken.
The community of Lakeview, Oregon, which, along with nearby Paisley, is the
required
processing location for timber harvested from the Lakeview Federal Sustained
Yield Unit,
has become interested in exploring certification. The Lake County Commission has
offered
to explore the implications both for the Unit and for the federal lands in
general with
the environmental community and other interested stakeholders. The FSC US
Working Group
will be participating in that exploration with the expectation that considering
an actual
case will bring into sharper focus the questions of whether and how
certification can or
should be applied on federally owned forestland.
Others wishing to participate should contact the coordinator of the Lake County
Forest
Sustainability Committee, Jane O'Keefe (541 947 6004), or Sustainable Northwest,
Martin
Goebel, at (503 221 6911) or Brett Kencairn (541 535 5921). Please be sure to
share with
the FSC US Working Group your thoughts on the Lakeview case and any lessons you
think it
teaches for the broader questions of federal land certification.
In addition to the interest in certification by the Lakeview community, some
members of
the Forest Stewardship Council, including Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club,
Rainforest
Action Network and others have urged the FSC US to address the issue of
certification of
federal forestlands at the national level, rather than through regional working
groups.
As a result, the FSC US working group is currently initiating a broad national
dialogue
to better understand the full spectrum of arguments and opinions. The US working
group
plans to develop a policy regarding federal lands certification by early fall of
1998.
In the meantime, both certifiers operating in the U.S. (Scientific Certification
Systems
and SmartWood) have voluntarily agreed to a moratorium on issuing a
certification on any
federal lands for the remainder of 1998. SmartWood and SCS write, "We have
voluntarily
adopted this moratorium in order to ensure that all interested and concerned
parties,
particularly the FSC US working group, and FSC ongoing regional standards
development
processes, have the time to explore the implications of certification on federal
forest
lands."
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSIONS:
In addressing the issue of certifying federal lands, there are three main
questions to
ask. The first is whether certification CAN apply to federal lands. If the
answer to this
question is yes, then the second question is whether certification SHOULD apply
to
federal lands. If the answer to this question is yes, then the third question is
HOW
certification should apply to federal lands.
In posing these three questions, it may appear that there is a foregone
conclusion that
the question is not whether but how certification should proceed. This is not
the case.
These questions are intended to help structure the debate and discussion in a
logical
fashion. If there appear to be clear legal barriers to certification on federal
lands,
questions two and three are moot. If there appears to be a national consensus
that
certification should not apply to federal forestlands, and there is a legal
basis for
prohibiting it, question 3 would become moot. If there is consensus that
certification
can and should apply to federal forestlands in some cases, then the issues
raised in
question three will help shape an appropriate policy.
QUESTION 1: CAN CERTIFICATION APPLY TO FEDERAL LANDS?
This question includes both legal and technical considerations. Legal
considerations
include:
£ Is certification legally compatible with existing laws governing the
management of U.S.
federal forests (e.g. National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Lands Policy
and
Management Act, and National Forest Management Act)?
£ What policy requirements, if any, might legally prevent certification on
federal lands?
What differences, if any, between FSC's Principles, Criteria and regional
standards and
the US Forest Service standards might automatically preclude certification?
£ Can the Forest Stewardship Council legally prohibit voluntary certification on
federal
lands? Would such a prohibition raise questions regarding anti-discrimination
and anti-
trust laws? Would such a decision set a precedent for discriminating against
other types
of landowners?
Technical considerations include certification policies that, while legally
valid, may be
unfeasible or inappropriate when applied to federal lands:
£ At what scale would certification apply: at a national, state, district, or
harvest
level? Are there certain scales (e.g. state or national) at which certification
would be
impractical or impossible?
£ How would a certificate awarded at the district level be affected by changes
at a
national level (e.g. changes in management personnel or policies)? Would these
changes
necessarily preclude certification?
It is unlikely that there will be clear and simple answers to each of these
complex
questions. Certification may be legally possible and technically feasible at
some scales
and under some circumstances, but impractical or impossible at others. The FSC
US is
currently consulting with legal experts and certification bodies to better
understand
potential legal and technical barriers to certification on federal lands and to
determine
at which scale and under which circumstances certification might be viable.
Assuming that there may be some instances where certification is a legally and
technically viable option on federal forestlands, the next question is whether
or not
certification should be applied to federal lands.
QUESTION 2: SHOULD CERTIFICATION BE APPLIED TO FEDERAL LANDS?
This question includes considerations of local communities and economies, local
and
national environmental strategies, possible positive and negative results of
certification on federal lands, and the fundamental question of whether
certification is
relevant on federal lands. Asking this question does not necessarily imply that
certification should take place or should not take place on all federal lands;
it simply
asks in what instance might or might not certification be appropriate.
£ Is certification relevant on federal lands? Could a significant number of
forest
management units within the forest service meet all certification requirements?
If the
National Forest Management Act and all other relevant laws are followed, is
certification
redundant?
£ What are some possible unintended consequences of certifying federal lands?
Could, for
example, a certificate be used in a forest service appeals process? If so, how?
Could
certification provide for management continuity during changes in management
personnel?
Could certification be used as a justification for logging in roadless areas?
£ Is certification compatible with the objectives of grassroots and national-
level
environmental organizations? How will certifying federal forestlands affect
groups who
are advocating zero-cut policies and/or forest service reforms? How might a ban
on
certification affect environmental groups who are advocating certification on
all lands
as a forest conservation tool?
£ How will local communities be affected? Can certification be used as a means
of
ensuring a reliable supply of forest resources for a community? Or might it
trigger more
controversy? What is the value-added potential, if any, of certification to
local
businesses and communities?
The question of should certification be applied to federal forestlands is
perhaps the
most controversial. Some have argued that while certification may be legally and
technically feasible, it is not appropriate for a variety of reasons. Others
argue that
there is no compelling reason for certification to be withheld from federal
lands, and
that there are a number of cases where certification is not only feasible but
could be an
important forest conservation and management tool.
As with the issues raised in question 1, there are no easy answers to question
2. There
may be instances where certification is both feasible and desirable on federal
forestlands. In that case, the next question to ask is how certification might
proceed in
these cases.
QUESTION 3: HOW, AND IN WHAT INSTANCES, MIGHT CERTIFICATION BE APPROPRIATE ON
FEDERAL
LANDS?
This question includes issues regarding the standards used in the certification
evaluation, the certification process itself, and special cases where
certification may
best be avoided or encouraged.
£ Should certification of federal forests require additional standards, beyond
those used
on private and other forests? Does the high level of public trust placed on
federal
forest imply higher standards of forest management than on private forests? Are
there
differences between the objectives of federal land management and the objectives
of
forest certification that would preclude certification? How should certification
address
public access issues, such as grazing and off-road motorized recreational
vehicles? To
what degree should certification address landscape-level planning and management
on
federal lands, particularly if the forest management unit is at a district level
or
smaller?
£ Should certification require a different certification and/or standards
setting
process? Should the certification standards be developed and approved by
regional or
national groups, or both? What is the scale and extent to which a certifier
should
consult with stakeholders? What kind of stakeholders should provide peer review
of the
certification decision? Are there additional certification requirements that
might be
involved?
£ Are there cases where certification ought to be avoided or encouraged? Should
a policy
be developed for all federally owned forestlands (including the Bureau of Land
Management, the Department of Defense, etc.) or just national forests? Should
certification be encouraged if the potential benefits to a local community are
likely to
be high? Should certification apply to cases where the management objectives are
focused
on restoration forestry, wildlife habitat, recreation, timber harvesting, or
some
combination of all of these objectives? Should certification proceed on a forest
management unit if there is a pending appeal or lawsuit?
NEXT STEPS
The FSC US working group encourages all readers of this discussion paper to
provide their
opinions and perspectives on certification of federal lands. If you have
comments
regarding the questions raised in this paper, or if you have additional
questions you
think the FSC US working group should be considering, you should:
£ Post your comments on FSC's US web discussion page on federal lands
certification at:
(www.digitalfrontier.com/publiclands).
£ Subscribe to FSC's email discussion forum, at
(fedlands@ns2.digitalfrontier.com).
People can subscribe by sending a message to that address with the subject
"subscribe."
Likewise, they can unsubscribe by sending a message with the subject
"unsubscribe."
£ Send written, faxed, or email comments to the FSC US, P.O. Box 10, Waterbury,
VT 05676
or fax 802 244 6258, or email fscus@together.net
The FSC US working group will also be discussing ways to ensure a balanced
participation
at a national level, developing effective ways to solicit regional level input,
and
exploring any logistical implications of conducting a national level standards
process.
The working group plans the following steps in its six-month process in
determining a
federal forestland certification policy:
1) Review of legal and technical barriers to certification
2) Review of legal implications to prohibiting certification on federal lands
3) Consultation with the FSC international secretariat regarding international
implications of any decision
4) Review of all comments and opinions received
5) Consultation with FSC US members regarding possible policies
6) Development of a federal forestland policy that addresses legal and technical
issues
and that addresses the concerns and interests of as broad a stakeholder group as
possible.
FSC US Contact Person
R.D. 1 Box 182
Waterbury, VT 05676
Tel: 802 244 6257
Fax: 802 244 6258
email: jervin@igc.org or fscus@together.net
web: http://www.together.net/~fscus