As we near the start of the new millennium, the way in which forests around the world are being managed is rapidly changing. Probably the greatest change has been the rise of ecosystem management and the re-examination of the traditional agricultural model of forest management. Make no mistake -- these are two vastly different approaches to forest management. On private forestlands, the traditional agricultural model of forest production, heavily tempered by stewardship, economic, and environmental constraints, is still the norm. On public forestlands, consideration of ecological objectives has stimulated the development of an ecosystem model of forest management. Here, ecological processes, biodiversity, landscape perspectives, restoration, protection, and non-timber uses of the forest play an increasingly important role. Both management paradigms involve the consideration of multiple goals, but great differences exist in the importance attached to each under the two models. Societal and environmental pressures are causing many private forestland managers to shift towards the ecosystem model. This is expected to accelerate early in the next century.

Paralleling the rise of ecosystem management is the attention given to sustainable forestry (SF). SF is "the pursuit of innovation, investment, and institutional reform for regimes of actions that improve long-term ecological processes and productivity while satisfying human wants." ¹ Its achievement requires integration of social, economic, ecological factors to ensure the sustention of long-term productivity for future generations while producing desired outputs. The practice of sustainable forest management (SFM) requires that contemplated actions be analyzed at the landscape-level and not the stand level as is common in traditional forest management. Further, all forest resources are recognized and given consideration in the decision making process. SF goals of diversity, protection, productivity, and ecological integrity rank on par with economic efficiency, community development, and resource extraction rates. Private and public forest managers have endorsed the practice of SFM in many countries throughout the world.

Some private and public forest mangers who adopt SF and practice SFM desire to receive recognition for their efforts. Forest certification, a voluntary program whereby a forest owner requests a forest inspection to determine if predefined management standards are being achieved, is an increasingly common way for this to occur. In addition to forest certification, some owners seek to have their forest products carry an ecolabel to signify that they originate from a sustainable forest in an environmentally acceptable manner. This requires that a monitoring process known as a "chain-of-custody" be established. Achieving forest certification is a costly endeavor -- but not exorbitant. A recent estimate stated that forest certification cost $0.50/MBF of lumber produced in the USA for a forest of 100,000 acres.² Other studies put the cost increase due to certification at 5-6% of the cost of goods sold.

As a relatively new concept, forest certification suffers from lack of a precise definition. To wit, two styles are advocated: performance-based and management system-based. The former relies on clearly identified principles and criteria while the later seeks to improve environmental performance by establishing an environmental management system. The performance-based Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certifies organizations that can perform a third party assessment of a forest to determine if it is meeting the desired FSC standards. The management system-based International Standards Organization (ISO), through its series 14000 standards, describes the components of a management system and what is needed to achieve a certain level of environmental performance. The ISO does not accredit third party organizations as certifiers, does not engage in ecolabeling, and is not a SFM system. As of the middle of 1999, the FSC reports that almost 43 million acres (1%) of forestland world-wide have been certified using their system. In the USA, the comparable figure is about 4 million acres. Acreage certified under ISO 14000 is not available.

In Europe, the Pan European Forest Certification Scheme (PEFC) was launched in June 1999 as a competitor with the FSC. Both forest certification and ecolabeling are included in PEFC certification. Third party auditing of PEFC standards is foreseen. The standards are based on the six SFM criteria described by the Helsinki and Lisbon Ministerial Conferences of 1993 and 1998, respectively. In the USA, the American Forest & Paper Association's (AF&PA) Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI) now includes over 56 million acres. Ecolabeling is not part of the program. Forestland owners may voluntarily elect third party verification by an independent auditor to determine if the principles and indicators of performance for SF are being achieved. The Canadian Standards Association's SFM performance standards were adopted in 1996 for use throughout the country. Canada's program, modeled after ISO 14000 standards, requires a functioning environmental management system, public participation, continuous improvement and audits to verify performance in the field. Ecolabeling is not part of the Canadian SFM program. Additional forest certification programs are in development in many other countries, however, little interest is evident in Asia and Japan.

Acceptance of forest certification in the USA has been slow relative to Europe. This can be explained by the presence of a more active environmental community; governmental pressure to promote SF and "green" forest products, and demand by consumers. The indications are that market forces in the USA are changing. Niche markets, industry buyer groups, large retail outlets, and publishers are beginning to request certified forest products. Forestland owners should welcome these events. In the long run, recognition through forest certification is in everyone's best interests. Yes, certification costs the forestland owner, but the rewards of better public perception, retained market share and (perhaps) increased returns provide ample incentives.

Additional information on forest certification may be obtained at the following web sites: ForestWorld - www.forestworld.com; Sustainable Forestry and Certification Watch - www.sfcw.org; Forest Stewardship Council - www.fscoax.org; CSA's Standards for Canada's Forests - www.sfms.com; AF&PA's Sustainable Forestry Initiative - www.afandpa.com; Pan European Forest Certification Scheme - www.pefc.org.