Forestry Certification: Balancing economics with conservation

The Minnesota timber industry, like much of the private sector, has faced significant economic challenges over the past years. Just in the past few weeks Boise Inc. announced plans to shut down two production lines and permanently lay off 265 workers at its paper mill in International Falls. It is a reminder that we must continually innovate to meet shifting customer demands. Minnesota consumers expect and ought to get good forestry practices that balance economics with conservation. Unfortunately, an unnecessary concentration of power in the marketplace has made the costs of doing business excessively expensive for both producers of forest products and their consumers. Problems are occurring with one important market for the construction industry called the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design or “LEED” rating and certification. Unfortunately, there has been a narrowing of access to this coveted certification unreasonably cutting out much of Minnesota’s equally sustainable timber industry. Currently, only wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) meets LEED criteria for sustainable timber. The LEED “credits” awarded to FSC timber give it a leg up on market access to thousands of construction projects nationwide, compared to wood certified by the American Tree Farm System and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). It is well known that the FSC, ATFS and SFI all spur responsible land management among foresters, tree farmers and land managers. In fact, much of Minnesota’s state land is dual certified as both FSC and FSI. And there is strong bi-partisan support from state legislators, from the Iron Range all the way to Southern Minnesota, for accepting more than one certification. Democrats and Republicans alike support multiple certifications to promote the sale of homegrown, Minnesota timber. Local timber that is grown responsibly should reach the marketplace and not be excluded based on national FSC politics. FSC certification and audits can impose unique requirements on landowners and businesses, who often recoup these costs through higher prices to consumers. In many instances, FSC wood costs 15-20% more than other types of timber. Even worse, some FSC wood is being imported from foreign countries like Russia with questionable sustainability standards. Government policies should not impose a framework that artificially raises the price of wood and excludes responsibly grown Minnesota timber. Instead, the promotion of a competitive certification market would yield a larger amount of sustainable timber, both for consumer consumption and in public building projects, at more affordable prices. This benefits the environment, the forest products industry and the public.