So the war in the woods rages on.

For the average folk, this war in the woods might conjure images of those anthropomorphic trees in the Lord of the Rings trilogy—the Ents—the ones that got so enraged because of all the trees being cut down, that they rose up and joined in battle.  But enough Tolkien (who by the way predates environment ads with his indignant warring, vengeful trees).

FSC, the currently recognized gold standard in wood certification

If you know your way in the green community, then no doubt you’re already familiar with the issue: two warring factions dedicated to sustainable forestry, one crazy-jealous for being excluded from the LEED credit system; the other, well just doing what it does best, which is manage forests responsibly.  It’s a war the green building community has been tuning in to ever since LEED first bestowed its preference.

If you happen to be the average consumer though, most probably you have no idea about this war in the woods.  We fuss over what kind of wood to buy, but don’t really care to check the label.  As long as there’s that shining eco-label on products, we’re good to go, our eco-conscience is appeased.  How can we possibly get it wrong?

But with let’s admit it: it can be a real pain to wade through all those eco-labels (more than 300, by some estimates, according to Marc Gunther writing for Greenbiz.com).  Even something as simple as a bottle of organic glass cleaner for instance can have misleading organic origins.

And with this war in the woods going, things gets more complex when we begin talking about wood products.

The whole thing is a messy thicket of controversies and smear campaigns and verbal jousts and side-taking and demolition jobs, and… well, let’s just say that this certainly isn’t what Rachel Carson had in mind when she wrote Silent Spring back in the 60s.

Okay, the two contenders in the great FSC SFI Debate.  The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), which is currently the gold standard in wood certification, and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), who just isn’t willing to accept this sitting down.  And so SFI has been trying to subvert FSC for years.

For what it’s worth, the FSC logo is the one with a check mark (ü) that extends into a tree.  But tree-affirming logos aside, FSC is considered the best standard for wood certification precisely because of two important elements: its third-party certification, and its chain-of-custody (CoC) certification—both of which happen to be very rigorous process.

Third-party certification ensures high credibility because the certification groups, being third-party and independent, have absolutely no stake in the proceedings.  Chain-of-custody, meanwhile, means every step of the way in the journey from FSC-certified forests right up to final wood product is documented.  This strict tracking system across borders and each successive stage is meant to instill a sense of responsibility and accountability in everyone involved.

Also, FSC’s very origins should tell us about its good intentions: FSC was founded by environmentalists. Compare that to SFI being founded by the American Forest & Paper Association, and the fact that, despite SFI becoming independent since 2007, CEOs of major forestry companies still remain as board of directors.  One way or another, vested interests will surface.

Among FSC’s eco-sound principles in forest management are these:

• Reducing environmental impact of logging as much as possible (which means never harvesting more than what grows back, using narrow skidding trails so as not to disrupt the rest of the forest, ban toxic chemicals as well as genetically modified trees (no GMOs)
• Maintaining ecological functions and integrity of forests (which means saving ancient trees and endangered species, and protecting biodiversity).

• Supporting and respecting local indigenous people’s rights

To be fair, SFI also means well in its responsible management of forests.  As a matter of fact, it followed suit by installing its own chain-of-custody and certified content, but unfortunately the less-stringent, less-transparent standards it sets upon itself just don’t cut it for USGBC.

Enraged Ents in Lord of the Rings, rising up in revenge

Instead, SFI has been on and off accused of logging old-growth forests with little regard to ecosystems, large-scale clear-cutting, using toxic chemicals, and converting forests into single-age, single-species areas—stuff that would make any environmentalist cringe.  And all these in guise of a green, pseudo-sustainable forestry scheme under a logo of a pine tree inscribed in a leaf.

Back in 2001, Yale University did a comprehensive paper comparing FSC and SFI, and concluded that FSC is by far the better standard.

(Part Two of FSC SFI Debate in the next post.)