Forest Certification of State and University Lands in North Carolina ...

12 downloads 0 Views 654KB Size Report
Dec 27, 2003 - North Carolina State University, Duke University, and the North Carolina Division of Forest Re- sources (DFR) recently received both Forest ...
Forest Certification of State and University Lands in North Carolina A Comparison

ABSTRACT

Frederick Cubbage, Susan Moore, Joseph Cox, Larry Jervis, Judson Edeburn, Daniel Richter, Warren Boyette, Mike Thompson, and Michael Chesnutt North Carolina State University, Duke University, and the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources (DFR) recently received both Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) certification for their forests. Meeting SFI standards required better environmental management systems, improved use of best management practices, and better recordkeeping but few subsequent forest management changes. FSC required about the same environmental system changes but more forest management changes to favor future natural stand management and biodiversity protection. Costs included changes in forest management and recordkeeping to achieve forest certification, inspection expenses, prescribed changes in forest management, forgone timber revenues, and more stakeholder consultation. Benefits can include an improved professional reputation, better worker safety and training, better records and processes, more active public involvement, enhanced knowledge for outreach, better environmental management systems, more holistic management, and perhaps higher timber prices or greater market access.

Courtesy of USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Keywords: sustainability; third-party auditing

26

Journal of Forestry



December 2003

E

nvironmental concerns, opposition to timber harvesting, and the desire to achieve sustainability in timber production, amenities, and rural quality of life all require new approaches to forest management. Forest certification is one new approach that promises to generate adequate financial returns from working forests to remain viable as forests. Certification’s advocates, often motivated by diverse values, range from environmental groups to forest products trade associations. Most advocates view certification

as a way to respond to environmental critics of forest management, demonstrate good forest management, and encourage ongoing discussion and adaptive forest management (e.g., Mater 2001; Mater et al. 2002). Critics, however, say forest certification brings high financial costs, undesirable social agendas, and no price benefits for landowners (e.g., Caulfield et al. 2001; Vardaman 2001). The practicality, costs, benefits, and ultimate acceptance of forest certification programs in the South need to be

examined. As part of a national project on forest certification begun under the auspices of the Pinchot Institute (Mater et al. 2002), we obtained Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) certification on most of our organizations’ forestlands. The three institutions that constitute the Southern Center for Sustainable Forests—Duke University, the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources (DFR), and North Carolina State University—own and manage forestland for educational, research, and outreach purposes. Portions of the lands are managed for timber production, which supports all other land management activities. We were audited for the American Forest & Paper Association’s (AF&PA) 2000 SFI standards and SmartWood’s 2001 FSC generic standards. An earlier report on the project may be obtained at our Southern Center website, www.env. duke.edu/scsf/ (Cubbage et al. 2002). The Forests and Land Managers

The Division of Forest Resources of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources manages about 42,000 acres of state forestland, including one large coastal plain tract of 32,000 acres—the Bladen Lakes State Forest. About a third of the forest is in pine plantations, with the remainder in natural pine, hardwood, and bay vegetation. The agency recently acquired the scenic 10,000-acre Dupont State Forest in the North Carolina mountains. Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences manages about 8,000 acres of private land, mostly in two fairly urban counties in the Piedmont. The forests are a mix of mostly natural hardwoods and pines, with some pine plantations. North Carolina State University’s Department of Forestry manages 4,500 acres of university lands. Its five forests are scattered across several counties in the Piedmont; two are mostly loblolly pine plantations, and three are natural hardwoods and pines with some plantations.

All three organizations have one or two foresters paid from state or private funds but must cover their operating expenses and some costs or expenses for other purposes, such as recreation, student scholarships, and summer camp. Certification Standards and Processes

We chose SmartWood (2001) to determine whether our forests met the FSC standards. Because the FSC southeastern standard was not yet final, SmartWood’s generic principles were used in our June 2001 assessment. When we were audited, SmartWood had 10 generic principles with 56 criteria; 169 indicators provided details on how the principles and criteria should be measured. Principle 10 (plantations) presented some of the more challenging components for high-intensity forestry, requiring clear justification, protection of natural forests, species diversity, and long-term site protection. Plantations established in areas converted from natural forests after November 1994 normally do not qualify for certification unless the current owner was not responsible for the conversion. However, the definition of natural forests excludes most secondgrowth forests in the South, so this principle is less daunting than many people believe. We used the SFI criteria as revised in 2000 (AF&PA 2001). To achieve third-party SFI verification, all organizations must conform to a set of core indicators. The SFI standard also allows organizations to select optional indicators they consider appropriate for their management systems and conditions. For both SFI and FSC, during the third-party inspection, indicators can be confirmed by verifiers based on internal plans and documentation, field evidence that a performance measure is being carried out, interviews with knowledgeable personnel in the organization or community, review of the compliance records or internal monitoring, and independent assessment and investigation. Of the 75 core SFI indicators when we underwent certification (there are more now), 16 pertained to objective

8, wood procurement, which was not applicable to our organizations. Thus we had 59 SFI core indicators. We each also selected other SFI indicators that pertained to the educational, research, and extension missions of our forests. NC State selected 34 additional SFI indicators, Duke selected 57, and the Division of Forest Resources selected 22. The Certification Process

For each certification system, we had a preassessment visit, an assessment visit, a preliminary report, responses, revised reports, a revisit for one organization, and a final assessment report. Preparing our reports and documents took about three to six months of periodic activity by the forester for each organization, along with input from staff and some professors. After updating existing forest management plans and preparing plans for newly acquired forests, we sent the documents to the auditors. As we prepared for the certification preassessment meetings and the onsite inspections, we went through all our records and procedures and assembled the information relevant to each standard, criterion, objective, or indicator. When we lacked information or had not considered an indicator before, we dropped the indicator if it was optional and could not easily be substantiated; reported what had been our unstated policy for required indicators; and identified areas where more specific practices, polices, or documentation would be needed. These have become the foundation for our continuous improvement process. Each onsite audit consisted of an office and a field visit, plus an onsite endof-audit report. The initial SFI audits occurred in March 2001, and the FSC audits occurred in June. The SFI and FSC audit teams each consisted of three or four auditors. In the office visits, the SFI team went through each core and optional verification indicator, seeking written evidence. The FSC team focused its office discussions on the broader principles of forest management and evidence for such issues as worker training, safety, chemical use, December 2003



Journal of Forestry

27

Direct Costs of Certification The total direct costs for all organizations for the certification inspections and preparation averaged $1.99 per acre for FSC and $2.30 per acre for SFI. Acres Division of Forest Resources Duke University North Carolina State University

SFI Per acre Total

FSC Per acrea Total

32,000b 8,000

$0.54 $4.18

$17,280 $33,440

$0.72 $2.92

$30,439 $23,378

4,500

$9.32

$41,940

$5.47

$24,594

a

FSC audit was provided as a total cost only; costs per organization derived from proportional share of acres. b DFR had 32,000 acres audited for SFI and 42,000 acres for FSC.

Those costs are for the initial certification (Cubbage et al. 2003). The required annual revisits by the FSC team will add annual management costs, as will the required management changes. Major site visits at the time of recertification (five years for FSC, three for SFI) will again require costs similar to or more than those calculated here. Factors affecting costs included the size, location, and staff management of our forests, which in turn affected the time spent. Smaller tracts had greater costs per acre because the fixed costs of auditors and preparation were spread over fewer acres.

and silvicultural practices. Each audit team made planned and unannounced visits as part of the field audit. At NC State, the SFI team visited 38 sites in the first audit and about 10 in the remedy audit. At Duke, the SFI team visited about 20 sites. For the Division of Forest Resources, the team visited 38 sites on the Bladen Lakes State Forest. The FSC team visited 20 sites on the five NC State forests in the Piedmont, 15 on the Duke Forest, 30 on the DFR Bladen Lakes State Forest, and 30 on the Dupont State Forest. Both teams focused their field visits on recent timber harvesting and pine straw production practices, as well as on roads and the use of best management practices (BMP). SFI auditors wanted field verification of individual standards and tested the field foresters’ and staff ’s knowledge of our policies and procedures. FSC examined roads, silvicultural practices, BMPs, adjacent landowner policies, and other broader philosophical issues. A brief summary of the costs of the audits are reported in the sidebar. Audit Results

We received the written findings from the audit teams, made written 28

Journal of Forestry



December 2003

replies, asked for corrections to the report, and received revised audit reports. To meet the standards for SFI, we had to correct nonconformances and change a few policies. For FSC, fewer immediate changes were required; emphasis was on long-term changes. As a result of its SFI audit, Duke University had one major and two minor nonconformances. It corrected the deficiencies and made a written reply and was then certified in October 2001. The Division of Forest Resources had six major and five minor nonconformances. It corrected the problems and, based on a written reply, was certified in November 2001. NC State had nine major and six minor nonconformances. It made a written reply and developed a new plan for one new forest to verify that the problem areas had been addressed. After an onsite remedy audit in December 2001, it was certified in January 2002 with three minor nonconformances, which will be remedied before the next audit. FSC audits may provide (1) preconditions, which must be met before one can be certified; (2) conditions— changes that must be met after certification; and (3) recommendations, which are optional. For the FSC audit, Duke

University passed with no preconditions on its current forest management practices. The university was required to implement 14 conditions—most within the next two years—and received 14 recommendations. It was certified in February 2002. The Division of Forest Resources passed with two preconditions—one limiting clearcutting size to 40 acres and one requiring a forest management plan for the new Dupont State Forest. It had 31 conditions and five recommendations. FSC certification was granted in June 2002. NC State passed the FSC certification with one precondition—limiting clearcuts to 40 acres—and had 23 conditions, most to be implemented within two years, and 12 recommendations. It received FSC certification in July 2002. Each of the institutions negotiated with the auditors regarding the preconditions and conditions before the final report was issued. We consider ourselves among the better managers of small tracts in the state but, nevertheless, we failed to meet some certification standards. The state agency’s full-time, onsite manager for its coastal plain forest had maintained excellent records for traditional forest products and plantation data. The NC State forests, however, had old forest management plans that needed to be updated before we could start the review process. Duke had current plans but, like the other institutions, lacked selected information. We all were moderately deficient to completely lacking in data and efforts on nontimber forest products, public meetings with stakeholders, written standards on site productivity and use of genetically improved material, and explicit conservation reserve and biodiversity policies. Management Impacts

Preparing the reports themselves prompted us to change some of our administration and management practices so that we could conform to certification recordkeeping requirements (e.g., chemical and training records) and forest management practices (e.g., BMPs and clearcut sizes). With SFI, once in conformance with the standard, we will need to maintain the level of management used to achieve confor-

mance. With FSC, we also will need to meet many conditions for the continuation of certification. With both systems, we will need to enhance our management practices as the standards are periodically revised. A few salient examples follow. For SFI, NC State must improve its documentation and systems: • Have site-specific plans for each timber sale. • Institute better worker training and safety records. • Improve roads to meet BMP standards. • Institute quarterly procedures for BMP and road inspections. • Maintain wider stream management zones to meet BMP guidelines (not just the less detailed state forest practice guidelines). • Install water bars on steep slopes. • Reinstall water bars and broadbased dips where broken down by horseback riders. • Clarify the visual amenity and clearcut guidelines. SFI wanted the Division of Forest Resources to • Use stream management zones by all streams and ditches. • Prevent road ditch outlets from emptying directly into streams. • Institute utilization standards in all timber sale contracts. • Demonstrate current water quality and wildlife research. • Give staff adequate training in managing for wildlife and biodiversity. • Incorporate continuous improvement into annual personnel evaluation processes. • Retrain employees and better document that they are equipped to meet worker protection standards. FSC gave NC State 23 conditions. Among the 16 that needed to be completed within one year are the following: • Develop a process to work better with stakeholders. • Employ a postharvest inspection list. • Develop a plan to handle landscape considerations. • Write an ecological and silvicultural rationale for each stand prescription.

• Create a chain-of-custody process. • Incorporate monitoring of neotropical birds and snags in management plans. • Clarify its “special use” areas, with 20 percent or more in a natural or seminatural state. Some of the conditions FSC required of the Division of Forest Resources within one year were the following: • Demonstrate support of FSC principles. • Develop a stakeholder input process. • Give staff guidance on minimum impacts to be assessed in the field before taking action. • Modify the rate prescriptions for the use of chemicals. Within two years, the agency is required to • Identify alternatives to the use of chemicals. • Monitor the environmental effect of timber harvesting, site preparation, and chemical application. • Publish an annual summary of all monitoring on the state forests. • Identify and delineate areas of high conservation value. • Restore permanent firelines to their approximate original grade. • Increase potential for native groundcover. At Duke, the SFI audit found one major noncompliance regarding wildlife and diversity: The management plan was not being followed because prescribed burning was not being regularly used. Specifically, the “Duke Forest was not able to show data analysis to monitor achievement of its habitat composition goals” and “was not able to adequately document ‘training and education for operations personnel’ related to wildlife and biodiversity.” Further, the Duke Forest “was not able to demonstrate the availability and use of professional expertise to assist in developing wildlife and biodiversity programs.” Some of the 14 conditions for the Duke Forest required in the FSC review follow: • Develop a proactive strategy for capturing stakeholder attitudes and opinions about the Duke Forest.

• Develop and implement a process for documenting ecological and silvicultural rationale in advance of harvesting. • Develop and implement a process for evaluating the utility of research projects to determine their applicability to management. • Determine a technique to implement assessment of plantation soil fertility and soil compaction. • Create a plan to monitor cost, productivity, and efficiency of management strategies. • Implement a formal monitoring system for ensuring the maintenance of forest areas of high conservation value. Certification Benefits

To date, no buyer has sought to purchase our timber because it is certified; there are few certified buyers yet in our region. As new SFI procurement requirements become more stringent, and as FSC has more certified mills, the market benefits of certification may materialize. The benefits of certification are more indirect: a better professional image, improved worker safety and training, better records, more active public involvement, higher morale among forest managers, enhanced knowledge for outreach and extension, and better environmental management systems. Although the issues raised by the certification inspections could certainly be viewed as problems, as managers we can consider them opportunities for improvement or even excellence. Our objectives for all our forests are to demonstrate professional leadership in forestry and to be leading examples of excellent management practices, as well as research, education, and extension. We want to be among the best forest managers in the state and in the region—and to practice what we preach. Through forest certification, we also hope to promote acceptance of sound science and the practice of forestry, improve the profession and its public image, and secure a social license to operate. As part of receiving certification, we have had to make significant improvements, but the effort has helped bring together the forest managers, employDecember 2003



Journal of Forestry

29

ees, technical staff, and administrators of each organization and enhanced cooperation among the three partners in the Southern Center for Sustainable Forests. Our plans and operations are up to date, many faculty and foresters are much more actively involved in forest management, and a cooperative spirit has developed among us. Forest certification has surely reversed any feeling on the part of foresters that they lacked recognition in their organizations and has reminded us all why we have and manage forests. 30

Journal of Forestry



December 2003

Conclusions

Even though we considered our forests well managed, we found some standards and criteria challenging to document. At each institution at least one professional spent several months periodically preparing the documents for the assessments, and other staff combined put in at least an equal amount of time. We spent significant professional time preparing for the dual certification visits. Renewing the certification systems on a long-term basis will be a challenge in time and expense. Most nonin-

dustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners probably have less forest management information available than we did. Obtaining certification was more work than we anticipated. The FSC and SFI standards cover a lot of ground— some of it new emphases for those of us focused on traditional forest management. We think we practice forestry well, but we had not emphasized the social impacts and plantation justification (as suggested by FSC), the processes (as suggested by the SFI auditors), or the documentation for our procedures (as suggested by both organizations). In this respect we are probably similar to most small NIPF managers who believe they are good stewards and manage their lands well but do not have as much management expertise and documentation as industrial owners. The amount of time spent in preparation did not seem to affect the outcome. Location and weather, however, may have played a part. The state agency’s coastal forest had several issues with water quality, BMPs, and streamside zones; NC State had 3 inches of rain the day of the SFI visit, and a large number of water quality issues were raised. Duke was given the fewest recommendations, perhaps because it has the most natural stand management approaches—or perhaps it simply had better environmental management systems in place. In theory, we all will be on a par after receiving SFI certification, even though our approaches to management and silvicultural systems still differ considerably. After meeting the FSC conditions, we all should have roughly equivalent environmental management systems as well. In sum, we find that forest certification will improve our forest management, environmental management systems, and communications but will cost more for foresters, recordkeeping, and periodic audits. We hope the intangible benefits of public recognition of forestry and improved education— and the tangible benefits of higher timber prices—will follow. Literature Cited AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION (AF&PA). 2001. Sustainable Forestry Initiative verification process, SFI 2000. Washington, DC.

CAULFIELD, J.P., R.K. CHAMBERS, and C.T. FIELDS. 2001. Green certification and the future of family forests. Forest Landowner 60(6):16–20. CUBBAGE, F., S. MOORE, J. COX, L. JERVIS, J. EDEBURN, D. RICHTER, M. THOMPSON, and M. CHESNUTT. 2002. Implementing forest certification in North Carolina: Systems, costs, and forest management implications. Southern Center for Sustainable Forests. Available online at www.env.duke.edu/scsf/; last accessed by staff September 2003. CUBBAGE, F., D. RICHTER, M. THOMPSON, S. MOORE, J. EDEBURN, M. CHESNUTT, J. COX, and W. BOYETTE. 2003. Forest certification costs and benefits: Experience of the Southern Center for Sustainable Forests. In Proceedings, Society of American Foresters 2002 National Convention, 236–42. Bethesda, MD. MATER, C.M. 2001. Certification of US public forestlands: Impacts on private forestland owners. Talk presented at Global Initiatives and Public Policies: First International Conference on Private Forestry in the 21st Century, March 25–27. Atlanta. MATER, C.M., W. PRICE, and V.A. SAMPLE. 2002. Certification assessments on public and university lands: A field-based comparative evaluation of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative© (SFI) programs. Washington, DC: Pinchot Institute for Conservation. Available online at www. pinchot.org/pic/certification_evaluation.html; last accessed by staff September 2003. SMARTWOOD. 2001. Generic guidelines for assessing natural forest management. Available online at www. smartwood.org/guidelines/forest-management-generic. html; last accessed by staff September 2003. VARDAMAN, J. 2001. The effect of these voluntary restrictions on those who want to make money growing trees.

Available online at www.vardaman.com/greensheets/ sfi.htm; last accessed by staff September 2003.

Frederick Cubbage (fred_cubbage@ncsu. edu) is professor, Susan Moore is visiting assistant professor, Joseph Cox is college forest manager, and Larry Jervis is college forest manager (retired), Department of Forestry, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8008; Judson Edeburn is Duke Forest Manager and Daniel Richter is professor, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Warren Boyette is director of technical services (retired), Mike Thompson is forest management chief (retired), and Michael Chesnutt is forest supervisor, Bladen Lakes State Forest, Division of Forest Resources, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh. Funding: Pinchot Institute; Doris Duke Foundation; other foundation support; North Carolina State University; Duke University; North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

December 2003



Journal of Forestry

31