Topic: wood

Tuning In: Tracking Wood from Honduran Forests to U.S. Guitars

Sarah Parsons — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:30:14 -0500

Executive Summary

This study focuses on two supply chains for mahogany that originate in remote biodiversity-rich forests in Honduras. These supply chains were selected because they involve small forest community cooperatives that, compared with industrial operations, have a lower capacity to respond to market requirements for legal wood, including the U.S. Lacey Act.

The study describes two approaches used to minimize the risk of sourcing illegal wood. The first approach was to establish strong relationships with the suppliers and the second was to prefer certified wood. The main lessons from this study are:

The Lacey Act requirements had little or no impact on the way the buyers managed risk for these specific supply chains, because the buyers established supply chain control systems prior to 2008 to (a) secure a long-term supply of the product, and (b) implement corporate environmental/ social responsibility policies.
Supply-chain control systems, such as barcode tracking and chain-of-custody certification, are useful tools for enhancing assurances of legality. Long-term relationships with suppliers and commitments from buyers have been important for the successful implementation of these approaches, and critical to minimizing the risk of illegal wood.
Intermediaries and facilitators play a key role in building and strengthening the technical and administrative capacity of the cooperatives to harvest and process timber.
The community cooperatives in these supply chains face various challenges: inadequate law enforcement, competing land-use pressures, drug trafficking, and competition with illegal logging. Yet the sustained demand for high-value species such as mahogany provides a powerful incentive to maintain and strengthen forest community operations.
The supply-chain control approaches highlighted in this study work, in part, because of the high value of the end product, and, because of the financial assistance of external donors that have invested in building the technical capacity and social development of the community cooperatives. In-depth analysis to understand the financial viability of the operations without such support is needed.
Although the long-term financial sustainability of the community cooperatives is unclear, the perceived community and biodiversity benefits, along with the buyers’ interest in securing a long-term supply of legal wood, are strong incentives for all stakeholders to ensure their continued viability.

This issue brief is based on a review of relevant documents, visits to the field sites and processing facilities, and a series of interviews with stakeholders. A complementary video is available at the Forest Legality Alliance website.

Sustainable Procurement of Wood and Paper-Based Products: Version 3

Sarah Parsons — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 21:03:53 -0500

Find out more at http://www.SustainableForestProducts.org.

Version 3 of this guide incorporates the most up-to-date developments on the legality of forest products, new technological developments to control wood and paper supply chains and increase their transparency, and an expanded chapter on the social implications of forest products.

Decisions regarding the purchase and use of wood and paper-based products can have far-reaching, long-term impacts on the forests where they are harvested and the people and industries that depend on those forests for their livelihoods and raw materials.

This joint WRI/WBCSD publication provides information about 10 key issues procurement managers might address as they develop and implement their procurement policies:

Origin: Where do the products come from?
Information accuracy: Is information about the products credible?
Legality: Have the products been legally produced?
Sustainability: Have forests been sustainably managed?
Special forests: Have special forests been protected?
Climate change: Have climate issues been addressed?
Environmental protection: Have appropriate environmental controls been applied?
Recycled fiber: Has recycled fiber been used appropriately?
Other resources: Have other resources been used appropriately?
Local communities and indigenous peoples: Have the needs of local communities or indigenous peoples been addressed?

The guide also characterizes a selection of helpful tools and explains the maze of terminology around sustainable forest products.

Insights from the Field: Forests for Climate and Timber

Maggie Barron — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:25:59 -0500

The Carbon Canopy is a novel partnership among companies, landowners, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that seeks to leverage markets for ecosystem services to increase the area of southern U.S. forests certified as sustainably managed. The partnership aspires to sustain southern forests for their economic, climate, water, and other benefits.

The Carbon Canopy’s first focus has been on linking forest carbon offset generation and certified forest management, wherein carbon offset revenue is designed to compensate woodland owners for the cost of certification and provide an attractive new revenue stream.
The Carbon Canopy’s experience to date provides a number of insights for other organizations seeking to build and expand markets for forest carbon offsets linked with forest certification. These insights were gleaned from the authors’ observations as well as interviews with several members of the Carbon Canopy partnership, including landowners, buyers, and NGOs. These insights apply to building demand, ensuring supply, and creating the transactional infrastructure for forest carbon offsets and certified saw timber or wood fiber.
To build robust demand, companies, NGOs, and other organizations seeking to replicate the approach of combining forest carbon offsets and certification should—
- Actively recruit buyers; and
- Secure an anchor buyer early on.
- To ensure sufficient supply of offsets and certified timber, these organizations should—
- Invest in woodland owner education;
- Make the business case to woodland owners;
- Find upfront financing; and
- Be sure to engage all parties with claims on the land.
To create an efficient transactional infrastructure, these organizations should—
- Select forest management and carbon offset certification standards early on;
- Select standards that are high quality and that facilitate market participation; and
- Leverage existing resources and landowner networks.

Forest and Landscape Restoration

Susan Minnemeyer — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:03:52 -0500

Mapping of Forest and Landscape Restoration Opportunities

Worldwide, enormous areas that once supported forests have become deforested or degraded. About 30 percent of the world’s potential forest cover has been completely cleared and a further 20 percent has been degraded. Yet more than two billion hectares of deforested and degraded forest land worldwide may have the potential to be restored.

Forest and Landscape Restoration is about more than just planting trees. It goes beyond afforestation, reforestation, and ecological restoration to improve both human livelihoods and ecological integrity.

A restored landscape can accommodate a mosaic of land uses such as agriculture, protected reserves, ecological corridors, regenerating forests, well-managed plantations, agroforestry systems, and riparian plantings to protect waterways.

As a contribution to the Global Partnership of Forest and Landscape Restoration, The World Resources Institute is partnering with the University of Maryland and IUCN to map opportunities for forest and landscape restoration – where they can be found and how big they are.

Making Forest and Landscape Restoration a Force for Change

View more presentations from World Resources Institute (WRI)

Restoration By Region

Download these brochures for more information on Forest and Landscape Restoration opportunities:

Global (PDF, 2.4 Mb)
Africa (PDF, 680 Kb)
Asia (PDF, 729 Kb)
Latin America (PDF, 678 Kb)

Interactive Map of Forest and Landscape Restoration

Click on the map below to open up our Interactive Atlas of Forest and Landscape Restoration Opportunities.

Click to open the Atlas

Photo: Mosaic restoration could improve the functionality of this landscape in Uganda. Credit: Flickr/weesam2010.

Sustainable Procurement of Wood and Paper-Based Products: Version 2

Ruth Nogueron — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:52:22 -0400

Find out more at http://www.sustainableforestprods.org

Version 2 contains updates to the sections on legality and useful resources, known as the "guide to the guides." The guide now describes 47 tools and resources (13 more than in the previous version) that aid sustainable procurement of forest products.

Decisions regarding the purchase and use of wood and paper-based products can have far-reaching, long-term impacts for the forests where they are harvested, the communities supported by wood-using industries, and the places where those products are purchased and used.

The information in this joint WRI/WBCSD publication is organized around ten key issues, posed as "essential questions" that procurement managers might address related to the sustainable procurement of wood and paper-based products:

Origin: Where do the products come from?
Information accuracy: Is information about the products credible?
Legality: Have the products been legally produced?
Sustainability: Have forests been sustainably managed?
Special places: Have special places, including sensitive ecosystems, been protected?
Climate change: Have climate issues been addressed?
Environmental protection: Have appropriate environmental controls been applied?
Recycled fiber: Has recycled fiber been used appropriately?
Other resources: Have other resources been used appropriately?
Local communities and indigenous peoples: Have the needs of local communities or indigenous peoples been addressed?

The publication is designed as an information tool to help customers develop their own sustainable procurement policies for wood and paper-based products. It is also a decision support tool providing simple and clear information on twenty-two existing approaches to the procurement of wood and paper-based products from legal and sustainable sources, as well as providing additional references and resource materials.

Indonesia’s Ambitious Forest Moratorium Moves Forward

Beth Gingold — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:49:11 -0400

A summary of key elements, and unanswered questions, in Indonesia’s recent moratorium on new forest permits.

On May 20, 2011, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono signed a Presidential Instruction (“decree”) putting into effect a two-year moratorium on issuing new permits for use of primary natural forest and peatland.

The highly anticipated moratorium is part of a broader $1 billion Indonesia-Norway partnership to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (known as REDD+).

According to government statements, the decree applies to between 64 and 72 million hectares of primary forest and peatland, shown in a map attached to the decree. The decree highlights governance as a key area for improvement, critical in addressing the underlying causes of forest loss. The President calls on ministries and agencies to work together nationally and locally to implement the moratorium.

It is difficult to assess the likely effectiveness of the moratorium in achieving its goal of reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, since the decree includes a number of exemptions (such as cases in which licenses are pending) without providing details on the exempted areas’ location or size.

In order for the public to fully assess the impact of the decree, the government would need to make all exemptions public in such a way that a quantitative spatial analysis can be independently prepared and published. Only with this information can the various partners in Indonesia’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions see whether the spirit of the decree is being met.

In the meantime, this article provides a summary of how key elements are addressed, identifies unanswered questions to be further explored once the digital maps and additional information are publicly available, and suggests priority actions for the two-year moratorium period that can produce lasting benefits to Indonesia’s forests and the people and businesses that depend on them.

The moratorium makes progress in some key areas…

Despite stiff opposition from advocates of business as usual, a moratorium has been signed and issued.
It highlights the importance of improved governance.
It recognizes the importance of ministries and agencies working together to make implementation of the decree successful.
It includes a map of areas that should not be deforested. The representation of this decree in map form makes it easier for stakeholders to carry out monitoring and support law enforcement.

…but some important issues remain:

Areas of secondary forest are not covered. These are widespread and valuable for carbon, biodiversity and livelihoods.
There is no mention of the Minister of Mines and Energy in the decree, and it is not clear how permits for non-exempted mining activities (i.e. coal and minerals) will be addressed. The Ministry of Agriculture is also not mentioned in the decree.
Community-based forest management and other sustainable activities that do not result in forest conversion are not included in the exemptions.
No information is provided on the extent and location of existing permits that are exempted from the moratorium.
It is unclear what will happen with the many permits that may have been issued illegally.

What is addressed in the Presidential Decree?

The Presidential Decree gives instructions to specific government agencies regarding a two-year suspension of new permits on areas of primary natural forest and peatland shown in an attached “Indicative Map of New License Suspension” (Indicative Map).

The Presidential Decree addresses key elements in the following ways:

Objectives: Does the preamble clarify the objectives of a temporary suspension of new permits to achieve long term improvements in land use planning and permitting processes

The decree itself states that the objective is to balance economic, social, and cultural development and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The explicit inclusion of governance is notable and should be applauded, as this starts to get to the root causes of Indonesia’s high rates of forest loss. It will be especially important in the coming months to reach agreement on what specific improvements in governance are needed most and how these improvements can be achieved.

Definitions: Are terms clear and consistent with achieving the stated objectives

The decree does not include definitions of terms. The decree refers to primary natural forest and peatland, but not secondary forest. Large areas of secondary forest, with high carbon content and important biodiversity, will therefore likely not be covered by the decree.

The terms primary natural forest and peatland have not been defined in Indonesian law. In this context they have been interpreted as descriptions of vegetative cover and soil characteristics, as distinct from legal designations. The decree also refers to legal designations such as conservation forest, protected forest, and production forest, which have been previously defined in Indonesia’s 1999 Forestry Law. Media reports suggest there is ongoing confusion regarding whether or not primary natural forest refers to a legal designation.

Data: Are the data and maps that will be used or created to determine the areas impacted by the moratorium accurate and adequate

There is insufficient information on the data and methods used to develop the Indicative Map, and indeed, on who produced it. This map shows peatland and primary forests, yet there are no definitions of these terms. It is also not clear which areas are under which forms of protection, and whether any information on existing or already exempted permits was used to generate the map. Crucially, no information is provided on the extent, location, and status of existing and exempted permits.

A more detailed analysis can be conducted only once the digital maps, source data layers, associated methods, and accurate information on the extent, location, and status of existing and already exempted permits, are made publicly available.

Permits: Which permits are included and excluded from the moratorium?

The moratorium applies to “new permits” (e.g. for the clearing of land to start oil palm, timber or other large estate crops) in the areas specified by the Indicative Map, with a considerable number of notable exemptions, including those for:

forest area release and use permits that have been approved in principle by the Ministry of Forestry;
geothermal, oil and gas, electricity, rice and sugar cane development;
extension of existing and valid forest use permits (e.g. logging permits); and
ecosystem restoration concessions.

No exemptions are provided for the multiple types of use or management rights that can be issued to communities, even though community based forest management and monitoring has been recognized as an effective strategy for achieving sustainable forest management and balancing economic, social, and environmental development goals.

The types of permits which will not be exempted include loan use and business permit use for timber in natural forests issued by Ministry of Forestry, lease rights and use rights issued by the National Land Agency, and recommendations for and location permits issued by Governors and Regents/Mayors. There is no mention of exemptions or inclusion of forest use for mineral or coal mining.

The process for determining the validity of existing forest use permits is unclear. It is also not clear what the implications are for companies that have existing location permits (which are exempted) but not business use permits (called HGU permits). These existing permits may cover millions of hectares (an estimate from Daemeter Consulting is at least three million hectares).

Agencies: Which government agency is responsible for producing the relevant maps associated with the moratorium

Instructions to suspend issuing permits apply to all areas in the Indicative Map. This applies to the Ministry of Forestry, National Land Agency, as well as to all Governors, Regents and Mayors. The Minister of Interior is instructed to coach and supervise Governors and Regents in implementation.

For new permits that are exempted and may still be issued inside the Indicative Map areas, the Minister of Environment is instructed to reduce emissions of the business activities by issuing environmental licenses. It is assumed to mean that these licenses will restrict allowable GHG emissions.

The Ministry of Forestry is given primary responsibility for reviewing and updating the Indicative Map and reporting to the president at least once every six months, in cooperation with the Head of the National Spatial Planning Coordinating Agency, Head of the Coordinating Body for National Survey and Mapping, Governors, Regents, Mayors, and the Head of the REDD+ Task Force. The Head of the REDD+ Task Force is instructed to monitor implementation and submit a report to the president.

This updating process does not only have consequences on the physical delineation of primary forest and peatlands, it also moves the licensing authority on non-forested lands (other usage areas) to the Ministry of Forestry as stated in Section Four of the decree.

This decree does however involve many of the important ministries and agencies and specifies their role and the need to work together. This is an important step forward in managing lands and forests more efficiently and sustainably. This is also consistent with indicators of ‘good governance’.

Process: What processes will be put in place regarding reviewing permits, cooperation and coordination of government agencies, increasing transparency and participation, making maps and spatial data publicly available, and settling disputes

The decree includes some instructions to agencies regarding improving governance. For example:

The Minister of Forestry is instructed to: (1) improve policies on issuing permits on the use of timber in natural forest areas and (2) improve management of lahan kritis (“critical” or degraded forest) through ecosystem restoration concessions.
The Minister of the Environment is instructed to improve governance of business activities within the areas shown on the Indicative Map through environmental permits.
Multiple agencies are instructed to coordinate the map revision process and provide information to monitor and report to the President on a regular basis.
The Head of the National Spatial Planning Coordinating Agency is instructed to accelerate the consolidation of the Indicative Map into the spatial planning map revision as part of land use governance reform, in cooperation with other agencies. This could ensure that primary forest and peatland that is not already under some form of legal protection is appropriately zoned through the spatial planning process, with the status change lasting beyond the two-year moratorium period.

The decree does not make any specific provisions for reviewing or revoking permits, increasing transparency and participation, or making maps and spatial data publicly available.

The omission of an exemption for community forestry permits—when many exemptions were made including for industrial activities— is a major weakness in the decree.

Addressing Unanswered Questions

An effective moratorium would help to improve land use planning and permitting processes that contribute to Indonesia’s development goals and respect local rights, continuing beyond the two-year suspension period.

Important unanswered questions include:

What specific areas are included in the moratorium and what data and methods were used to identify them? What are the extent, location, and status of existing and already exempted permits? How will this information be made publicly available?
What instructions will be given to the Minister of Mines and Energy?
How will provisions be made to allow legal community-based forest management during the two-year period, and to strengthen local management options in the future?
How will government agencies interpret and by what process will they implement the instructions provided regarding ‘improving governance’?
What additional actions will be taken regarding the governance of areas not identified on the Indicative Map?

The Indonesian government can begin to help answer some of these questions by ensuring that a digital version of the Indicative Map, source data layers, associated methods, and accurate information on the extent, location, and status of existing and already exempted permits, are made publicly available.

What are additional priorities for the two-year moratorium period?

In addition, as acknowledged by the government, achieving these goals will require taking many actions in the two-year moratorium period that are not addressed in the Presidential Decree. This includes putting in place REDD+ policies such as improved land use planning and permitting processes, reviewing or revoking illegal permits, encouraging expansion of agriculture and timber plantations onto degraded land instead of forested land (e.g. sustainable palm oil expansion on degraded land) and developing incentives for existing permits on forested lands to be swapped for permits on degraded lands (e.g. voluntary land swaps).

The main purpose of this decree, as identified in a previous article, is to create time for the government, business and civil society to develop and implement changes that will lead to more sustainable land management while stimulating economic growth, such as:

Comprehensive, accurate, and regularly updated spatial data and maps on land cover and forest type, land use, land status, and land rights—including permits—made publicly available through easily accessible websites.
Revised land use plans (zoning) such that appropriate natural forest and peatlands are classified for conservation or sustainable management and appropriate degraded lands are classified for agricultural or other uses, through a process that incorporates best practices in participatory spatial planning.
Transparent and participatory processes for reviewing, revoking, reissuing, or relocating permits that are illegal or are in areas that are inappropriate for development, incorporating best practice stakeholder engagement and including the free prior and informed consent of relevant communities.

Whether this Presidential Decree contributes to achieving the goals of the Indonesia-Norway agreement on REDD+ is highly dependent on how remaining unanswered questions are addressed and what additional actions the Indonesian government takes—with the participation of industry and civil society—during the two-year period.

Are Your Wood Products Really Certified?

Caitlin Clarke — Wed, 04 May 2011 16:09:26 -0400

WRI experts answer questions on forest certification and the Lacey Act.

In November 2009, federal agents raided a Gibson Guitar manufacturing facility in Tennessee as part of an investigation under the Lacey Act. Agents were investigating the alleged use of illegally sourced wood from Madagascar in some of Gibson’s well-known musical instruments. If proven, import or use of such wood can constitute a serious felony punishable with large fines for the company and possible jail terms for any executives involved.

Before the raid, Gibson had a reputation as a progressive company and a proponent of forest certification. The company had taken steps to make its business more sustainable through the use of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification system, yet is alleged to have bought valuable wood stolen from Madagascar’s national parks. How could this happen, and what does it have to do with the certification process?

Members of the Forest Legality Alliance, which WRI helped to found, have asked the following questions:

What is forest certification?

Forest certification emerged in the early 1990s as a way to promote and/or guarantee responsible management of forests. Certification is intended as a “seal of approval” to notify consumers that certified wood products came from well-managed forests and were tracked through documented supply chains, independently monitored by credible third parties. Certification offers a powerful means to encourage companies to improve forest management practices, harnessing the power of markets and consumers to support environmental and social standards.

Is it possible for companies holding FSC certification to potentially trade in illegal products?

It is possible. A company can hold FSC certificates, but that does not mean that all of its products are necessarily FSC certified. Companies can choose which product lines to certify. These may include all the products they sell, or just a small percentage. An FSC certificate for one product line guarantees nothing about other non-certified product lines manufactured and sold by the same company.

Who is in charge of forest certification programs?

Forest certification schemes are managed by NGOs, industry associations, and forest owners’ federations. They are voluntary, market-based programs. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is among the best-known of these standards. Others include the Europe-led Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) and the U.S.-based Sustainable Forestry Initiative, among many.

How does certification work?

Under the FSC system, two steps in the forest product supply chain can be certified: forest management (FM) and chain of custody (CoC). Forest management certification means that the forest itself from which the trees were harvested has been managed in accordance with the FSC Forest Management Standard. Chain of custody certification means that the manufacturing, processing, and distribution of forest products can be documented and traced through the supply chain, and that these steps conform to the FSC Chain of Custody Standard.

The Forest Stewardship Council only sets standards (forest management and chain of custody) and accredits other bodies to assess and audit against these standards. These other bodies are called certification bodies and are the organizations a company needs to contact in order to attain an FSC FM or CoC certificate. A full list of the current CBs is below.

If a company says it is certified, could I still be inadvertently buying wood of suspicious origin?

It is possible. When the certification process works as it is intended to work, illegally sourced wood is screened out of the certified supply chain.¹ Buyers then tend to think that the company itself, along with everything it sells, is therefore certified. In reality, companies may only have just a small percentage or their production certified. Certification normally only applies to a very specific set of products that probably comprise only a small percentage of the company’s overall product line.

A company holding only one CoC certificate may promote itself as a “certified” company, but such a claim is often misleading. It is entirely possible for a company to sell only one certified product, while at the same time selling hundreds of other products that are not certified.

In the Gibson case, the wood from Madagascar that was of interest to the U.S. government in its Lacey investigation was never covered by any type of certification, and so would not have been allowed to be used in any product labeled or sold as FSC-certified. Gibson only holds FSC certificates that apply to certain woods used in a specific line of guitars, none of which would apply to protected species purchased from Madagascar.

How can I tell what is actually certified?

In the case of FSC products, the Forest Stewardship Council requires that every company holding an FSC CoC certificate maintain a list of products sold as FSC certified. This list, called a product group schedule, must detail for each product the species make-up and the percent of the wood content that is FSC certified.²

If you are buying from a company that holds an FSC certificate and you want to buy an FSC product, be sure to check the specific product you want to buy against the company’s product group schedule. If the product is not listed, it is not FSC certified, regardless of whether the company holds a certificate for other products. Buyers must be aware that certification applies only to specific products, and so not necessarily to all the products the company sells.

As a buyer of FSC certified forest products, what do I need to do?

Check the certificate of the supply. What, specifically, is being claimed as certified? You can do this by checking the FSC certificate database (http://info.fsc.org/) or by going directly to the certification body that issued the certificate – see the table below for contact details. To find out which certification body issued the certificate, refer to the certification code on the product or documents. The code will show the certification body’s initials. See How to Read A Certification Code below, along with a table of abbreviations and certification bodies.
Once you have checked the validity of the certificate, check to see that the product you are buying is part of the company’s FSC product group schedule, if applicable. (All such product group schedules are available as a matter of public record at http://info.fsc.org/.)
Ask your supplier questions such as: What is the supply chain for this product? If the product is not certified, can you trace the products all the way back to the forest? What is the degree of illegal activity in that forest or region? What processes do you have in place to prevent illegally harvested material from entering your supply? It is always helpful to document this process in writing.
Determine the relative risks associated with the forest of origin. Is the region suspected by credible sources of having high levels of illegal logging? Are you aware of serious concerns about governance in the country or region? Are civil society campaigns currently underway that indicate that this is a forest of concern? If so, compare the risk of inadvertently sourcing illegal wood products to your degree of risk aversion. If responses from your supplier to the questions you ask do not meet your risk tolerance levels, consider sourcing from a different supplier or region. Remember that simply knowing that you are taking a risk could impact your level of responsibility under the Lacey Act when determining whether you exercised due care. The UK think tank Chatham House maintains a good aggregation of recent illegal logging news, which can be a good place to begin your search. You can also visit www.forestlegality.org.
Establish a forest products purchasing policy that reflects company values and risk thresholds and incorporates environmental and social safeguards. Such policies can be a good foundation for practicing due care. Training employees on the policy and putting in place systems and performance incentives for policy implementation can be a way to reduce risk effectively.

There are legal and responsible ways to harvest nearly all species, even from typically “high-risk” areas of the world. Just ensure that you’ve taken the steps necessary to ascertain the legality of your product, whether the company you are dealing with is certified or not.

How to Read A Certification Code

**Table 1. Forest Certification Bodies**
Certification Body Code	Certification Body	Type of Certification Offered	Website
TT	BM TRADA Certification Ltd	Worldwide for Chain of Custody (CoC) certification	www.bmtrada.com
BV	Bureau Veritas Certification	Worldwide for Forest Management (FM) and Chain of Custody certification	www.certification.bureauveritas.fr
RR	Certification Association “Russian Register”	Chain of Custody certification in the CIS* countries, Bulgaria, Georgia, Latvia and Lithuania excluding the certification of SLIMF operations	www.rusregister.ru
CQ	Certiquality	Worldwide for Chain of Custody certification	www.certiquality.it
CU	Control Union Certifications B.V.	Worldwide for Forest Management and Chain of Custody certification	www.controlunion.com
CTIB	CTIB-TCHN Belgian Institute for Wood Technology	Chain of Custody certification to include all countries in the EU and the European Fair Trade Association (EFTA)	www.ctib-tchn.be
DNV	Det Norske Veritas Certification AB	Worldwide for Chain of Custody certification and FSC accreditation for Forest Management limited to Sweden	www.detnorskeveritas.se
FC	Forest Certification LLC	FSC Forest Management and Chain of Custody certification in the CIS* countries excluding the certification of SLIMF operations	www.fcert.ru
FCBA	Technological Institute (earlier called CTBA)	Chain of Custody certification, limited to 32 countries with French as official	www.fcba.fr
GFA	GFA Consulting Group GmbH	Worldwide for Forest Management and Chain of Custody certification	www.gfa-certification.de
HCA	HolzCert Austria	Worldwide for Chain of Custody certification	www.holzcert.at
ICILA	ICILA Srl.	Worldwide for Chain of Custody certification and FSC accreditation for Forest Management limited to Italy	www.icila.org
IMO	Institut für Marktökologie	Worldwide for Forest Management, FSC Controlled Wood and Chain of Custody certification. Note: Terminated for FSC Forest Management certification in Chile, as of 16th May 2008.	www.imo.ch
KF	KPMG Forest Certification Services Inc.	Worldwide for Forest Management and Chain of Custody certification	www.kpmg.ca
IC	LGA InterCert GmbH	Worldwide for Forest Management and Chain of Custody certification	www.lga-intercert.com
QMI	QMI-SAI Global Assurance Services	Worldwide for Forest Management, FSC Controlled Wood and Chain of Custody certification	www.qmi.com
SCS	Scientific Certification Systems	Worldwide for Forest Management, FSC Controlled Wood and Chain of Custody certification	www.scscertified.com
SGS	SGS South Africa (Pty) Ltd.	Worldwide for Forest Management, FSC Controlled Wood and Chain of Custody certification. Note: Suspended for FSC Forest Management certification in Brazil, as of 17th February 2011.	www.qualifor.sgs.com
SGS NA	SGS Systems & Services Certification, North America	Chain of Custody certification for USA, Canada and Mexico	N/A
SW	SmartWood, Rainforest Alliance	Worldwide for Forest Management, FSC Controlled Wood and Chain of Custody certification	www.rainforest-alliance.org
SA	Soil Association Woodmark	Worldwide for Forest Management, FSC Controlled Wood and Chain of Custody certification	www.soilassociation.org/forestry
SKH	Stichting Keuringsbureau Hout	Chain of Custody certification for The Netherlands	www.skh.org
SQS	Swiss Association for Quality and Management Systems	Worldwide for Forest Management and Chain of Custody certification	www.sqs.ch
TUV	TÜV Nord Cert GmbH	Worldwide for Chain of Custody certification	www.tuev-nord-cert.com

Reference: ASI – Accreditation Services International GmbH, Accredited Certification Bodies for the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Program, 18 February 2011.

[Top]

For more information, visit www.forestlegality.org.

Disclaimer: This document is for informational purposes only. Persons and companies seeking legal advice on compliance with the Lacey Act statute should consult with a legal professional.

This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the Forest Legality Alliance and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

While certification can be used as a tool to demonstrate that a company has attempted to source legally produced wood, it is important to note that the Lacey Act is a fact-based, not a document-based, statute. This means that there are no “get out of jail free” cards. Neither certification nor verification can be used to exempt a company from the underlying requirement that the products it sells must be legally produced. ↩
The subject of mixed products can complicate efforts to understand what is certified and what is not. Mixed-source products are comprised of certified and non-certified components, with the non-certified components controlled by a lower standard of compliance to sustainable and/or legal standards. These standards will vary depending on the certification system used. A full discussion of mixed sources is beyond the scope of this article. To learn more about this important subject, visit the certification schemes’ websites at http://www.fsc.org/ and http://www.pefc.org/. ↩

PRESS RELEASE: WRI Expands Capacity in International Forest and Ecosystems Work

Michael Oko — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:29:37 -0400

Two new leaders, Nigel Sizer and Robert Winterbottom, added to roster

Two international forest experts, with more than 45 years combined experience, have joined the World Resources Institute’s (WRI) People and Ecosystems Program. Dr. Nigel Sizer, who worked at WRI earlier in his career, returns to lead the Global Forest Initiative, overseeing efforts to increase the ability of governments, businesses and civil society to protect intact forest landscapes, sustainably manage working forests, and restore deforested lands. Robert Winterbottom, who also previously spent time at WRI, is now directing the Ecosystem Services Initiative, managing activities to reduce the degradation of ecosystems, and to invest in ecosystem services to secure economic growth and enhance people’s well being.

“We are thrilled to bring Nigel and Bob back to WRI— two extremely qualified experts with hands-on experience,” said Craig Hanson, director of WRI’s People and Ecosystem Program. “I look forward to working with them, as WRI expands its impact through our global forest and ecosystem services initiatives.”

Sizer comes to WRI from Rare, an international conservation organization, where he served as vice president for Asia. While at Rare, he expanded operations into China, and conceived and developed Community Carbon, a grassroots effort to link impoverished communities in Indonesia to global carbon markets. In 2008, he served as lead advisor on climate change and energy issues in Asia to former President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Global Initiative. Sizer has also worked with UNEP in Nairobi, and established The Nature Conservancy’s Asia-Pacific Forest Program.

“I am delighted to be back at WRI, which has built an extraordinary reputation over the years,” said Sizer. “I really look forward to working with new colleagues and helping expand both our influence and impact in the world.”

Winterbottom comes to WRI with more than 25 years of experience on environment and sustainable development issues in dozens of countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia. In Bangladesh, he worked to scale up the collaborative management of wetlands and protected forests by building capacity at the grassroots level and among responsible government agencies. In eastern Senegal, he increased rural incomes by expanding community-based enterprises, together with improved land use planning and natural resource management. Winterbottom also supported efforts by Niger to strengthen property rights and policies to promote widespread adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and “regreening” of rural landscapes. Most recently, he led a team of experts in assessing needs and opportunities in Vietnam for climate change adaptation and restoration of ecosystem services in targeted watersheds.

“For many years, WRI has been at the forefront of helping governments and businesses understand the value of ecosystem services,” said Winterbottom. “I’m excited to be back at WRI to advance this groundbreaking work.”

Keeping Forest as Forest: Incentives for the U.S. South

Maggie Barron — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:25:05 -0500

Summary

Forests of the southern United States provide a wide variety of benefits—collectively known as “ecosystem services”—to people, communities, and businesses. For example, they provide timber, help purify water, control soil erosion, help regulate climate by sequestering carbon, and offer outdoor recreation, hunting, and fishing opportunities.
Over the coming decades, several direct drivers of change are expected to negatively affect the quantity and quality of southern forests and thus their ability to provide ecosystem services. These direct drivers include suburban encroachment, unsustainable forest management practices, climate change, surface mining, pest and pathogen outbreaks, invasive species, and wildfire.
A number of incentives, markets, and practices — collectively called “measures” — could help address these drivers of change and promote southern forest conservation and sustainable management. These measures fall into five major categories: land use instruments, fiscal incentives, liability limitations, market incentives, and education/capacity building. With such measures in place, these forests could continue to supply needed ecosystem services and the native biodiversity that underpins these benefits.
The South has experience with many of these measures. A few have been around for awhile, such as parks and protected areas, while many are relatively new, such as payments for watershed protection. However, adoption of even some of the most traditional measures is still relatively low in the South. Why is this the case? What can be done to increase adoption of these measures? Are there other innovative ideas that hold promise for more widespread application?
This issue brief sets the stage for these questions and introduces subsequent installments of the Southern Forests for the Future Incentives Series, which will answer these and related questions. This brief is designed for conservation and land use professionals, decision makers, and concerned citizens.

Declarations and Due Care: Insights from Another Lacey Case

Craig Hanson — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:11:37 -0400

En Español

Enforcement of the amended Lacey Act has begun, both on and off the public radar. Here are tips on how to remain in compliance.

In November 2009, U.S. federal agents raided Gibson Guitar Corporation’s manufacturing facility in Nashville, Tennessee as part of an investigation into the illegal trade of a rare wood species allegedly used in some of Gibson’s musical instruments. Although the seizure made headlines, few people are aware that this was not the first enforcement of the 2008 amendments to the U.S. Lacey Act which banned commerce in illegal timber and paper products in the United States. There was one before it that has received little attention, until now.

A plank of tigrillo (Swartzia arborescens) on the left and of tigre caspi (Zygia cataractae) on the right. Photos: www.woodworkerssource.com

Five months earlier, agents of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service seized three pallets of tropical hardwood as they entered the Port of Tampa, Florida from Iquitos, Peru. Originating deep in the Amazon, the pallets contained numerous species of decorative woods, including tigrillo (Swartzia arborescens), palisangre (Brosimum rubescens), and tigre caspi (Zygia cataractae). Unlike the Gibson case, agents confiscated the wood on grounds that the shipment violated Lacey’s declaration requirements. The seizure was supported by substantial evidence that the exporter was using stolen and forged documents. [Details of the U.S. Department of Interior Decision are available here (PDF)]

It appears that the amended Lacey Act has teeth. Enforcement has begun, both on and off the public radar. This is a good development for the world’s forests and for all law-abiding businesses.

The century-old U.S. law has been an effective means of curtailing illegal wildlife trade. It was amended in 2008 to cover products made from trees and other plants. In effect since May 22, 2008, the law:

Learn More in our Lacey Act Fact Sheet

Prohibits trade into and within U.S. borders of any product made from trees or other plants that were logged or traded in violation of a law in the country of harvest. Products include paper, lumber, and furniture;
Requires importers of plant products to declare the country of harvest, the genus and species of the plant, as well as the product’s volume and value (this is the “declaration requirement”); and
Establishes penalties for violations, including forfeiture of goods and vessels, fines of up to $500,000, and prison terms of up to five years.

The seizure of Peruvian tropical hardwood provides several insights into enforcement of the amended Lacey Act and what one needs to do to remain in compliance, namely:

1. Take the declaration requirement seriously—the U.S. government does. Declarations are the first line of defense against the import of illegally harvested wood and other plant products. Because of this focus, it is important to correctly fill out your declaration forms.

2. Heed red flags. Peculiarities that arise in the course of a business transaction should trigger an importer or buyer to ask more questions about the product’s origin and legality and, if necessary, step away from the transaction. The Peru case had at least four peculiarities. First, this was the first time the buyer had imported from Peru, thus it was purchasing from an unfamiliar source market. Second, an exporter in Peru contacted the buyer out of the blue with wood to sell; the buyer did not initiate the deal. Third, prior to the transaction, the buyer had received an email indicating that the company supplying the material had suspended its business operations. Fourth, the supplier in Peru requested receiving payment via money order made directly to an individual, not a company. Red flags, anyone?

3. Demonstrate due care. At the core of the amended Lacey Act is the responsibility of each buyer—no matter where in the supply chain—to conduct “due care.” Due care is the legal term for exercising the level of appropriate action that would be taken by a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances to minimize the risk of purchasing plant products that were harvested or traded illegally. The Office of the Solicitor stated that the buyer of the Peruvian wood “did not do all he could within his power to comply with regulations and ensure that the shipment was authorized by an export permit that properly documented the required information and was declared appropriately under the Lacey Act upon arrival to the United States.”

What could someone in the buyer’s position have done? Well, is this the first time you are buying wood or paper from a particular country? Then learn about the degree to which illegal logging is prevalent there and assess your comfort level with assuming this risk. Is this a new supplier? Then do your homework on it. Did you learn of problems affecting the supplier? Then probe further to understand the nature of the problems and the level of risk they pose to you. If this and other research still leaves you suspicious, find another supplier. Document your efforts in writing.

4. Be aware that there are many ways to detect Lacey violations. False declaration statements, satellite imagery of logging in protected areas, fiber testing to identify protected species in a sheet of paper, random wood inspections, and undercover investigations of illicit transactions are but a few of the ways people can detect violations of the Lacey Act. Two played an important role in the Peru case. First, on the declaration form, the buyer’s import broker classified the three pallets as containing finished wood products when, in fact, the pallets contained raw wood. This incorrect classification enabled the importer to avoid having to fill out more detail about the shipment since, at the time, full declarations for finished wood products had not been phased in. But a visual inspection can detect the difference. Second, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service received a tip in May 2009, based on substantial evidence, that a shipment of wood from Iquitos, Peru with stolen and forged documents was on its way to Tampa on the ship Yacu Puma. The “tipster” had become aware of the cargo when he received a bill from the shipper for a shipment that was not his. There are many “eyes and ears” out there, some from unsuspected places.

5. Manage your supply chain. Lacey Act violations can occur anywhere along the forest product supply chain. Thus the well worn adage “a chain is only as good as its weakest link” applies here too. In the Peru case, actions by the broker had ramifications for the buyer.

6. Ignorance is no excuse. In the words of the U.S. Department of Interior’s Office of the Solicitor involved in this case, “a company that specializes in international shipments should be well versed in the applicable laws that govern such transactions and should also be up to date on any amendments to the laws. The Lacey Act amendments were passed in 2008, giving the industry time to adjust and become familiar with the changes before enforcement began.”

One concluding insight is that there is a lot going on behind the scenes. This wood seizure occurred in June, 2009 but is now just coming into public light. How many more actions have occurred and how many investigations are currently underway that are still confidential for legal reasons? Nobody knows.

But what we do know is that the U.S. government has given the amended Lacey Act teeth.

For more information about how you can conduct due care when purchasing forest products, visit www.forestlegality.org.

En Español

Declaraciones y el Concepto de “Debido Cuidado”: Lecciones de Otro Caso Lacey

En noviembre del 2009, agentes del gobierno federal de los Estados Unidos hicieron una redada en la planta de fabricación de la empresa Gibson Guitar (Gibson Guitar Corporation) en Nashville, Tennessee. La redada formó parte de una investigación sobre el tráfico ilegal de una especie de madera rara que se alega fue usada en la fabricación de instrumentos musicales de la marca Gibson. Aunque este evento se convirtió en una noticia de primera plana, pocos saben que esta no fue la primera acción de aplicación de la Ley Lacey que, gracias a una enmienda en 2008, prohíbe la comercialización en los Estados Unidos de productos de madera y papel de origen ilegal. Hubo otra acción de aplicación que, hasta ahora, no ha recibido suficiente atención.

Tabla de tigrillo (Swartzia arborescens) (izquierda) y de tigre caspi (Zygia cataractae) (derecha). Fuente: www.woodworkerssource.com

Cinco meses antes de la redada en la fábrica de Gibson, agentes del Servicio de Pesca y Vida Silvestre de los Estados Unidos (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) confiscaron tres palés de madera tropical dura cuando arribaron al puerto de Tampa, Florida, procedentes de Iquitos, Perú. Los palés contenían numerosas especies madereras ornamentales de árboles que viven en el corazón del Amazonas; estas especies abarcaban tigrillo (Swartzia arborescens), palisangre (Brosimum rubescens), y tigre caspi (Zygia cataractae). A diferencia del caso Gibson, los agentes del gobierno federal confiscaron la madera porque se encontró que la documentación del embarque violaba los requisitos de declaración que estipula la Ley Lacey. También había evidencia sólida de que el exportador estaba usando documentos robados y falsificados.

Parece ser que la enmienda de la Ley Lacey tiene garra. La aplicación de la Ley está ocurriendo tras bambalinas y en la escena pública. Estos acontecimientos son positivos para los bosques del mundo, y para los negocios que operan en cumplimiento con la ley.

La centenaria Ley Lacey de los Estados Unidos ha sido una herramienta eficaz para combatir el tráfico ilegal de vida silvestre. En el 2008 la Ley fue modificada para abarcar productos fabricados con árboles y plantas. La Ley entró en efecto el 22 de mayo de 2008 y:

Prohíbe la importación y comercialización en los Estados Unidos de cualquier producto que haya sido fabricado con árboles y otras plantas que hayan sido talados o comercializados infringiendo las leyes del país de origen. Los productos abarcan papel, madera, y muebles;
Requiere que los importadores de productos de origen vegetal declaren el país de donde la materia prima fue obtenida, el género y especie de la planta, y el volumen y valor del producto (estos son los “requisitos de declaración”); y
Establece penalidades por violaciones, abarcando embargo de bienes y vehículos de transporte, multas de hasta $500,000 dólares, y encarcelamiento de hasta cinco años.

El embargo de la madera dura tropical proveniente de Perú proporciona varias lecciones sobre la aplicación de la enmienda de la Ley Lacey, y acciones clave que son necesarias para cumplir con la ley, en especial:

Tomar en serio los requisitos de declaración, tal como lo hace el gobierno de los Estados Unidos. Las declaraciones de aduana constituyen la línea primordial de defensa para prevenir la importación de madera de origen ilegal, y de otros productos vegetales de origen ilegal. Debido a esto, es importante llenar correctamente los formularios de declaración.
Prestar atención a las señales de alerta o “red flags”. Hay una serie de hechos singulares que, si emergen durante el curso de una transacción de negocios, deberían de hacer que el importador o comprador haga más preguntas sobre el origen y la legalidad del producto y, si es necesario, suspenda la compra. En el caso de Perú hubo, por lo menos, cuatro rasgos. Para empezar, esta era la primera vez que el comprador importaba productos de Perú, y estaba comprando en un mercado con el que no estaba familiarizado. Segundo, un exportador en Perú contactó al comprador con la mercancía de manera inesperada; el comprador no inició la transacción de compra. Tercero, antes de la transacción, el comprador recibió un correo electrónico indicando que la empresa que estaba proporcionado la mercancía había suspendido sus operaciones. Cuarto, el proveedor en Perú solicitó que el pago se hicieran a través de giro postal, pago directo a un individuo, no a una empresa. ¿Se necesita más alertas?
Demostrar que se ejerció el cuidado debido. El aspecto central de la enmienda de la Ley Lacey es la responsabilidad que tiene cada uno de los compradores―sin importar a qué nivel se encuentren en la cadena de suministro―de ejercer el “cuidado debido.” El cuidado debido es un concepto legal que significa el tomar la(s) acción(es) apropiada(s) que una persona razonablemente prudente ejercitaría en circunstancias similares para minimizar el riesgo de compra de productos vegetales que fueron extraídos o comercializados ilegalmente. La Oficina del Abogado del Departamento del Interior que investigó el caso indicó que el comprador de la madera proveniente de Perú “no hizo todo lo que podía haber hecho para cumplir con las regulaciones y asegurarse de que el envío estaba autorizado por un permiso de exportación que documentaba apropiadamente la información requerida, y que contenía la declaración apropiada requerida por la Ley Lacey una vez que llegó a los Estados Unidos.”

¿Qué puede hacer alguien que se encuentra en una situación como esta? ¿Es la primera vez que está comprando productos de madera o papel en un país? Entonces infórmese sobre la prevalencia de la tala ilegal en el país, evalúe el riesgo y determine su nivel de confianza con dicho riesgo. ¿Está negociando con un proveedor nuevo? Averigüe más sobre el proveedor. ¿Está enterado de los problemas que tiene su proveedor? Entonces haga preguntas para entender mejor los problemas y evaluar el nivel de riesgo que puede representar para su negocio. Si después de todas estas averiguaciones existen sospechas, busque otro proveedor. Documente por escrito todos estos esfuerzos.

Sepa que existen muchas maneras de detectar violaciones de la Ley Lacey. Declaraciones falsas, uso de imágenes de satélite para detectar tala de árboles en áreas protegidas, análisis de papel para identificar el uso de fibras de especies protegidas, inspecciones aleatorias de la madera, e investigaciones con operaciones encubiertas son algunas de las muchas maneras que pueden ser usadas para detectar violaciones a la Ley Lacey. Hubo dos elementos de este tipo que fueron importantes en el caso de Perú. Primero, en la clasificación de tipo de producto en el formulario de la declaración, el agente de importaciones del comprador declaró que los palés contenían productos de madera terminados cuando en realidad contenían madera en bruto. Con esta clasificación incorrecta, el importador se evitó agregar más detalles sobre el embarque porque, en ese tiempo, el requisito de declaración de la Ley Lacey para productos terminados no había entrado en efecto. Sin embargo, la inspección visual puede detectar estas diferencias. Segundo, en mayo 2009 el Servicio de Pesca y Vida Silvestre de los Estados Unidos recibió un aviso, basado en evidencia sólida, de un envío de madera en la embarcación Yacu Puma, proveniente de Iquitos, Perú, y con destino a Tampa, que tenía documentación robada y falsificada. La persona que dio el aviso se enteró de la existencia del envío porque recibió una factura de la compañía naviera por un envío que su empresa no había hecho. Hay “muchos ojos y oídos,” y algunos están en lugares inesperados.
Gestione su cadena de suministro. Las violaciones a la Ley Lacey pueden ocurrir en cualquier punto a lo largo de la cadena de suministro de los productos de bosque. El dicho “la fortaleza de una cadena depende del eslabón más débil” (“a chain is only as strong as its weakest link”) se aplica en este caso. En el caso de Perú, las acciones del agente de importaciones tuvieron ramificaciones para el comprador.
La ignorancia no es una excusa. Usando las palabras de la Oficina del Abogado del Departamento del Interior de los Estados Unidos, para este caso, “una empresa que se especializa en hacer envíos internacionales debería conocer bien las leyes relevantes que gobiernan este tipo de transacciones, y debería estar actualizada con cualquier enmienda que se haga a dichas leyes. La enmienda de la Ley Lacey se aprobó en 2008, dándole a la industria el tiempo suficiente para ajustarse y familiarizarse con los cambios antes de que comenzara el cumplimiento.”

Una conclusión final es que hay muchas cosas ocurriendo tras bambalinas. El embargo de esta madera ocurrió en Junio 2009, pero apenas está saliendo a la luz pública. ¿Qué otras acciones han ocurrido? y ¿Cuántas otras investigaciones hay en curso que todavía son confidenciales por razones legales? Nadie lo sabe.

Lo que sí sabemos es que el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos le ha dado garra a la enmienda de la Ley Lacey.

Para mayor información sobre cómo se puede conducir el cuidado debido en la compra de productos forestales, visite el sitio de Internet www.forestlegality.org.

For U.S. Forests, REDD Begins at Home

John Talberth — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:20:18 -0400

By losing forest, the United States also loses one of its best defenses against climate change.

Four months after the Copenhagen Accord, the interest and discussions about reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries – colloquially known as REDD plus – continues. Clearly, helping developing countries implement comprehensive initiatives to protect their forests is a sensible investment; however, new satellite mapping technologies – such as those highlighted on SeeSouthernForests.org, the World Resources Institute’s new web-based mapping portal – show that deforestation and forest degradation occurs in the United States as well.

As the United States considers funding to conserve forests in the tropics, it is equally imperative that we take a look at what is happening in our own backyard and consider the role that our forests can serve in reducing the impacts of climate change.

Deforestation in the United States

Addressing U.S. deforestation will help meet our Copenhagen targets and strengthen the U.S. economy in our forest dependent communities.

The United States is losing significant forest cover to suburbanization, mining, and infrastructure development. Most U.S. forests have been logged and some are on their second or third rounds of logging. Forests can naturally regenerate, but not if they are paved over, which is why this round of deforestation is so disconcerting. According to the U.S. Forest Service, approximately 12 million acres of southern forests will be lost to suburbia between 1992 and 2020. Another 19 million acres will be lost by 2040 unless there are changes in the pattern of development that now favors low density housing, strip malls, and exurban road construction near cities like Atlanta, Birmingham, Nashville, and Richmond¹.

Forests and Climate Change

By losing forest, the United States also loses one of its best defenses against climate change. According to Forest Service carbon accounting tools, the 21 million acres of forests that are expected to be lost to sprawl in the next 20 years sequester roughly 32 million tons of carbon per year. Furthermore, when cleared for development, carbon stored in these forests is also lost, amounting to approximately 8 million tons per year. Taken together, lost carbon sequestration capacity and emissions from clearing will represent a carbon footprint of at least 40 million tons per year by 2030. To put this into context, this amount is roughly 13% of the U.S. emissions reduction target President Obama announced at Copenhagen.

Creating New Incentives to Reduce Deforestation

There are a number of options for reducing deforestation pressure in the United States. One approach is to understand how public infrastructure investments contribute to the problem. Multi-billion dollar highway projects that induce sprawl and deforestation on the fringes of our urban areas provide an example. Take Birmingham, Alabama, one of the hotspots of forest loss in the South. Construction of the Northern Beltline highway, a $3.4 billion public investment, is set to begin soon and will literally clear the way for commercial and residential development on the few big tracts of forest left near the city. Can these investments be redirected to encourage Smartgrowth instead?

Creating markets for ecosystem services can provide new income opportunities to forest landowners in addition to or in lieu of timber.

We can also create incentives for private forest landowners, who own 87% of southern forest acreage, to keep their land rather than sell to developers. Creating markets for ecosystem services can provide new income opportunities to forest landowners in addition to or in lieu of timber. For example, water quality markets make it possible for downstream water utilities to pay upstream forestland owners to keep their forests in a well managed state. Offsets are yet another approach. Consumers are increasingly demanding that the companies they do business with offset the environmental impacts of their operations by protecting land. These voluntary offset markets, such as Wal-Mart’s Acres for America program, make it possible for forestland owners to receive financial support to maintain healthy forest cover on their lands.

As the United States refines its role in REDD plus in the coming months, a more complete exploration of the opportunities for reducing deforestation in the United States is warranted. Addressing U.S. deforestation will help meet our Copenhagen targets and strengthen the U.S. economy in our forest dependent communities. Innovative solutions are already on the table such as markets for carbon offsets, water quality credits, and habitat credits. It’s time to take a hard look at how to fully develop these efforts and then scale them up before millions more acres are permanently lost to development.

Wear, David N. 2002. “Land Use.” In Wear, David N., and John G. Greis, eds. 2002. Southern Forest Resource Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. ↩

New Mapping Website Tracks Changes and Threats to Southern U.S. Forests

Logan Yonavjak — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:00:04 -0500

SeeSouthernForests.org provides a new way to learn about – and protect – the forests of the southern United States.

Changes over a large area are often hard to see. This can be especially true when it comes to forests – incremental forest loss often goes unnoticed until it is too late. A new website and report by the World Resources Institute seek to change this and allow people to visualize the trends and drivers of change affecting southern forests.

The southern forests of the United States, stretching across 13 states, from Texas to Virginia and from Kentucky to Florida, are incredibly productive. They yield 18 percent of the world’s pulpwood for paper and 7 percent of its industrial timber while comprising just two percent of the world’s forest area. These forests also provide a number of other critical ecosystem services, such as water filtration, erosion control, and climate regulation by sequestering carbon, not to mention the myriad opportunities they provide for people to hike, hunt, camp, and enjoy natural beauty.

seesouthernforests.org

However, these forests are increasingly under pressure. SeeSouthernForests.org provides, for the first time, time series satellite maps dating back 30 years that reveal trends and changes in southern forests. The website also offers a rich trove of environmental data that can be overlaid on current and historical satellite images to give a clearer picture of what is happening to southern forests. For example, the maps below show the suburbanization trends of Atlanta (the city on the right) and Birmingham (on the left), from 1990 to 2010 (projected). The gray areas are urban and the yellow are suburban.

1990

2010

Other interesting spatial datasets featured on the website include: forest cover gain and loss from 1992-2001, forest ownership, protected area boundaries, forest composition, climate change impacts, a pest and pathogen risk map, and real-time wildfire data.

According to Craig Hanson, Director of WRI’s People and Ecosystems Program and a co-author of the report, “This kind of visual information can empower more people to better understand the forces of change in southern forests, and hopefully better protect or sustainably manage them in the future.”

The project, made possible by Toyota, will also look at innovative financial incentives that can help preserve both the economic and the ecological benefits of southern forests. Unlike other forests in the United States, the majority of forests in the South (87%) are privately owned, and of this, two-thirds is owned by individuals and families. Many of these private landowners face pressure to subdivide their land and sell for commercial or residential development. In the coming year, WRI will work to identify a portfolio of incentives, markets and practices that could encourage private landowners to retain their forests and manage them sustainably.

The forests of America’s so-called “Woodbasket” are an integral part of the southern economy, and their continued health and vigor has never been more important. How we respond to these drivers of change will shape the future of southern forests, communities, and the economy.

Southern Forests for the Future

Maggie Barron — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:15:07 -0500

Additional information and resources are available at www.SeeSouthernForests.org, an online interactive information portal developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI).

Executive Summary

Stretching from Texas across to Virginia and from Kentucky down to Florida, the forests of the southern United States are a vast global, national, and local natural treasure. They provide a variety of benefits or “ecosystem services.”

For instance, southern forests yield 18 percent of the world’s pulpwood for paper while comprising just two percent of the world’s forest area. They protect water quality, prevent erosion, and help regulate climate by storing carbon dioxide—the leading greenhouse gas. In addition, they provide opportunities for millions of people to hike, hunt, and experience natural beauty.

Southern forests are dynamic and have a long history of change. Prior to European colonization, these forests were shaped by natural disturbances such as climatic warming after the last ice age, hurricanes, and lightning-induced fires, as well as by fires set by Native Americans. Beginning in the 1600s, agriculture, timber extraction, and settlements built by Europeans and their descendants gradually spread across the region, affecting the extent, distribution, and composition of southern forests. Over four centuries, more than 99 percent of southern forest acreage was cut or cleared at one time or another as the region was developed. Much of the land regenerated over time as secondary forest, demonstrating the resiliency of forests. Yet the net extent of southern forests has declined by an estimated 40 percent since the dawn of European settlement.

A number of factors or “drivers of change” are projected to affect the quantity (extent and distribution) and quality (composition and health) of southern forests over the coming 2–3 decades, with some increasing and others decreasing forest quantity or quality. For example:

Suburban residential and commercial development is projected to convert 19 million acres of forest between 2020 and 2040 and increase forest fragmentation.
In some areas of the South, forest extent may expand as agricultural land reverts back into forest, but this trend will not sufficiently offset forest loss due to development.
Climate change may have a number of impacts, including shifting the distribution of some plant and animal species, increasing invasive species threats, inundating low-lying coastal forests, intensifying droughts, and exacerbating wildfire dangers.
Wildfires remain a risk as a consequence of decades of suppressing natural, low-intensity fires.
Outbreaks of pests and pathogens—such as the gypsy moth, hemlock woolly adelgid, sirex wood wasp, butternut canker, emerald ash borer, laurel wilt of redbay, and many more—will affect numerous types of trees—such as oak, hemlock, pine, butternut, and ash—and may alter forest species composition.
Invasive species—such as cogon grass and Japanese stiltgrass— threaten to crowd out native species, alter natural ecosystem processes, and increase wildfire risk.

Going forward, these drivers of change will likely impact the ability of southern forests to continue to provide a full range of ecosystem services. How landowners, businesses, conservation organizations, governments, and citizens respond and adapt to these and other drivers ultimately will shape southern forests for the future.

Approximately 87 percent of southern forest acreage is privately owned. Of this amount, about two-thirds is held by individuals and families. The future of southern forests thus rests largely in the hands of private landowners. Given the entailed forgone revenue, creating protected areas out of their forests may not be a viable option for many of these landowners. However, a number of measures exist or are beginning to emerge that could create incentives for private forest owners to conserve and sustainably manage their forests. These measures include:

Land use instruments such as conservation easements, development offsets, and transferable development rights;
Fiscal measures such as forest management-related and conservation-related cost-share programs and incentives;
Liability limitations such as legal assurances and the “right to prescribed burns”;
Market incentives such as markets for sustainably harvested timber and paper, payments for carbon sequestration, payments for watershed protection, and recreational user fees; and
Increased education and capacity building.

However, so far the performance of many of these measures has been mixed. For instance:

Despite being already available, some of these measures are currently undersubscribed in the region; Awareness of some measures is low;
Some of the market incentives, especially payments for ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and watershed protection, are just emerging and therefore are relatively novel for most forest owners;
The region lacks a sufficient number of pilot projects utilizing these incentives to raise awareness, stimulate adoption, and facilitate continuous improvement of incentive design; and
Some measures, such as voluntary development offsets or transferable development rights, have been piloted in a few locations but have yet to be scaled up.

These observations lead to a number of questions, including:

Which of these incentives and measures show the greatest promise for sustaining southern forests and their ecosystem services?
What are the barriers southern forest owners face that limit utilization of these measures? How can these barriers be addressed?
How can emerging incentives be piloted in the region to demonstrate effectiveness and refine incentive design?
How can incentives that have successfully been piloted in a few instances in the region be scaled up?
What other innovative incentives for sustaining forest ecosystem services are being pioneered elsewhere that could be replicated in the South?
How can awareness of these incentives and outreach be improved?

Southern Forests for the Future sets the stage for addressing these and related questions by introducing readers to the forests of the southern United States. It provides data, maps, and other forms of information about southern forests, their condition, and trends. In particular, this publication:

Maps many of the natural features of southern forests, including extent and species composition;
Describes and, where possible, quantifies a range of ecosystem services that these forests provide to people, communities, and businesses at the local, regional, and global levels;
Provides a brief history of southern forests and the forces that shaped them;
Profiles the factors that will likely affect southern forest extent, distribution, composition, and health over the coming decades; and
Outlines a number of markets, incentives, and practices that might help ensure southern forests continue to provide a full range of ecosystem services into the future. Although public policies have an important role to play in sustaining southern forests, this publication focuses on non-policy measures.

Southern Forests for the Future is designed to serve as a resource for conservation organizations, concerned citizens, landowners, academic institutions, the private sector, government agencies, and others involved with forest stewardship. Additional information and resources are available at www.SeeSouthernForests.org, an online interactive information portal developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI).

The site includes satellite imagery of southern forests, detailed interactive maps on forest features and drivers of change, case studies, historical photos, and other data. With this information publicly available, WRI aspires to raise awareness of the importance of these forests and help empower stakeholders to implement innovative measures that will ensure southern forests for the future.

NEWS RELEASE: Risks to Southern U.S. Forests Highlighted on New Online Mapping System

Paul Mackie — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:15:39 -0500

The video news release can be viewed here and at the bottom of this page. For state and city information, please see below.

A new online system that maps a rich trove of environmental data of southern U.S. forests onto satellite images from the past 35 years was launched today by the World Resources Institute (WRI).

The system, located at SeeSouthernForests.org, highlights risks to these forests such as pest and pathogen outbreaks, active wildfires, potential climate change impacts, and forest conversion to suburban development – the leading cause of southern U.S. forest loss in recent decades. The system also maps other features such as the region’s protected areas and forest ownership.

Extent of Southern Forests, by County (Early 2000s)

“SeeSouthernForests.org is a first-of-its-kind one-stop shop for map-based information about southern forests,” said Craig Hanson, director of WRI’s People & Ecosystems Program. “We have pulled together the power of GoogleEarth, Microsoft’s Bing Maps, NASA satellite images, ESRI technology, and a wide variety of forest data to raise awareness about the benefits of southern forests and the challenges they face.”

The system is the first step in a multiyear WRI project, Southern Forests for the Future, aimed at helping landowners, conservation organizations, and others ensure the ability of these forests to continue providing a range of benefits – called “ecosystem services” – to people.

“At a time when the world is concerned about climate change, freshwater availability, the economy and jobs, southern forests are part of the answer,” said Jonathan Lash, president of WRI. “The pattern of forest cover loss in this region has been acres here and acres there. Continuous but dispersed change often goes unnoticed. This new online system addresses that.”

Stretching from Texas to Virginia and from Kentucky to Florida, the southern U.S. forests are among the world’s most biologically diverse temperate forests. Though they comprise just two percent of the planet’s forest cover, they underpin hundreds of thousands of jobs and produce more pulp for paper by volume than any single nation – other than the entire United States.

In addition, they supply other ecosystem services, such as watershed protection, recreation, and carbon storage.

“A lot of focus in global climate change discussions to date has been on tropical rainforests,” said Susan Minnemeyer, a WRI senior associate. “But U.S. forests are important too. When domestic forest acreage declines, the nation’s carbon sink shrinks.”

The future of these forests mostly rests in the hands of private landowners. Approximately 27 percent of southern forest acreage is held by companies and financial institutions while another 60 percent is owned by individuals and families. But three-quarters of these family forests are owned by people 55 years of age and older. A generational transfer is on the horizon.

“In many ways, the next 20 years will shape the fate of southern forests,” said Todd Gartner, manager of Conservation Incentives at the American Forest Foundation. “Surveys indicate that most families want to pass their forests on to the next generation. However, with increasing development pressure, market-based incentives are needed to ensure that private forests remain as forests.”

WRI’s new online mapping system can help forest landowners in the South see the history of their forests through satellite images and better understand the forces of change affecting their properties. It also showcases examples of successful approaches for owners who want to retain their forests.

“SeeSouthernForests.org will be really helpful when engaging a community and working with local landowners regarding forest conservation and sustainable management,” said Tom Bancroft, chief scientist at the Audubon Society. “If a picture is worth a thousand words, satellite images and a good map are worth 10,000.”

“We hope the site will raise awareness about the economic and environmental benefits of southern forests and put important information at people’s fingertips,” said Patricia Pineda of Toyota, which is sponsoring WRI’s work as part of the company’s commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative.

“We were thrilled that Toyota and WRI committed to launch SeeSouthernForests.org at the Clinton Global Initiative’s Annual Meeting last year,” said Robert S. Harrison, CEO of the Clinton Global Initiative. “We hope this site will empower more and more people to appreciate southern forests and the benefits they provide to people in the region and beyond.”

Alabama
Satellite Images of Forest Change Landowner Contact:
Gail and Philip Jones 334.222.3138

Arkansas
Satellite Images of Forest Change
Landowner Contact: Gary Churchill 479-264-8080

Florida
Satellite Images of Forest Change Landowner Contact:
Jon Gould, Washington County, Florida, (205) 991-6918 - work, (850) 535-2461 - home, (205) 296-4923 - cell

Georgia
Satellite Images of Forest Change Landowner Contact: Earl & Wanda Barrs 478-934-4728

Kentucky
Satellite Images of Forest Change
Landowner Contact: Greg Kuhns 334.804.1151

Louisiana
Satellite Images of Forest Change

Mississippi
Satellite Images of Forest Change
Landowner Contact: Judd Brooke Hancock County, Mississippi (228) 518-1259

North Carolina
Satellite Images of Forest Change
Landowner Contact: Jim Gray Dunn, North Carolina (910) 891-7376 (cell)

Oklahoma
Satellite Images of Forest Change

South Carolina
Satellite Images of Forest Change
Landowner Contact: Jeff Dennis Colleton County, South Carolina (843) 509-8809

Tennessee
Satellite Images of Forest Change

Texas
Satellite Images of Forest Change

Virginia
Satellite Images of Forest Change Landowner Contact: Jim Gray (910) 891-7376 (cell)

Is Your Company Prepared for the Lacey Act?

Adam Grant — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:59:07 -0500

A recent U.S. government raid on illegally sourced wood is a wake-up call to businesses.

On November 17, 2009, U.S. federal agents raided Gibson Guitar Corporation’s manufacturing facility in Nashville, Tennessee. The raid was part of an investigation into the illegal trade of a rare wood species allegedly used in some of Gibson’s renowned musical instruments.

According to press reports, agents purportedly seized wood, guitars, and documents in the first known enforcement action under the recently amended Lacey Act. Widely covered in the media, the raid is a wake-up call to businesses that are part of forest product supply chains that they need to heed the Lacey Act and avoid illegally sourced wood and paper.

Illegal logging – timber harvesting that breaks a country’s national laws - squanders approximately US $15 billion of assets and revenue for developing nations each year and is a driver of deforestation. As the single largest consumer and importer of forest products, the United States has the capacity to reduce illegal logging practices on a global scale.

On May 22, 2008, the U.S. Congress passed a landmark amendment to the 100 year-old Lacey Act, originally enacted to prohibit the transportation of illegally captured animals or wildlife products across state lines. The new law extended this protection to plants - including timber, paper, and other forest products - thereby giving the U.S. government a powerful tool to eliminate illegally sourced wood and increase transparency in the global forest product supply chain.

The November Gibson raid is the first high profile amended Lacey Act investigation, demonstrating that the U.S. government is taking illegal logging seriously - and that companies in both the United States and abroad need to already be in compliance.

In partnership with the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), the World Resources Institute (WRI) has released a Lacey Act fact sheet designed to answer some frequently asked questions about the Lacey Act.

The four-page fact sheet, Are You Ready for the Lacey Act?, provides companies with answers and counsel on a suite of issues, including:

What does the Lacey Act entail?
What is considered “illegal” under the amended Lacey Act?
What risks do buyers, traders, and sellers of wood, paper, and other forest products face if they violate the Lacey Act?
What can companies do to avoid becoming the subject of a Lacey Act investigation?
Does certification mean that a forest product is exempt or already in compliance with the amended Lacey Act?

For more information, download the fact sheet, or contact:

Adam Grant, Senior Associate, WRI, agrant@wri.org, (202) 729-7623
Lars Laestadius, Senior Associate, WRI, larsl@wri.org, (202) 729-7633
Anne Middleton, Outreach Coordinator, EIA, anne@eia-international.org, (202) 483-6621