| Summary: | The global emergence of forest certification during the 1990's has profoundly shaped
the developments and discourse related to forest conservation throughout the decade. The
drive to implement forest certification has led to the formation of an entirely new framework
of forestry institutions, policies, standards, sustainability measures, marketing approaches,
lending practices, and research initiatives. In response to global concerns about deforestation,
loss of biodiversity, and the need for sustainable forests, certification arose as a non-regulatory,
incentive based strategy to recognize leaders in forest management. At the forefront of forest
certification in North America have been the Rainforest Alliance SmartWood Program and
Scientific Certification Systems' Forest Conservation Program.
This research describes scientific rationale and technical methods used in forest
assessments by these two dominant certification programs in the United States during the first
five years of active certification of forest management in North America. A comparison was
made of each program based on the methods forest assessors said they used to evaluate a
chosen sub-set of certification criteria.
The research questions explored in this inquiry were: (1) How do forest assessors
determine that program criteria defined in written standards have been met, or likely will be
met, by a client forest operation? (2) What similarities and differences exist in the indicators
used by SCS and SmartWood forest assessors to evaluate criteria, and how are those indicators measured? (3) How do these certification programs provide assurance of credibility and
consistency?
A survey of forest assessors who had done assessments for SCS or Smart Wood in the
US was the chosen research method. The study population was defined as those individuals
who had been on an SCS or, SmartWood assessment team between November 1992 and June
1997 for an assessment that resulted in certification. Thirty-eight forest assessors from a
population of 40 were surveyed. The survey consisted of a written questionnaire and an in-depth
personal interviews.
It was found that SCS and SmartWood assessors used similar approaches to evaluate
forest management systems and forest conditions for the sub-set of program criteria queried.
Assessors tended to choose similar indicators with similar frequency. The indicators assessors
suggested were mostly process or goal-oriented and performance based, rather than being
highly-prescriptive. The assessment process was relatively informal in terms of data collection
or measurement. In fact, few measurements were actually made. Instead, the evaluation was a
triad featuring an exhaustive document review, interviews of forest managers, owners, and
stakeholders, and a field reconnaissance. In spite of this subjectivity, assessors maintained that
the process was a credible one and would likely improve over time.
In five years of active certification, SCS and SmartWood have created equivalent
methods that guide forest assessors to a common and critical set of questions, that share
consensus amongst assessors from both programs. These findings should provide more
confidence in SCS and SmartWood certification procedures than could previously be
established.
|
|---|
