- American Tree Farm System (ATFS)
- Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard
- Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC)
- Australian Forestry Standard (AFS)
- Certificacion Forestal en Chile (Certfor)
- Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC)
- Sistema Brazileiro de Certificacao Florestal (CERFLOR)
- See also: Certification System Comparisons
The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) is not the only weak and often-industry dominated forest certification system. Other systems operating in North America include the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standard and the American Tree Farm System (ATFS). The SFI has also been endorsed by the European Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Information on these and some other systems is provided below.
American Tree Farm System (ATFS)
Factsheet on Tree Farm Certification.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard
"Saskatchewan: Province of Weyerheauser". Case study documents failure of CSA to enforce compliance with provincial logging and roadbuilding requirements. Rainforest Action Network, 2005
“Choosing Forest Certification for Environmentally Responsible Forest Products.” Text and charts from poster comparing FSC, SFI, and CSA. World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, et al, November, 2004.
“Choosing Forest Certification for Environmentally Responsible Forest Products.” Background information for poster comparing FSC, SFI, and CSA. American Lands Alliance, November, 2004.
“Bringing Down the Boreal.” Examines the SFI and CSA in the context of Boreal forest protection issues. ForestEthics, August, 2004.
“On the Ground, Forest Certification: Green Stamp of Approval or Rubber Stamp of Destruction?” Provides case study comparisons of the FSC, CSA, and SFI systems. Commissioned by ForestEthics, Greenpeace, and Sierra Club Canada, 2003.
“Footprints in the Forest: Current Practice and Future Challenges in Forest Certification.” FERN, February, 2004.
“Governing Through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-state Authority—Appendix.” 2004. Cashore, B., G. Auld, D. & D. Newsome, Yale University Press, New Haven.
“Why the PEFC, SFI, and CSA Are Not Credible Forest Certification Systems.” World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Fifty-Eight Other Conservation Groups, May 21, 2001.
Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC)
“Why Not PEFC.” Factsheet summarizing deficiencies of the PEFC system that has endorsed the SFI. ForestEthics, January, 2006.
“New Insights on Credible Certification in Europe.” Statement summarizing results of WWF study comparing FSC and PEFC. World Wildlife Fund, July, 2005. Also available on the WWF website.
“Background Note to the WWF Statement on Credible Certification in Europe.” Summarizes results of WWF studies comparing the FSC and PEFC. World Wildlife Fund, July 21, 2005.
“Footprints in the Forest: Current Practice and Future Challenges in Forest Certification.” FERN, February, 2004.
“Governing Through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-state Authority—Appendix.” 2004. Cashore, B., G. Auld, D. & D. Newsome, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Australian Forestry Standard (AFS)
“Footprints in the Forest: Current Practice and Future Challenges in Forest Certification.” FERN, February, 2004.
Certificacion Forestal en Chile (Certfor)
“Footprints in the Forest: Current Practice and Future Challenges in Forest Certification.” FERN, February, 2004.
Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC)
“Footprints in the Forest: Current Practice and Future Challenges in Forest Certification.” FERN, February, 2004.
Sistema Brazileiro de Certificacao Florestal (CERFLOR)
“Footprints in the Forest: Current Practice and Future Challenges in Forest Certification.” FERN, February, 2004.