- Architects and Builders
- Sustainable Responsible Investment Firms and Funds
- Other Businesses
- Scientists
- Labor and Indigenous Groups
- Conservation and Consumer Groups
“The SFI—It’s No Guarantee”
Architects and Builders
“It appears the SFI is primarily a marketing tool and does not represent a significant commitment to ecological forest practices. We will continue to use FSC as our guarantee that lumber resources are being properly managed.”
— Josiah Cain, contractor.
“Clearly, by the evidence of past practices, the forest products industry is not sufficiently objective or motivated to set standards which will ensure the continuing existence of healthy forest lands for our children or their children. We need objective standards without self interest involved in setting the bar. We will be using FSC, not SFI products for certified Green Built homes.”
— Bruce Hammond, Hammond Fine Homes.
“While SFI may have a role in helping the forest products industry improve its practices, I don't think it merits a 'green' certification label for its wood products at this time. We only recognize FSC as a truly 'certified green product”
— John Shurtz, Green Builders of Marin
“I'm sorry, but I just don't trust the timber industry to police itself. We need a truly independent certification program to keep the timber corporations from continuing their forest destruction practices. The FSC is the only organization that I trust.”
— Gary Gerber, President, California Construction Services Corporation, Sun Light & Power Company
“With regard to sustainably-harvested lumber, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is an independent, highly-regarded body of professionals developing and refining standards for sustainable wood use. The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), by contrast, is an industry-sponsored group whose purpose is wood certification via self-governance. Notwithstanding the bewildering flurry of facts and quasi-facts that are being tossed about in an already complex debate, relying on SFI to certify lumber is in my view tantamount to hiring the fox to guard the chicken house. As a professional engineer, but mostly as a father, I would prefer that there still be healthy old-growth forests around when my grandchildren's children are here in my place. For that reason, I can only in good conscience rely on FSC to deliver to my clients truly sustainably-harvested wood.”
— Bruce King, consulting structural engineer and director of Ecological Building Network
Sustainable Responsible Investment Firms and Funds
“…our research indicates that the SFI standard and the improvements proposed so far are still far too limited for SFI to attain credibility as a sustainable forestry certification and labeling program…. Until fundamental problems are addressed, we will continue to urge the companies that we are engaged with to reject SFI’s standards as a benchmark of sustainability and to discount the claims and products of SFI suppliers.”
— Letter to SFI From Five SRI’s, October 26, 2004.
Other Businesses
“As outdoor retailers and outfitters, we have a vested interest in the long-term sustainability of Southern forests. While the recently revised SFI standards and procedures include some small improvements, many of these changes fail to require concrete on-the-ground outcomes. Ultimately, it will take far more fundamental changes for the SFI to be credible and effective as a certification system for environmentally, socially, and economically well-managed forests.”
— Letter to the SFI, Fifty-Three Outdoor Recreation Companies, August 25, 2005.
”A great deal of clarity comes when we look at the origins of the FSC versus the SFI, remembering why they were formed and by whom. The FSC was formed by a unique combination of business, environmental and social organizations with the intention of bringing truly ecological forest products to the marketplace. The SFI was formed by the timber industry as a defense against the FSC’s successes. What more do we need to know? We stake our credibility for wood certification with the FSC only.”
— Lewis Erick Buchner, CEO, EcoTimber
Scientists
“Over the past few decades, SFI-sanctioned practices such as large-scale clearcutting, the conversion of forests to plantations and the industrial use of chemicals have compromised the biological integrity of much of the South’s forestland. This has many within the scientific community concerned about the long-term ecological sustainability of these forests.”
— Dr. William G. Eickmeier, retired Associate Professor of Biological Sciences and Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Science at Vanderbilt University
“The Sustainable Forestry Board clearly understands that the growing environmental consciousness of today’s consumers demands a balance between sustainability and economic productivity. However, we believe this balance can be achieved with more substantial ecological standards than those the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) currently requires…. Our greatest concerns regarding the SFI certification standards are based around three main inadequacies: the SFI does not discourage logging and buying of wood from the most biologically diverse and sensitive areas; the SFI allows for the conversion of native and natural forests to single species pine plantations; and the SFI allows for logging practices that can be harmful to habitat and water quality, including large-scale clearcutting and the intensive use of herbicide and fertilizer spraying.”
— Letter to SFI From Ninety-Plus Scientists, March 31, 2005.
“The FSC and SFI approaches to certification differ fundamentally in their views of what constitutes sustainable forestry. …SFI does not raise the bar as high as the FSC program in terms of meeting many societal values for forestland (i.e., saving species or biodiversity, alleviating poverty, etc….)….”
— Furnas, B., Vogt, K., & Fanzeres, A., in Forest Certification: Roots, Issues, Challenges, & Benefits, CRC Press, 2000.
Labor and Indigenous Groups
"When it comes to meeting responsible standards for local jobs and environmental health, the only wood certification we should be touting for the world to see at the Olympics is that of FSC wood…. FSC requires forest managers to provide local employment, local wood processing opportunities and meaningful consultation for local communities. These are all values that need to be met in order for BC to boast a sustainable forest economy."
— Doug Muir, President of the Pulp, Paper & Woodworkers of Canada.
"For Aboriginal communities, the FSC is the only system that provides adequate recognition of Aboriginal Title and resource governance rights…. FSC provides us the assurance that wood products originate from forests where salmon spawning streams are intact, wildlife habitat is protected and clean water continues to flow."
— Chief Mike Retasket of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs
“The FSC certification standards offer the most potential benefit to Aboriginal peoples in their struggle for increased involvement in the forest sector. It is the only standard to adequately recognize and respect Aboriginal rights. The FSC’s other biggest distinction from the CSA and SFI systems is that it is overwhelmingly results-based.”
— Boreal News & Aboriginal Views, 1;3, January 2005, National Aboriginal Forestry Association, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
“…WHEREAS the US Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) does not contemplate aboriginal issues as a key element of sustainable forest management and is inappropriate in the Canadian context…. and… WHEREAS Principle #3 on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, in the FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship, recognizes the importance of forest management to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada and requires that any forest certified must be in compliance with Principle #3… THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT… NAFA will promote the Forest Stewardship Council’s Certification System as the preferred certification system in meeting the needs of Aboriginal communities.”
— A Resolution of the NAFA Board of Directors, March 16, 2001, National Aboriginal Forestry Association, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
“Considering that Aboriginal peoples in Canada are forest-dependent—80% of [Aboriginal] communities are located in forest areas—forest management policy and industrial forest resource extraction will continue to impact the lives of Aboriginal peoples and will infringe on our constitutionally protected rights. …there has not been an adequate corresponding effort on the part of governments to develop and implement forest policy which will accommodate our rights.” -- Letter to Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, April 18, 2002, National Aboriginal Forestry Association, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Conservation Groups
“Currently WWF considers the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification system to be the only credible system to ensure environmentally responsible, socially beneficial and economically viable management of forests.”
“The SFI is not a legitimate measure of sustainable forestry. Consumers wishing to conserve forests should reject the SFI’s claims.”
— Various U.S. and Canadian Conservation and Consumer Groups
“How unsustainable can a timber company be and still qualify for SFI certification? Maxxam/Pacific Lumber is a SFI certified company and has become notorious for forest destruction, fouling clean water and running afoul of the law. Pacific Lumber’s lax practices have led to dozens of criminal citations. EPIC's 2004 analysis showed Pacific Lumber committed at least 325 violations of California Forest Practice Rules in the last five years. Many of these violations caused irreparable damage to fish and wildlife habitat.”
— Scott Greacen, Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC)
“The timber industry is deceiving the public and corporate consumers by claiming that SFI-certified products come from well-managed forests…. Their program allows large-scale clearcutting, the destruction of endangered forests, and other antiquated forestry practices.”
— Kelly Sheehan, Dogwood Alliance
“We feel very strongly that SFI certification is a very hollow statement.”
— Shawn Cantrell, Seattle Audubon, in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 9.14.2006.