Thought this might be of interest. Note the percent U.S. lumber that's cetified and the additional cost.

Does U.S. lumber need labeling?
Certifiers of responsible practices aim to curb illegal logging. But enforcement hikes prices for consumers.
By G. Jeffrey MacDonald | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
Consumers shopping for paper, lumber, and other forest products are increasingly finding items labeled to vouch for the responsible practices that went into bringing these goods to market.

These special seals tell shoppers that their new pine flooring or the book in their hands came, for example, from forests where animals thrive and cut trees are replaced by well-chosen saplings. The most common labels say either FSC, for the nonprofit Forest Stewardship Council, of SFI, for the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, a nonprofit that became independent from the forest products industry in 2007.

Certification is catching on, especially overseas as markets grow for certified products. The amount of forest land certified by FSC grew by 47 percent over the past two years to more than 206 million acres worldwide. Now about 10 percent of the world's pulp supply is FSC-certified, according to Liza Murphy, an FSC managing director in Bonn, Germany.

Retailers in the United States, meanwhile, are positioning themselves to sell more certified products. Lowe's, for instance, derives almost 70 percent of its wood products from certified sources, up from about 60 percent five years ago. In May, the Northeast Lumber Retailers Association (NLRA) launched a new program to help its 1,300 members get credentialed to sell certified products.

Activists welcome the trend. They say annual audits required for certification discourage problem practices that range from decimating caribou nurseries to speeding logging trucks through small towns late at night. Certification also aims to reduce illegal logging, a practice uncommon in the US but a scourge in Indonesia and other developing nations where trees routinely fall without authorization.

"Some of humanity's worst vices are associated with illegal logging," says Scott Paul, director of the Greenpeace USA Forest Campaign. "It's closely associated with government corruption, slavery, … the drug trade, the arms trade. In short, it's a very quick and easy way to turn a profit in extremely remote areas far away from law enforcement."

But many American foresters and their commercial clients say certification doesn't make sense for forests in the US. One reason: Private property laws and environmental regulations mean most US foresters already meet relatively high standards, according to the Mark Barford, a forester and executive director of the National Hardwood Lumber Association (NHLA), an industry group based in Memphis, Tenn.

Also, unlike other countries where forests are primarily government-owned, the US has more than 10 million private landowners managing the majority of the nation's timber stock. Many of these are mom-and-pop operations that can't afford to do all the documentation required for certification, says Lee Laechelt, executive vice president of the Alabama Forest Owners Association. Small foresters pay at least 13 times more than large owners pay per acre to get certified, according to research compiled earlier this year at North Carolina State University.

To date, fewer than 2 percent of US forest owners – mostly large landowners and international corporations – have secured either FSC or SFI certification. The littler guys, some say, may be in for a tough haul if certified wood becomes a marketplace norm. "We run the risk, if we don't produce a certified product, of being closed out of certain markets that absolutely require it," Mr. Barford says. "And that scares us."

Others worry that these labels can sometimes be misleading. Certification may not always mean much when applied to small US foresters, says Alberto Goetzl, president of Seneca Creek Associates, a natural resources consulting firm in Poolesville, Md.

"They'll have a timber sale once in a generation, maybe twice," says Mr. Goetzl, a consultant to the NHLA. "Are they going to certify just so they can sell their wood products that one time? Maybe they will. But then they sell their wood products. Do you think they're going to stay certified? Maybe not. So certification is not the be all and end all for good forest practices in the US, given our land ownership patterns."

So far, retailers say, certified wood is yet to catch fire as a must-have item in US markets. One factor is price. In New York and New England, certified lumber normally sells for about 20 percent more than comparable wood that's uncertified, according to NRLA Executive Director Rita Ferris. And even though lumber prices are down more than 15 percent this year as a result of slow housing starts, most consumers still aren't inclined to pay extra for the certified label.

"Consumers are not asking for it," Ms. Ferris says. "They ask, 'what will it cost me this way versus the certified way?' And when the answer is that the certified is 20 percent more … they say, 'You know, I'll go with the regular lumber and not the certified lumber.' " Nevertheless, global markets are raising the global profile of certified forest products. Large institutions, including the Guatemalan government, are increasingly adopting procurement policies to purchase only certified wood products. The US Green Building Council awards credits in its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program for commercial builders who make sure at least 50 percent of their wood is FSC-certified.

Experts see pros and cons in the prospect of consumers warming to certified forest products. Recent surveys of foresters in Latin America and North America suggest the process of seeking certification "certainly makes a difference in the improvement of practices," according to Fred Cubbage, professor of forest policy at North Carolina State University and a principal researcher in the surveys. Improvements ranged from safer working conditions in Chile to better community relations in the US.

"So far, certification hasn't excluded sellers [of uncertified wood] from participating in the markets," Dr. Cubbage says. Fear of being left out due to a lack of certification, he says, "is an overwrought concern perhaps."

Others, however, aren't convinced small US foresters will enjoy a level playing field in a marketplace that widely embraces certified products.

"Certification clearly favors large landowners," Goetzl says. "It disadvantages the family forest owner who's not going to incur the expense for certification."

For consumers eager to support small US foresters, Mr. Laechelt suggests seeking out local wood species. This is more practical for lumber shoppers than for, say, furniture buyers, since a table might consist of wood from several regions of the world. Greenpeace's Mr. Paul notes that even uncertified local wood has one strong environmental selling point: It requires fewer carbon emissions to ship than does certified wood from halfway across the globe. (He nonetheless urges buyers to seek out the FSC label).

Some argue that consumers should reward growers of American wood whether it's certified or not. That's because they say US forests are, on the whole, well-managed. In every US state, forests are growing faster than they're being harvested, Goetzl says, and more land is forested now than 20 years ago. In Laechelt's view, this track record traces to a market climate – sans certification – that keeps costs down for small foresters.

"Our system is a pretty darn good system where we let people own things and try to take care of them," says Laechelt, whose 200 acres of Alabama forest were, in most cases, formerly cleared for farmland. "And we ought to defend that, rather than move to a [system that says] 'prove that you're doing it' properly."

Certifiers meanwhile aren't giving up. FSC's Ms. Murphy urges small US foresters to follow the lead of the Swiss and get certified in groups to bring down costs. SFI encourages sawmill operators to shoulder the costs of SFI training for loggers who sell to them.

Companies that want to distribute certified product "don't have the luxury of saying 'no' to the other 90 percent of forests that are uncertified," says Kathy Abusow, president and CEO of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. "So SFI has to work on those uncertified lands to raise the bar of forestry."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Home | About Us/Help | Site Map | Feedback | Contact Us | Subscribe | Archive | Print Edition | Corrections

And one more from a company with local connections. Seems like a lot of time, money, and effort to spend for something the general public doesn't care much about. How much certified lumber went into your home. The whole article can be found under Collins Pines Certification.

The costs of Collins Pine's certification activities can be quantified. Each certified location had a preaudit and a full certification audit. Each is charged a yearly fee to maintain its certification and will be re-audited five years from the initial certification date. Initial fees for the two certified locations totaled $60,000 to $80,000, and yearly fees for each location will cost as much as $7,200. The company will pay additional costs as its Lakeview and Klamath Falls locations go through the process. Collins Pine estimates that capital improvements made as a result of certification may cost as much as $250,000 per year for the next three years. These include setting up new systems to measure and document timber volume and growth in its Pennsylvania forests. Forest management costs have risen since certification, they have roughly doubled in the Almanor Forest, as forest managers responded to suggestions made by the certification team. In addition, the increased materials handling costs associated with tracking certified wood from the forest through manufacturing may reach $150,000 per year. While these costs may seem impressive, they represent only about one percent of Collins Pine's total sales. Company executives consider this cost modest. They are quick to point out that many of these costs paid for improvements that were needed regardless of certification, and that those investments will return dividends through increased efficiency

Market Analysis
THE ELUSIVE MARKET FOR CERTIFIED PRODUCTS
Collins has been relatively unsuccessful in marketing its wood products as certified. As stated previously, less than five percent of the lumber and other products produced at the Kane and Chester operations, are sold as certified, even though at least 50 percent could qualify. At one point, the Chester operation sold more than 15 percent of its production as certified, but the level dropped after two separate arrangements dissolved. Although management has invested considerable time and energy, including 35 percent of the vice president of marketing's time for the last three years, no significant markets for certified product have materialized. Failure to develop these markets, while frustrating for salespeople, is not necessarily surprising given Collins Pine's early entry into the market.The company's pioneering efforts have, however, proved instrumental in bringing the issues of sustainability and certification to public attention and may provide a foundation for companies that enter the market later.

Collins Pine has identified specific geographic and demographic market segments that are receptive to certified products. Receptive consumers tend to be highly educated and have significant levels of disposable income. These geographic markets include Austin, Texas; Same Fe, New Mexico; the San Francisco Bay Area in California; and Vail and Aspen, Colorado, as well as the United Kingdom. In the U.S., the company has found that areas with harsher climates often harbor more "green" consumers.

The failure of the company's certified products to meet expectations in Portland, Oregon, is an indication, according to Collins Pine managers, that consumers are often more inclined to talk "green" than to act "green." Company personnel referred to a California Forest Products Commission study that investigated the nature of consumer perceptions of certification. Focus groups conducted for that study indicated that most consumers would not pay a premium for certified products. In fact, these consumers did not think certification should be necessary. They felt that companies should already be following stringent regulations and that sustainable forestry should be a given.

Collins Pine's evaluations of consumer demand come from the company's experience in dealing with their markets rather than from primary research. Salespeople often field calls from people interested in buying certified wood products, but those calls come mostly for consumer products, for which Collins Pine can provide only the raw material. Salespeople at corporate headquarters also get similar calls. This may happen partly because the company's 800 number is printed on the sticker that accompanies its certified products, and because it has received extensive press coverage for becoming certified. In any case, Collins Pine has become a source of information for consumers trying to find certified products.

MARKET BARRIERS TO CERTIFIED PRODUCTS
Collins Pine has encountered a number of barriers to marketing its certified products. These barriers fall into five general categories:

Limited market demand. The actual demand for certified or otherwise sustainably-produced wood products is currently limited and segmented. As a market pioneer, Collins Pine has struggled to identify and serve these small niches efficiently.

Unfavorable consumer perceptions. Collins Pine sales and marketing personnel have discovered that their customers often harbor the misconception that certified wood must be inferior to wood produced through "standard" industry practices. These individuals think that companies sacrifice quality to reduce environmental impacts. This belief was evident even when marketing to another environmentally oriented firm, The Home Depot. In Collins Pine's case, however, the opposite is actually true. Trees are allowed to grow longer than on comparable industry forests. These older trees tend to have a higher proportion of clear, defect-free wood. Collins Pine personnel have had to educate potential certified product customers by demonstrating the relationship between their forest management practices and the quality of the products they produce from that wood.

Limited distribution channel development. Existing wood products distribution channels are reluctant to carry certified wood products. These products must be tracked from the forest floor to retailers' shelves, which requires sophisticated systems unless certified product remains segregated during storage and transport. In this way, certification adds complexity and cost to the distribution process.

Difficulties in meeting specific market demands. If there are markets with a significant demand for certified products, as in the UK., other problems surface. CRI personnel receive phone calls almost every day from companies interested in certified products. But those potential buyers have precise demands. They typically require the highest-grade lumber of a specific species and thickness. More often than not, the volume requested in the specific grade, species, and thickness exceeds what Collins Pine can produce or CRI can get through other sources.

Limited product availability. Certified wood products are currently available only in extremely limited volumes, which has a number of implications.

Most wood products producers have neither sought nor obtained certification, which makes distributors hesitant to carry the certified products available. It is difficult for distributors to find enough product volume to justify allocating floor space, storage, and other distribution resources to certified products. In turn, the dearth of readily available sources of certified materials makes product specifiers, such as architects and engineers, reluctant to use these products in their designs.

This combination of market inhibitors has created a dilemma for certified wood product producers, one that resembles the old chicken-or-egg story. Product volume will not grow until distribution channels are developed. Distribution channels will not develop unless sufficient quantities of product are available and consumers demand it. Yet consumer demand appears to be stifled by a lack of product. Collins Pine has yet to identify which component of the market is a precursor to the development of the others. In the meantime, those consumers who now want certified wood products often cannot get them, even though certified raw material is available from Collins Pine and other forestry operations.

The last one--It concerns the organization we have hired to certify Pennsylvanias State Forests. Are we paying a lot of money for a green certification that the greens are saying is not any good?

Green groups call for urgent reform of the FSC - certifiers 'eroding credibility'
Tags: Worldwide, Certifier conflict of interest, All certifiers
On 30th October, more than 75 environmental organisations from 25 countries wrote a letter to the Executive Director of FSC, Heiko Liedeker, and the FSC's International Board, calling for urgent improvements to the FSC system. The groups include WWF International, Greenpeace International, Birdlife Internationl, Friends of the Earth UK, the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense.

The groups identify in their letter that "the performance of the [FSC's accredited] certification bodies has played a critical role in [the] erosion of FSC's credibility because in too many cases certificates have been issued that raised significant opposition among FSC members". The groups go on to assert that there has been "too much room" for the certifiers to 'interpret' the FSC's rules; that the FSC Secretariat has been too lax in exercising controls or sanctions over certifiers that break the rules; and that there is an underlying problem because of the direct financial link between the supposedly independent certifers and the companies they are certifying.

The evidence presented on FSC-watch.org suggests that all of these concerns are very well founded.

The letter suggests a number of ways in which the FSC can be made more credible again, including that the accreditation and monitoring procedures for the certifiers should be made more transparent, and that proper sanctions should be instituted where breaches of the rules are found. The groups also ask FSC to find an alternative business model which would break the direct financial link between certifiers and their clients. A further problem addressed is that the FSC continues (after 13 years of existence) to be heavily reliant on external financial support.

FSC-Watch understands that a copy of the letter is not available for public use.

Posted by FSC-Watch on 06 November 2006,

   

           

Apparently the folks on here don't care that your tax money is being used by your govenor and your DCNR to pay outsiders to tell us how to run your state forests. At the same time the Penna. timber folks who have spent the money to get certified can't find enough customers to make it worthwhile and the organization doing the certification is being criticized by it's own members and fellow greens for being so lax it has damaged it's own credibility. I posted these to show we are wasting taxpayers (our) money while allowing some Calif enviromentalists to tell us how to run the forests. If you find it boring I guess that says it all.

Trouble is S-10 not everyone believes what you do....

There are DCNR and "timber  folks" folks on this board and choose to just let you go on and on...

since no one here appears to "care" or BELIEVE what you are posting you get little feed-back....

when it comes to your opinions on forestry and the "tree- huggers" and certification... California..ETC..

no one seems to share you view here... some even feel who cares who is making the rules.. the forests are on the way to returning to what they should be..... If the money goes to Ca... New YOrk, Texas who cares.. the job is getting done.



In case you did not know it most money spent here in Pa does not stay here anyhow... in fact mostt money spent in the USA does not end up here.......


sorry just thought I should post that ....  

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2009-02-14 09:17:33 --

Perhaps they choose not to answer what I am posting because it is fact and they have no way to rebut it. There are two ways to address something which is being said that is true but embarassing. One is to attack the messanger as one person has done. The other, and smarter way, is to ignore it until you see it is becoming a problem. As you said, with the makeup of this board is doubtful it will go anywhere as many on here are tied into the program whether they like it or not.