Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Malaysian Plantations: Rubberwood & More, Minister Interview, Pt. 2
I recently spoke with the Malaysian Minister of Plantation Industries & Commodities, Mr. Bernard Dompok, and learned more about the species available out of Malaysia. Here are some of the specifics facts and figures he and the MTC (Malaysian Timber Council) provided:
Plantation timbers grow quickly in Malaysia’s tropical climate. The ministry is committed to ensure that the supply of timber raw materials for industry use is more consistent, and will serve to relieve the pressure on natural forests.
- For rubberwood, superior timber latex clones have been developed by the Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia to offer planters with a good yield of latex throughout the trees’ latex-producing years, and good timber material later.
- The available rubberwood supply averages at 1.4 million m3, while consumption averages about at 1.0 million m3 per annum. Malaysia grows more rubberwood than they cut.
- There is an export quota of 50,000 m3 allocated to rubberwood exporters.
- A large percentage of rubberwood (>90 - 95%) is processed into value-added products like furniture, flooring, moldings, doors, etc., and only a small percentage is exported as rubberwood sawn timber.
- Rubber plantations are a source of latex, which is utilized in the production of rubber-based products. These include natural rubber examination gloves, automotive components and other associated products.
- Rubber trees can be tapped for latex for up to 32 years, with production starting at 7 years. In comparison, oil palm trees have a production life of 25 years, with harvest starting from 30 months onwards.
- Palm oil is a highly versatile oil that could be used for both food and non-food purposes. Palm oil is the leading edible oil traded and consumed globally, with a share of 56% and 26% of the total oils and fats, respectively. It also could be a source of renewable energy—palm-based biodiesel offers the potential to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
- Oil palm tree trunks have been found to be suitable for the manufacture of plywood and furniture products. The ministry has facilitated the private sector to source oil palm trunks and other palm biomass for the manufacture of lumber and other building products.
- Acacia mangium is also used in the manufacture of furniture (both indoor and outdoor) as well as decking. However, Acacia mangium logs are also exported to Vietnam. The three plantation areas in Malaysia that are FSC-certified are mainly Acacia mangium plantations.
Next week, we’ll continue with a discussion of legality issues and certifications.
|
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
5.9 Million Hectares and Growing: Malaysian Minister Interview, Pt. 1
5.9 million hectares is the amount of Malaysia directly that is currently covered with rubberwood, palm, acacia, gmelina, teak and other plantation woods. This represents about 18% of the country. Every 25,000 hectares of land planted is expected to produce approximately 5 million cubic meters of timber per annum. (Note, that this 5.9 million figure is still dwarfed by the 18.48 million hectares covered by natural forests, a majority of which is designated as “permanent reserved forests,” with 1.83 million hectares defined as non-commercial land—reserved for recreation or wildlife conservation.)
I had the pleasure of meeting with the Malaysian Minister of Plantation Industries and Commodities, Mr. Bernard Dompok. The Minister was in the U.S. for a variety of meetings, which included offering a presentation at the IWPA (International Wood Products Association) convention. During a break between panels, the minister was pleased to tell me more about the Malaysian condition:
Q: Over 20 years ago, my first-ever international buying trip was to Malaysia, and I’ve always been impressed with the extent of the industry there. How important is forestry to Malaysia?
A: It is important to both the U.S. and Malaysia. For over a decade, the U.S. has been one of Malaysia’s top trading partners with a very good trade balance. In 2011, Malaysia’s exports of goods and services to the U.S. were valued at USD19 billion, while the U.S. exports to Malaysia amounted to USD18.2 billion.
The U.S. has been a major market for Malaysia’s timber products for many years. The U.S. is the single largest furniture market for Malaysia and in 2011, the U.S. placed just behind Japan as the second-largest overall export destination for our wood products.
Our timber industry is a major contributor to the country’s export earnings. The industry’s contribution to Malaysia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2011 was about 2.3% and accounted for 2.9% of total merchandise exports. In addition, the forestry-based sector provides employment opportunities to over 300,000 people. Malaysia is one of the world’s largest producers and exporter of tropical timber products, with exports to more than 160 countries.
In addition, we are also encouraging the industry to diversify in using non-indigenous timber species from other countries. To this end, Malaysian timber companies are a good market for American logs, veneer and sawn timber.
Q: There is a lot of concern about having native natural forests replaced by plantations and in many cases, Malaysia has been criticized for conversion. How would you respond to this charge?
A: The conversion of natural forests into plantations is not Malaysia’s policy. Currently, Malaysia has 56.4% of its total land area under forest cover, and that is growing. Forests converted earlier were selected through a system that earmarked specific areas for infrastructure development and the establishment of new townships for a growing population.
To ensure that our forests are managed in a sustainable manner, our annual logging quotas have been progressively reduced. This is a deliberate move by the government to sustain the country’s forest resources as well as to ensure the sustainable development of the timber industry in the long term. To supplement the supply of raw materials to the timber industry and reduce our dependence on the natural forests, my ministry has embarked on a forest plantation program.
Under the forest plantation program, about 25,000 hectares of tree plantations will be established annually over a period of 15 years to achieve a target of 375,000 additional hectares. This is in addition to private sector forest plantation initiatives, which have seen rapid development in recent years. Let me assure you that the development of forest plantations will not be at the expense of natural forests, as forest plantations will mainly be developed on idle lands or abandoned agriculture lands.
Q: How will you encourage the expansion of plantations?
A: The ministry provides soft loans for companies to establish forest plantations, in an effort to boost the production of local timber raw materials. The program is open to any company wishing to establish forest plantations in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah or Sarawak. The disbursement of the loans, auditing processes, provision of technical support and training are all done by a company known as Forest Plantation Development Sdn Bhd, set up by the Malaysian Timber Industry Board.
Q: Is there any system for changing forest plantation acreage from one plantation item to another based on market demand? For example, do you convert rubberwood to palm oil based on demand? Or is the species planted based only on the soil and other environmental conditions?
A: There is no specific policy that dictates what is to be planted on plantations. Conversion of land under rubberwood into other cash crops depends very much on market forces and prices of commodities such as palm oil and latex. So, for the land owners, especially the small holders, this is often a business decision. In terms of returns, an oil palm plantation can deliver returns much faster at 2.5 years as opposed to a rubber plantation at 4.5 years (minimum) depending on the clones.
Generally speaking, most soil/land areas in Peninsular, Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak are suitable for oil palm or forest plantations.
We’ll take a break here—next week, we’ll talk about Malaysia’s first, and most famous plantation species—rubberwood—as well as some of the other species available.
|
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Is Double Certification in our Future?
When the new national formaldehyde regulations were passed, unlike as is often done with new federal regulations, no preemption was established. This means unless the regulations are modified by the government in the future, each state could potentially create their own additional certification program and standards for formaldehyde.
Currently only California has its own standard, the CARB system. It was generally hoped that when the EPA formalized their rules, that CARB and the EPA would have mutual recognition and sufficiently similar procedures and standards so that mills would not have to be double-certified.
Unfortunately, rumors are suggesting this is not going to be the case. Rumors—and again, these are only rumors and rumblings within the industry—is that CARB is going to expand its regulations regarding both the number and types of products that require certification. CARB may possibly change its testing procedures and which type of companies need to be certified. Rumors are that the certification requirements for flooring, in particular, are being targeted for expansion.
If this is the case, within a few years, it is quite possible that in order to sell within the United States generally, flooring companies will have to use certified materials or follow certain national regulations in production or purchasing. And those same companies, to sell in California, may have to be certified separately and follow yet other rules and regulations. We are heading toward a double certification system for formaldehyde: one for the nation as a whole (which of course, would need to be followed within the CA as well), and a distinct and separate program for California.
As flooring folk, we should be rightly terrified of this. But then, just as ordinary consumers, think what this would mean for the entire wood industry. The cost of raw material—plywood, MDF and OSB products—would all increase. The cost of downstream products made with these products—furniture, cabinetry, doors, etc.—would all increase. The paperwork burden for the producers would be enormous. Smaller companies would almost certainly have to pull out of the CA market, unable to bear the cost of double certification.
But an even greater fear is of another type of double certification—the required certification of downstream producers. That would likely kill most small manufacturers in all the wood industries. Right now, flooring (and furniture and cabinetry, etc.) manufacturers are required to use certified cores in their production. But what if each and every one of them had to become certified themselves in addition to buying certified cores? Setting aside the cost and time/paperwork burdens, there isn’t even sufficient testing capacity in the world to sample all the production!
Generally both agencies put out their proposed regulations (or in the case of CARB, proposed changes to existing regulations) for public comment. As soon as it is done for either agency, I’ll post the details here. It is important that not just manufacturers or importers look at these proposals—the consequences will impact distributors, wholesalers and retailers, as well as how we market products to consumers. Some proposals could be ones that you like. Some might be ones you hate. Whichever way you feel, your comments on these proposed regulations can make a difference and result in changes before the regulations are finalized. Certainly, the wood industry should do all that it can to prevent a future when double certification will be required for all our production.
|
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Got a Hot Panel?
Last week I talked about process vs. product certification. Both can provide a good product, however, even under the best of systems and the most stringent of checks, you can still find production outside the standards. This is just the way the real world is and we know this. Unfortunately it is not apparent that all governmental agencies understand that right now.
If the process is certified, and the manufacturer is following the process, it is still possible for a limited amount of production to fall out of standard. Actually, that can happen with a product-based certification as well—the certifying body cannot check every single piece of plywood that ships out. In either case, it’s not automatically their fault (neither the manufacturer’s nor the certifier’s)—as business people, we understand that in the real world, production is actually done within “established levels of tolerance.” We recognize that, and it is hoped that the new regulations will find a way to recognize that as well.
Currently, CARB doesn’t really recognize the real world production conditions. Remember that CARB was established based on a maximum standard. That is, the limits set are the maximum allowed emissions, where with most other international standards, the emissions are set as a range. As any panel manufacturer knows, it is impossible to guarantee that all panels within a production lot are going to be exactly equal in their emissions—a little extra glue in a void, a particularly absorbent patch of grain, a temporary clog in an injector—and any panel could run a little “hot” as a result.
CARB does not have any allowance for a single panel in an entire lot being out of spec—it is hoped that the EPA’s new rules will establish a de minis exclusion, meaning that if perhaps 3-5% of the lot reads “hot” but still under a specified limit, and all proper production procedures have been followed, the manufacturer is not going to be punished for a few boards that fall outside the standard.
One issue that will become more and more important as formaldehyde (and other certifications) become a greater factor in our industry is the question of due diligence and a degree of innocent owner protection. Already a major discussion point with Lacey, this is something that should be also discussed as CARB and the EPA establish their new rules. If a company has performed due diligence in making a purchase of a “certified” product, shouldn’t that be taken into consideration? Should all their downstream customers be punished as well? Regulations that protect the consumer are good, but we should also write them in ways so that companies who are trying to do the right thing and take the extra steps are also protected.
|
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Formaldehyde Certifications: Product vs. Process
In the next few months, formaldehyde is going to be back in the news. CARB has been reviewing their regulations and is expected to announce significant changes within the next month that may particularly impact on the flooring industry. On the national front, the EPA is still working on the details of their regulations—it is hoped that sometime this summer they will open their proposal up for public comments.
CARB uses (and the EPA will likely continue this policy) a system of “process certification,” rather than “product certification.” This is a very important distinction for flooring dealers to recognize.
A product certification means that the Third Party Certifier (TPC) is stating that each piece of product has actually been produced compliant with the required specification.
A process certification means that the TPC has verified that the factory is capable of producing product to the required specification.
In process certification, the certifying body has no liability if the product is outside the standard. They’ve only checked for capability—in the case of CARB, they will audit the facility (checking equipment, glue, procedures, etc.) and they will spot-check production at least quarterly for formaldehyde levels. But they do not have inspectors stationed in the facility or check production as it comes out on a regular basis. Any buyers purchasing process-certified material are doing so fully at their own risk. They are unable to go back to the certifier if the product fails to meet the standards. CARB regulations clearly state that “The manufacturer is responsible for the performance of all certified products.”
In product certification, however, the certifying body assumes at least partial financial liability, and they respond accordingly. They will have inspectors in the factory weekly, even daily, and they will spot check material constantly. Obviously this would be a significant expense for the TPC and, accordingly, costs for a certified product are significantly higher. Product certification is usually reserved for material that has the need for the higher standards. (Composite wood products that are certified can include structural plywood and OSB. Most folks would agree that the liability issues for a roof system might be a little higher than for a sofa.)
Now, a process based certification can be just fine. And the flooring industry cannot afford to see every plank independently certified as a product. It is going to be costly enough when we are forced to establish a national process certification for our material.
It is important, however, that as buyers and sellers, we recognize the limitations and liability of a process based certification and establish systems of due diligence that will help ensure that our products meet our specifications. Remember, the certifying bodies aren’t providing us with any guarantees…
|
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Global Carbon Emissions
Last week’s look at increased forest cover and a reduction in illegal logging was wonderfully hopeful. However, I recently reviewed a report that said we’re still polluting far too much. The report, "Long-Term Trend in Global CO2 Emissions" was prepared by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre and PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Some highlights (as well as the lows) were:
- Global emissions of carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming, jumped 45% between 1990 and 2010, and reached an all-time high of 33 billion tons last year, the European Commission reports.
- The 27 member nations of the European Union (EU-27) cut CO2 emissions 7% during the 1990-2010 period and Russia slashed them 28%.
- Japanese emissions remained fairly constant.
- In contrast to the others, U.S. emissions increased 5%.
- The U.S. emits 16.9 tons of CO2 per capita per year, more than twice that of the EU-27's 8.1 tons and China's 6.8 tons.
- Chinese per capita CO2 emissions of 6.8 tons are below the EU-27 average, equaling those of Italy.
When you look at where the U.S. stands internationally, clearly we have a long way to go toward reducing our own individual carbon outputs. It’s great to be an industry that has the potential to contribute positively to the overall carbon conditions, but as individuals, let’s think more about our actions.
|
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
Good News about the World’s Forests
Last week, I noted that the recent news regarding world’s forest has been good. Here are some positive reports and figures:
 The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has released a global satellite survey of forest cover noting that total forest loss is 32% lower than had been thought over the last 15 years. The Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) previously reported a loss of 107 million ha between 1990 and 2005, whereas the new survey reports a loss of 73 million ha for that same time with Asia showing net gains from 1995-2010. (The full report is available here, and other publications can be found here.)
According to the latest Chatham House report on the world’s forests, the “total global production of illegal timber has fallen by 22 percent since 2002. The report goes on to state that “illegal logging has dropped by 50 percent in Cameroon, by between 50 and 75 percent in the Brazilian Amazon, and by 75 percent in Indonesia in the last decade. This reduction, documented in three of the five tropical timber producers studied, has prevented the degradation of up to 17 million hectares of forest, an area larger than England and Wales combined.”
The ITTO reports significant increases in Sustainably Managed Forests (SFM) and certified forest volumes in permanent forest estates (PFE) around the world. Some key notes from their report :
- The area of certified natural-forest production PFE increased in each region between 2005 and 2010. In all three regions combined, the certified forest area grew from 10.5 million hectares to 17.0 million hectares, an increase of 63% (1.3 million hectares per year). In percentage terms the biggest growth was in Africa, where the certified forest area more than tripled, from 1.48 million hectares to 4.63 million hectares.
- The area of production PFE considered to be under SFM increased between the 2005 and 2010 surveys, from 25.2 million hectares to 30.6 million hectares, an increase of about 20%.
- The estimated area of protection PFE with forest management plans in 2010 (51.9 million hectares) is significantly higher than the estimate made for 2005 (17.8 million hectares). The largest regional increase in percentage terms was in Africa, and the largest in terms of gross area was in Latin America and the Caribbean. Part of the overall increase in 2010 may be due to better information … Nevertheless, there has also been a real expansion in the use of management plans for protected areas.
- The estimated area of sustainably managed protection PFE more than doubled over the period, from 11.2 million hectares in 2005 to 22.7 million hectares in 2010. This increase was due mostly to a near-tripling of the area in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean.
And, of course, the U.S. hardwood industry is rightly proud to note that even with an increase in production and international demand, overall standing timber volumes have doubled in the last 50 years.
It is great to see positive news for the forests from all around the world!
|
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
If Prison Labor Shipments Were Lacey Violations…
Congress is currently debating an amendment to the Lacey Act that would provide some consumer protection to downstream customers and homeowners as well as service providers—all of whom are currently liable for any Lacey violations in their upstream chain. This is something most flooring professionals should logically support. To illustrate how important this can be, let’s look at one of the recent big events in the industry.
As part of testimony at the International Trade Commission, representatives from both Anderson and Mannington spoke about their use of U.S. prison labor in their production. Anderson has always been a proud promoter of their program, using it in advertising and sending out press releases with every new prison factory opened. Mannington told the commission that they contracted their labor through third parties and were in the process of developing an automated system to replace the program.
All involved in the ITC process understood that there was nothing illegal about the use of domestic prison labor in creating floors for the domestic market. In contrast, it was further noted on the record that it was illegal to import into the United States any flooring produced with prison labor.
This public testimony comparing the legality of domestic prison labor vs. the international trade in prison production apparently drew the attention of the press. According to a Shaw statement, a reporter contacted them asking about the legality of their shipments to Canada.
Canada, like the United States and almost every country in the world, prohibits the import of any prisoner-produced material. There are two main reasons for this. One, in some countries, the prisoners have no choice in the matter, and could be considered virtually the same as slave labor. Rather than pass judgment on another country’s prison system and try to determine an “acceptable” standard of treatment for prisoners, it is simpler to just say “no prison labor allowed at all.” The second reason is practical economics—prison labor is subsidized labor. Material produced in prisons will often have a price advantage over non-prison production.
Both the Shaw/Anderson group and Mannington have said that they assumed their exports were legal since the prisoners were all volunteer workers. They violated no U.S. laws. They also stated that once they realized that they had been violating Canadian import laws for the past decade or so, they immediately volunteered to stop their shipments. I’ve not heard of any fines being imposed, nor of any stock in Canada being confiscated. No one is going to jail. No downstream customers are being punished in any way.
Now let’s pretend this had been a Lacey violation in the United States and compare the probable results.
Under our scenario here, the material was harvested and produced legally in the source country. However, a large international corporation has unknowingly violated a specific non-American trade/transport law relating to the wood sales for years. What would happen in this Lacey case?
To start, Lacey would allow for, possibly even require, the confiscation of all tainted stock. We’re talking seizure of every piece of tainted flooring currently in the country. Every distributor and dealer would forfeit their stock. Technically, Lacey would also allow the confiscation of material already sold and installed. Floors could be taken out of homes, ripped from living and dining rooms. After all, it had illegally entered the country and that’s the zero tolerance nature of Lacey.
If this had been a Lacey violation, then anyone involved in the business could have been held liable for their work. Lacey says specifically “It is unlawful for any person— (2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce.” That means that any individual involved in the transaction—the trucker, the freight forwarder, broker, the shipping company, etc.—all would be at risk of charges.
If this had been a Lacey offense, there would be fines and plenty of them. Each and every shipment can be considered a separate offense, so that’s a fine per shipment. The government would have to decide if the violation was done knowingly (criminal charge) or not (civil charge or criminal misdemeanor). If it were a criminal act, jail time would have been a possible penalty, as well as the monetary fines and forfeiture.
If the government decided it was an innocent mistake, then they have to decide if it is a mistake that could and would have been avoided by reasonable due care. Lacey allows for greater leniency for people like the average housewife or the trucker transporting material than for a wood professional. The government is unlikely to punish the trucker or confiscate the housewife’s bedroom floor, even though the law says that they could do so.
But certainly the government will look at the flooring companies. They would consider the size of the companies and their experience in international trade. They would have considered the number of lawyers employed directly by the companies or kept on retainer. Given the size, experience and easy and regular access both these large corporations have to legal advice, it seems likely that they would have been found negligent of exercising reasonable due care. If the government wanted to make an example out of them, the fines could reach up to US$200,000 per shipment and even prison time would be possible.
Let’s summarize. The flooring was legally harvested and produced in the source country. The law broken was not American. The law broken was not specifically related to the legality of the wood itself. The company says it was unfamiliar with the regulation and once it became aware of the problem, immediately ceased business. In the case of the prison shipments to Canada, despite the fact that illegal shipments had gone on for years, there was no punishment whatsoever. Under Lacey, they would not have been so lucky. Under Lacey, they and their customers would almost have certainly lost all their stock, probably faced fines reaching in the millions, and even potentially received jail time.
You might think I exaggerate, but it is hardly a stretch to compare the two cases—in fact, there is actually some parallel here to one of the charges against Gibson. But the bottom line is that if this had been a U.S. import, rather than a U.S. export, and if it had been determined to be a Lacey violation, no matter what track record these companies had with environmental work, no matter what certifications they held, no matter how responsible they were with the forests and manufacturing resources, no matter how innocent they were in intent, this could have bankrupted either corporation. And the negative effects could have easily, even almost certainly, moved downstream to at least their immediate distributors and retailers.
The Lacey Act has a noble intent: to help eliminate the trade in illegally logged wood. Based on all reports, it’s already had a good impact—all reports and studies show a significant reduction in illegal logging. However the Act needs to be tweaked to make it easier for companies to comply and to provide common-sense consumer protections.
|
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Long Time, No Blog
Sorry for the long silence, folks. A planned short break went long, in part because of other commitments and in part because of an extended hospitalization when supposedly “routine” (albeit emergency) surgery was followed by a near-record-setting series of complications. Thanks to good care, some fast surgical work and very intensive antibiotics, plus the support of friends and family, I’m doing alright now. In fact, I hope to start traveling again in the near future. (Come say hi at the NWFA Expo.)
So that’s what’s new with me. Now to tie this post into wood, I want to note that the hospital I was in is a new building, opened in 2008. It is a lovely facility done mostly with cherry finish work (molding, wall panels, doors, etc.):
The main lobby features strand bamboo flooring, while the majority of the public halls and rooms use an LVT with a wood print. Clearly great attention was taken to make everything feel non-institutional. It’s a hospital—you can’t get around that—but they’ve worked hard to make it a bright and warm place that doesn’t feel cold and sterile like hospitals of the past. The real wood and wood look really helps create a warm feeling that I have to believe helps promote healing. I know it was a positive for me.
Beyond the wood, I need to say that everyone working there was incredible. I must thank all the caregivers for their professional and personal attention. Mind you, a little less attention wouldn’t have hurt—I could have done without the nightly wake-up calls every two hours for a check of my vitals—but it just makes me appreciate being home in my own bed more.
So that’s where I’ve been. Now that I’m back at the computer again, what green issues would you like to discuss? I have a few ideas and I expect to have a lot more to offer up on Lacey and the EPA formaldehyde regulations later this year, but until then, what are the day-to-day issues everyone out there faces? Let me know what you want to see covered!
|
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Green Blog Topic Review - Master Index
A few weeks ago I was asked to give someone information on formaldehyde so they could talk to a customer. I suggested that they send the customer an old blog post. But it was a bit challenging for them to find that post, so I thought it would be good to provide a master index of the topics covered so far. It has the added fun advantage to me of driving my editor, Kim, crazy since she’ll have to link each of these individually to the old posts!
I’ve grouped them by general topics. Of course many will overlap topics, but this should make it a bit easier to find things.
After this, I’m going to wrap it up for the year. We’ll take a bit of a break while I try to find some more green issues to discuss next year. I wish everyone happy holidays and all the best for 2012. It’s been a tough few years for all of us, and I hope we can become more united next year and work toward the health of the industry as a whole. Thank you all for reading, and all my best.
The Formaldehyde Series:
09/14/10 Alphabet Soup Series, Part 1 of Many: VOC
09/21/10 Formaldehyde, Part 1: The “CARBonization” of America
09/28/10 Formaldehyde, Part 2: Emissions vs. Content
10/05/10 Formaldehyde, Part 3: CARB’s Approach to Formaldehyde in Composite Wood Products
10/12/10 Formaldehyde, Part 4a: The Flooring Industry’s Responsibilities Under CARB (Part 1: Documentation)
10/19/10 Formaldehyde, Part 4b: The Flooring Industry’s Responsibilities Under CARB (Part 2: Emissions)
10/26/10 Formaldehyde, Part 5: LEED and the Air Quality Standard
11/02/10 Formaldehyde, Part 6: Fun Formaldehyde Facts
LEED
08/31/10 LEED and Certified Wood: Let's Acknowledge 'Wood is Good'
11/30/10 Alphabet Soup Series, Part 2: LEED
05/17/11 Let’s Look at LEED, Part 1: Basic Vocab
05/24/11 Let’s Look at LEED, Part 2: Specific Credits for Flooring
Legality Issues, Lacey
03/01/11 Gohowood in Japan
03/08/11 Resources for the Lacey Act and Legality
04/12/11 The Lacey Act: What it Says
04/19/11 Lacey’s Documentary Burden for Importers
04/26/11 Lacey’s Legality Burden
05/03/11 Lacey and Marketing U.S. Woods
11/15/11 Lacey in the U.S., Part 1
11/22/11 Lacey in the U.S., Part 2
11/29/11 The Lacey Act and Gibson Guitar
12/06/11 Lacey's Broad Scope
12/13/11 The Proposed Lacey RELIEF Act
Greenwashing & Green Marketing
01/25/11 Alphabet Soup Series, Part 4: Greenwashing
02/01/11 Greenwashing with Logos
02/08/11 Sins of Greenwashing, Part 1
02/15/11 Sins of Greenwashing, Part 2
02/22/11 Misuse of the FSC Logo
05/10/11 Green as the Default at the NWFA Convention
05/31/11 Language Choices
10/11/11 Alphabet Soup Series, Part 5: CSR
Alphabet Soup Series
09/14/10 Alphabet Soup Series, Part 1 of Many: VOC
11/30/10 Alphabet Soup Series, Part 2: LEED
12/28/10 Alphabet Soup Series, part 3: MSDS
01/25/11 Alphabet Soup Series, Part 4: Greenwashing
10/11/11 Alphabet Soup Series, Part 5: CSR
Tropical Timber Issues
08/17/10 Banning Tropical Timber = Burning Tropical Timber
08/24/10 Ask Your Suppliers for LKS
01/11/11 Carbon Credit Confusion
01/18/11 Options for Funding Certification
11/09/10 Visit to FRIM, Part 1
11/16/10 Visit to FRIM, Part 2 (pictures)
Plantations and Species Information
12/07/10 A Green Grass?
06/21/11 Dead Trees Standing
07/05/11 Plantations Pros and Cons, Part 1: the Cons
07/12/11 Plantations Pros and Cons, Part 2: the Pros
07/19/11 What's Hot in Plantations
07/26/11 Confucius or Confusion? What Acacia is This?
08/02/11 The Lowdown on Cork
06/07/11 What Mother Nature puts in Wood May Not Always Be Good for You, Either
06/14/11 Gifts from Old Ma Nature
Interviews with Organizations on the Ground
03/15/11 Snakes and the GFTN (GFTN Interview, Part 1)
03/22/11 The GFTN Goes Flat (Temporarily) (GFTN Interview, Part 2)
03/29/11 I Have a Suggestion About the Chicken (GFTN Interview, Part 3)
10/18/11 Sustainable Harvest International (SHI), Part 1 (Almost 3 million trees planted!)
10/25/11 Sustainable Harvest International (SHI), Part 2
11/01/11 Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF), Part 1
11/08/11 Tropical Forest Foundation, Part 2
Industry Associations
09/07/10 Should We Have Green Standards? (Grades vs. Standards)
12/14/10 Association Resources, Part 1: In the Industry
12/21/10 Association Resources, Part 2: Green Building
09/06/11 IWPA & AHEC: An Expanded Focus
10/04/11 Hardwood Federation Fly-In
Malaysian Production
11/09/10 Visit to FRIM, Part 1
11/16/10 Visit to FRIM, Part 2 (pictures)
11/23/10 Malaysian Timber Programs
04/05/11 Malaysian Mission to the U.S.
Chinese Production
09/13/11 China and Being Green
09/20/11 A Strong International Market Helps Green China
09/27/11 Evaluating Production Sources
Miscellaneous
08/10/10 Introduction: The World of 'Green'
01/04/11 Green Install Tips and Tricks
08/09/11 Spacecraft Earth
08/16/11 A Year of Blogging
08/23/11 My Green Summer Reading List
08/30/11 Enjoying the Woods
|
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
The Proposed Lacey RELIEF Act
We’ve been discussing Lacey these last few weeks, and I’ll start this post by encouraging you to check some of the previous postings for comments posted by readers.
And we’re not the only ones talking about it—the federal government’s raid on Gibson Guitar last summer kick-started a national discussion on the Lacey Act. Congress, the media, musicians and many people outside the wood industry are all giving Lacey a closer look (or for some, a first look).
Now, in response to the Gibson raid, Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) introduced the Retailers and Entertainers Lacey Implementation and Enforcement (RELIEF) Act, in an attempt to eliminate some of the unintended consequences of the 2008 Lacey Act Amendments. The bill currently has 17 co-sponsors (both Democrat and Republican). I would recommend you take some time and read the bill in its entirety–it isn’t that long–so you can see some of the problems Rep. Cooper has identified. There is also an overview of the bill if you would like a shorter summary.
In essence, the bill would reduce penalties for certain first-time offenses, grandfather in plant and plant products produced before the 2008 implementation of Lacey, call for a database of applicable foreign laws to be compiled with which U.S. businesses would be required to comply, and establishes an as-yet undefined certification process. The bill also aims to ensure “no government enforcement of penalties against those who unknowingly violated the Lacey Act.”
This last provision – the concept of an innocent owner—is the one that many in the industry see as the most important. Brent McClendon, executive vice president of the International Wood Products Association spoke passionately on the need for a strengthening of the innocent owner provision. “The fact that an individual or company can perform all the due care in the world, and if found to be in violation of Lacey can still have their goods confiscated without the opportunity to even have their day in court to petition for the return of these goods is not a responsible approach to combating the problem of illegal logging. This law was supposed to go after illegal logging crime syndicates, not innocent Americans.”
Innocent owner protection definitely needs to be considered. After all, having goods seized for an unwitting simple civil violation—without any legal recourse to retrieve the goods—is more than just an inconvenience. For many businesses, the result could be ruinous. The RELIEF Act attempts to strengthen the innocent owner clause of the Lacey Act to restore fairness and improve the effectiveness of the Lacey Act.
A business would still have to prove to a court that it exercised due care (again, innocent owner defenses cannot be used for actual criminal violations). And even with stronger innocent owner protections, a company would still face tremendous costs associated with the legal proceedings (and the not-so-insignificant fact of not having access to the inventory). But, if a business prevails in court, the goods would eventually be returned.
The RELIEF Act will certainly not fix all of the unintended problems of Lacey. It still has a long way to go in defining what this “certification process” would be, and needs to more fully cover the innocent owner concept. There are still many questions—including some I raised over the last few weeks—that would remain unanswered. But as a starting point, it’s a pretty good place to begin the debate.
For more on Lacey in the news, here are a few more links:
Battle Lines Drawn for Amending Lacey Act
Stringing Up Gibson Guitar
Guest Editorial: Gibson CEO Henry Juszkiewicz
NAMM Fights To Amend Lacey Act
|
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Lacey’s Broad Scope
The Lacey Act is not just about guitars, although Gibson’s case has certainly gotten guitar owners concerned. The 2008 Lacey amendment applies to any plant or plant product. We’re not just talking flooring and furniture here.
Lacey covers the burl on a fancy car’s dashboard and the rubber tires on bikes—or for that matter, any machinery with a rubber gasket. There’s instant lemonade (pineapple pulp), maple syrup and chewing gum. We’re looking at clothing containing rayon as well as pet shampoo (pine tar). Books and paper products might be obvious, as well as wine corks, but did you know lipstick contains wood rosin, so that’s also covered by Lacey?
Many Americans might think, “Well that’s good it covers so many items. If they are using illegally logged components then they deserve to be cracked down on!” Yet that very scope means Lacey isn’t even being fully enforced.
Justice and APHIS (the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) and the other governmental organizations are stretched thin—despite their best efforts, APHIS can’t even process the declarations they receive for the handful of products for which they are currently requiring submissions. Although Lacey requires APHIS to collect declarations for thousands of products, they aren’t doing so at this time. (Ironically, doesn’t that mean imported chewing gum or lipstick could be illegal since Congress requires a Lacey declaration upon entry and the form it isn’t being collected?)
Lacey also has excessive, and unfortunately, really meaningless data requirements for species and genus names. Wood is traded under a commercial or trade name, but is rarely purely a single species of tree. However Lacey says that if you do not know exactly what species are in your product, you are require to list out any possible species that could be in there.
Wood professionals know that a commercially marketed species such as “red oak” can contain dozens of different species. The NHLA (National Hardwood Lumber Association) has traditionally marketed certain species purely under an “spp” definition—Carya spp., for example, is the traditional definition of both the pecans and hickories. But Lacey doesn’t allow Carya spp. as a valid entry, which can make many declarations really rather absurd.
For example, say your leather furniture is made with a mixed U.S. hardwood lumber core. Your mill may use poplar, hickory, red oak, white oak or any number of other species, depending on what’s available at the right price at the right moment. They may buy from brokers specializing in Southern material, or get a shipment from the Appalachian region one week and a Northern state the next. You never know what they will use from week-to week. Consequently, for every single entry you need to list every possible scientific name for every possible species they could use. That could be 100 different species since what is marketed as “red oak” could be a blend of 30-50 different Quercus species.
APHIS has tried to be practical in a few areas. Although it’s not exactly what the letter of the law requires, APHIS has wisely created a special category for HDF and a few other products that are truly impossible to clearly declare—trying to figure out which grain of sawdust came from which species simply isn’t feasible. They even have a category for “driftwood” now. But they don’t accept “spp” for mixed species of the same genus. The idea is that you want to be able to track if the product is Quercus rubra or Quercus alba. But if you’re importing plywood made of meranti, to be truly accurate, you might have to list over 250 different species, which makes it truly meaningless data.
Next week we’ll look at efforts by a coalition seeking to amend Lacey so that it helps prevent illegal logging while not preventing commerce, trade, and the growth of an already struggling economy. The Lacey Act is a vital law that has protected wildlife and the environment for over 100 years. And the 2008 amendments were added with the best of intentions. But there were a lot of unintended consequences and questions raised by those amendments that mean there are ways we can make a good law even better.
|
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The Lacey Act & Gibson Guitar
Looking at the Lacey Act in the United States certainly requires a look at the first Lacey enforcement action, that being against Gibson guitars. In August 2011, for the second time in two years, Gibson’s facilities in Nashville were raided for an alleged Lacey Act violation, and for a second time everyone is waiting to hear what—if any—charges will be filed.
I have no inside knowledge of the case, on either side. I’ve been reading the news the same as everyone else. And, like everyone else, I’m very interested in the public reaction to the case and also how it may impact Lacey’s future.
When the Gibson case hit the papers, it was the first time many Americans outside the wood industry had even heard of the Lacey Act. The coverage was almost overwhelmingly negative – how could a law punish an American company for importing wooden fingerboards to be finished in the United States by American workers, rather than in India, where the material was sourced from? How can a customs issue be covered by a law that is aimed at preventing illegal logging? In an era where government overreach is a politically charged issue, and in the run-up to an election year, the American people can be forgiven for their outrage.
They can also be forgiven if they are confused and concerned about what Lacey now means to them. When the Lacey Act was originally passed in 1900, it only covered birds. The scope gradually expanded with each amendment until 2008, when it was drastically expanded to cover the importation of all plant and plant products. This conservation law is intended to eradicate illegal logging by making American companies liable for the products they sell. And not just companies, but consumers as well.
Since there is currently no exception for goods produced prior to the law’s passage in 2008, it is possible under the law that a person traveling with a vintage guitar could have their instrument seized. It’s unlikely that person would face jail time, but they would have lost a priceless instrument. And under the Justice Department’s interpretation of the Lacey Act, no person or company can petition the courts for the return of their goods.
There is also a problem with the Lacey Act’s definition of illegal. It is not limited or specific to harvesting questions. Illegality in the case of Lacey means in violation of virtually any law. And while I agree that we don’t want to break the law in any way, it’s putting an extraordinary burden on all wood professionals (or consumers) to know the law both within their field and without. Just as discussed last week, Lacey can be enforced for accidental violation just as aggressively as for deliberate actions.
That’s because there is no due diligence protection in Lacey. Nor is there any innocent owner protection or option to appeal confiscation of a load of wood or a single guitar. And the U.S. government has made it very clear that they are the only ones who can determine if the law, foreign or domestic, has been broken. In past (non-wood) cases of Lacey, foreign governments have disagreed with the U.S. government’s interpretation or enforcement of the foreign laws.
In the case of Gibson, that means if the wood exported from India was 10 mm rather than 6 mm, it is illegal based on Indian export laws. Apparently, from what I’ve read, there isn’t a dispute about the actual legality of the wood itself—it seems that everyone agrees it was harvested legally—but rather in the extent of it’s processing. In other industries such as fish imports, Lacey has previously been enforced for failure to meet certain packaging and labeling requirements.
This law, as currently written, seems able to find everyone guilty, even those without intent, and no matter what actions they take to comply. It forces American companies to draw legal conclusions about foreign laws—conclusions that aren’t automatically going to be accepted by the U.S. government. It covers every person who has ever bought any product that contains wood. And as discussed in previous posts, it’s unclear about applications when a company tries to make things right about a violation.
If you would like some more information on the Lacey Act and the Gibson case, here are a few recent articles:
www.palletenterprise.com/articledatabase/view.asp?articleID=3533
www.woodworkingnetwork.com/wood-blogs/Gibson-Guitar-Raid-and-the-Lacey-Act-Run-Amok-129977978.html
www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2011/08/31/140090116/why-gibson-guitar-was-raided-by-the-justice-department
markaltekruse.tumblr.com/post/9674807430/an-editorial-from-brian-majeski-at-music-trades
|
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Lacey in the U.S., Part 2
I wanted to continue my look at Lacey in the U.S. The rules a U.S. harvester must follow vary from state to state and are based on the type of timber and location—rules and procedures for both purchase and harvest are often different if it’s state or federal land vs. privately held.
Interestingly though, the U.S. rules do not always require a plan for sustainability of the forest.
The Congressional study cited last week pointed out that the laws in the U.S. may differ from those in other countries. "For example, logging without a government-approved management plan may be legal in parts of the United States, but illegal in Brazil." In fact, most international harvesting, even on private lands, requires forest management plans while in the U.S., most private harvesting can be done without a specific management policy. Many U.S. states require certain procedures to be followed to protect the surrounding environment, most commonly related to watersheds, but a requirement of a full management plan is rare.
This means that, ironically, while most U.S. wood is likely to be legally harvested, the legality does not automatically imply sustainability. On the other hand, in the case of most internationally harvested wood, legality does imply sustainability. This is not to say that U.S. wood, particularly U.S. hardwoods, are not highly sustainable—they are and they are being very well-managed on the whole—but it does mean that Lacey means that international material traded in the U.S. is almost guaranteed to be not just legal, but also sustainable.
As you start to look at U.S. forestry law, you’ll find the legal directory HG Org to be a good reference. They have provided a “Guide to Forestry Law” with links to both U.S. and international sources of information.
And below is a collection of links information provided by a variety of U.S. states regarding their specific BMPs (Best Management Practices) or specific regulations for timber harvesting. This is far from complete, but should start help start someone’s research.
Arkansas - www.forestry.state.ar.us/manage/manage.html
Connecticut - www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2697&q=322792&depNav_GID=1631&depNav
Delaware - http://dda.delaware.gov/forestry/forms/2007/2007_BMP.pdf
Georgia - www.gatrees.org/ForestManagement/documents/BMPManualGA0609.pdf
Illinois - http://dnr.state.il.us/conservation/forestry/IFDA/index.htm
Indiana - www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/files/fo-timber-harvest.pdf
Louisiana - www.ldaf.state.la.us/portal/Offices/Forestry/ForestryEnforcement/StateForestryRulesRegulations/tabid/409/Default.aspx
Maine - www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/rules_regs/index.htm
Maryland - www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/programapps/newFCA.asp
Massachusetts - www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/forestry/service/lawsnforms.htm
Michigan - www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-30301_30505_41820---,00.html
Minnesota - www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/harvesting/index.html
Mississippi - www.mfc.ms.gov/pdf/Mgt/WQ/Entire_bmp_2008-7-24.pdf
Missouri - http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/22317.pdf
New Hampshire - www.nhdfl.org/fire-control-and-law-enforcement/timber-harvest.aspx
New Jersey - www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/forest/nj_bmp_manual1995.pdf
New York - www.dec.ny.gov/lands/37845.html
North Carolina - www.dfr.state.nc.us/publications.htm
Ohio - www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/18/landowner/pdf/bmplogging.pdf
Pennsylvania - www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/stewardship_bulletins%5C12_Best_Management_Practices.pdf
Rhode Island - www.dem.ri.gov/pubs/regs/index.htm#forest
South Carolina - www.state.sc.us/forest/le.htm
Tennessee - www.state.tn.us/agriculture/publications/forestry/BMP_Booklet.pdf
Vermont - www.vtfpr.org/regulate/documents/Timber_Harvest09_web.pdf
Virginia - www.dof.virginia.gov/resources/pub-2005-Va-Forestry-Laws.pdf
West Virginia - www.wvforestry.com/lsca.cfm?menucall=lsca
Wisconsin - http://dnr.wi.gov/forestry/Usesof/bmp/index_water.htm
|
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Lacey in the U.S.
Recently I was working with a U.S. company on what I call “green tape”—the various certifications and environmental issues I need to cover with suppliers such as CARB and other formaldehyde or chemical issues, FSC and other certification issues, Lacey and other legality issues, etc. I asked about their Lacey procedures and the response came back: “The wood chips are from forests locally in the U.S. I do not believe that the Lacey Act applies here.”
This is a common misconception among both producers and buyers that Lacey somehow doesn’t apply to U.S. wood production. It absolutely does. And there actually is illegal logging taking place in the U.S.—often by accident, but sometimes deliberately. U.S. companies need to ensure that all their supply, not just imports, is legally harvested.
A Congressional study found that:
"Illegal logging exists in the United States but is primarily done by individuals or small operations. Some report that up to 10% of forest production in the U.S. is illegal. The U.S. Forest Service estimates that approximately one out of every 10 trees harvested in national forests is taken illegally. Private lumber companies estimate that nearly 3% of their cut trees are stolen, amounting to losses of approximately $350 million annually. Statistics for illegal logging on private lands are unavailable, yet are anecdotally quoted as a serious problem."
Just as with an import, if the U.S. government can prove that material in a domestic mill’s supply chain is illegally sourced (or there has been a violation of another related law associated with it), then the mill can be prosecuted under Lacey.
Wikipedia references a U.S. Forest Service report stating that “the biggest issue facing deforestation in the United States is illegal logging in forests.” It notes that “illegal logging is the biggest problem with deforestation because it is nearly impossible to monitor and stop…(it) often happens when companies disregard their permits and go beyond what they are allowed to harvest.”
That raises an interesting question—what happens when companies (deliberately or accidentally) cut more than they were supposed to. A very useful and interesting study by the state of Indiana found that most illegal logging there could be resolved without law enforcement:
“99.96% of the timber removed in Indiana was legally acquired, harvested, and processed. A large percentage of the cases that fall within the wrongfully cut category are often accidental problems that are settled between parties not requiring law enforcement action or the Division of Forestry’s (DoF) intervention.”
However, Lacey is unclear regarding the state of the wood in this case. Lacey is very specific that if the wood is illegal, it’s illegal. Can it become un-illegal?
Let’s say the logger accidentally crossed a property line and illegally harvested trees on another property. The mistake is discovered and the two owners and the logger come to an agreement that settles the matter to their mutual satisfaction. Is the wood still illegal? It was harvested illegally originally—can it be “reverted” to legal somehow?
What if the property line was in dispute—did he fail in due diligence because he didn’t independently determine exactly where the line really was? Maybe he didn’t even know there was a dispute—again, was that a failure in due diligence? He surely entered the contract with the landowner for harvest in good faith and followed the guides given—is he guilty if he crossed a border that wasn’t where he was told it was?
And how much should intent play a role in evaluating a Lacey violation? If the logger had absolutely no intent of stealing the tree, should he be punished under Lacey? Right now, ignorance of the law (or the property line) and innocence in terms of intent mean nothing under Lacey. Right now, it seems that the logger is guilty and the wood is illegal and there’s no clear way to change that.
Now consider also a violation that is resolved through law enforcement action—for example cutting too close to the watershed. In most cases, the logger is fined but he keeps the wood. The wood was illegally harvested initially—does the fact that law enforcement has penalized the logger mean that they’ve now sanitized the wood and it’s legal again?
The Department of Justice, when asked about Lacey prosecutions, say that they’ll study each case independently; that they’ll evaluate the due diligence practices of the offender and their level of professional knowledge as well as the type of violation in determining how they would prosecute and what penalties they would seek. But at the moment, all violations, in and out of the U.S., are absolute.
|
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Tropical Forest Foundation, Part 2
 To continue my review of groups doing great work on the ground in tropical countries, I interviewed Bob Johnston, executive director at the Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF).
What causes deforestation?
Deforestation isn’t caused by the timber industry, but rather the lack of demand for timber products. Forestlands get converted to other uses when owners, managers and even governments perceive other uses to have greater economic benefit.
Since 1989, the findings of the Smithsonian Tropical Forestry Workshop have been widely accepted by scientists, environmentalists and the timber industry. The three core principles are:
- Tropical forests will be conserved only if they have economic value
- Blanket bans and embargoes tend to depress the value of hardwoods and the forests
- Funds obtained from products of the tropical forests must be rechanneled into managing and regenerating those forests.
What are some the challenges faced in expanding tropical wood markets?
The tropical ecosystem and international trade are dynamic and complex, impacted by social and economic issues and a maze of international, national and regional regulations. Despite these complexities, there are two consistent challenges that suppliers face when delivering specified product to the U.S. market—cost of certification and natural variations in wood.
As most flooring suppliers know, the common practice in the design community is to pursue LEED points by specifying only woods certified to the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standard. They then further tighten the specification by pursuing narrow aesthetic values. That narrow spec—FSC-certified and color- or-size restricted—causes a reaction all the way down the product’s supply chain.
We would like to see more certification programs accepted. For example, in addition to the FSC label, there are alternatives such as TFF’s RIL Verified or the Rainforest Alliance’s SmartStep that are highly effective in auditing Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) and legality. But, the design community has had a major influence on suppliers’ ability (or inability) to sell tropical woods. Architects just won’t accept anything other than FSC right now, and that can be very expensive for a small operation. As a result, companies and communities in tropical regions that are pursuing sustainable forest management and higher value for their forests through routes other than FSC are being excluded from a large portion of the U.S. market.
In addition to cost and lack of demand, wood product manufacturers must meet aesthetic challenges, as well. There has been a trend toward narrow specifications that do not leave room for the natural variations of wood.
What can designers do to help?
There are three actions that designers can take to help.
- Keep specifying tropical wood: Demand ensures the economic viability of the forests and protects them from conversion. Demand encourages well-managed companies to keep investing in training and better forest management. It is worth paying a premium to keep the forest standing.
- Look beyond LEED credits: TFF, Rainforest Alliance and other programs help companies that want to improve their forest management and meet strict certification requirements. When specifying wood products consider tropical timber products that help support sustainability, not just what will get you the most LEED credits.
- Accept natural wood variations: By incorporating wood’s natural variability into your designs, you can eliminate byproducts that are at risk of going to waste. Consider using lesser-known species that deliver the same characteristics you have specified.
What is TFF’s role in expanding SFM?
We have our own certification program. However, we also offer training to many companies that are either going through alternative certification programs (including FSC), or who just want to do it better. Suppliers, wanting to maintain the forest, have increasingly pursued training and education around SFM practices, tapping into TFF’s on-the-ground training centers in Africa, South America and the Asia/Pacific regions.
In many cases, this training acts as a first step toward third-party certification. However, to make further progress, the market must provide the demand. A greater, consistent demand for tropical timber from major import markets is required for suppliers to continue to invest in training and certification.
|
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF), Part 1
 Last week I discussed Sustainable Harvest International (SHI), a private organization working on the ground with local communities to encourage greater sustainability and economic recovery from their nearby forests. This week, I'd like to look at an organization working on the ground with logging and wood companies and local communities to encourage sustainable forestry on an industrial scale.
The Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF) is a non-profit, educational institution dedicated to the conservation of tropical forests through sustainable forestry. They seek input from all sources: industry, government, science, academia, and conservation and are partnered with respected organizations such as the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), World Bank, World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, and more.
The TFF was formed in 1990 as a result of a Smithsonian Institution workshop that brought together leaders of industry, science, and conservation to address the growing concern for the protection of tropical forests. The focus of the TFF is to promote tropical forest conservation and management through education and training. The key component of their program is "Reduced-Impact Logging" (RIL). Going beyond academic study and theory, TFF provides practical and realistic solutions and direct training. The RIL training goes far beyond logging to cover equipment use, maintenance, safety, inventory systems, mapping, watershed management, road building, and more.
Over 5,000 people from communities, timber companies, universities, government, and even journalism internationally have completed the RIL Field Training Program. TFF also assists in developing chain-of-custody programs to ensure the legality of log purchases.
The TFF is on the ground in South America, Africa and Asia, teaching both large and small companies and communities how to maximize value recovery and minimize collateral damage to their commercial forests. TFF's training and coaching often leads concession managers to seek certification for their forest management practices. In addition to improving logging practices, TFF is engaged in research to increase the commercial value of tropical forests that have already been logged once.
|
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Sustainable Harvest International (SHI), Part 2
A Honduran girl guides a horse loaded
with tree seedlings.
Last week I talked about Sustainable Harvest International (SHI), a group working on the ground in Central America to reverse deforestation and improve the conditions of families living within the forests. I asked Christina Becherer, director, for an update on some recent projects, particularly ones that would be of interest to the wood industry.
So what’s new with SHI?
I encourage people to look at some of our reviews of our programs. We’re trying to find ways to better evaluate our performance, and our first “graduate report” is available online. I think the wood industry will be particularly pleased with these two notes:
- During the interviews, all of the families interviewed conveyed the positive impact that SHI/FUCOHSO has had on the local environment and reduction of migratory farming (slash-and-burn). It was noted that not only were fewer participants burning (approximately 75% were not), but the community as a whole has for the most part abandoned this technique. The 25% who still burn noted that they do so much less than previously and in a more controlled manner. This data leads us to believe that participants shared knowledge with neighbors and as a result, reduced the level of community-wide slash and burn. Those still practicing slash-and- burn explained that it was being done in a controlled manner, meaning weeds and crop residues were collected and burned versus an entire area.
- In addition to preserved land, the majority of the families interviewed have continued reforestation efforts that were initiated with the support of SHI/FUCOHSO. On average families were planting 462 trees, though it should be noted that three graduates were planting on collective plots. Species being planted most commonly included mahogany, ear pod tree (Guanacaste), mangoes, pink trumpet tree, and others. Over 90% also maintained shade-grown coffee and agroforestry systems in areas measuring ¾ to 8 acres.
That sounds terrific. We in the industry are definitely pro-trees.
We’re pro-trees, too. Since July 2010, SHI-Nicaragua participants have planted more than 29,000 trees, mostly in areas previously deforested for pasture. As participants learn about agrosilvopastoral systems, they now understand the complexities of nature and importance of maintaining forest cover on the fragile tropical soils. The changes in attitude point to renewed efforts to rehabilitate the land and create healthy, living soils.
Then, last fall and winter, SHI-Belize participants reforested approximately 34 acres with over 9,000 trees. They expanded current cacao and agroforestry plots with a goal of future commercialization and protection of ecosystems.
So you are replanting destroyed forests and reducing slash and burn agriculture. What else?
In all our countries and various programs, we now also encourage the use of a wood-conserving stove design originally implemented by SHI-Panama that has both health and environmental benefits.
Traditional stoves, notorious for consuming large amounts of wood, are a main cause of respiratory infections, tuberculosis, eye disease and more. During my visits, I’ve seen the walls and roofs of rural homes in Central America caked with black soot. Unbelievably, the smoke being inhaled by women and children would be the equivalent of smoking 2 to 5 packs of cigarettes per day. According to the World Health Organization, about 1.6 million deaths around the world were associated with indoor air pollution or the burning of biomass as cooking fuel.
Utilizing up to 50% less wood as a “traditional” open pit fireplace and reducing the amount of smoke and black carbon in the home, the wood-conserving stoves (or Justa stoves) being implemented by SHI are a radical and healthy change. Wood-conserving stoves save thousands of trees, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and greatly improving women's and children's health in Central America.
Incredible! I had no idea about the personal health implications of the traditional fire pit, just the impact on the forest. Anything else to add?
Is it ok if I make a quick plea for more support? Donations can be designated for specific purposes—for example to plant trees or to buy stoves or to educate locals on better forest management.
I would also like to encourage people to join us on the ground. We have upcoming trips to Belize, Honduras and Nicaragua, where people can work on a coffee farm, help build a wood-conserving stove, help with a reforesting project and more. It’s a wonderful experience.
|
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Sustainable Harvest International (SHI), Part 1 (Almost 3 million trees planted!)
 One of the groups I like to support is Sustainable Harvest International (SHI). SHI works to reverse rainforest destruction with direct replanting programs and teaching farmers sustainable land-use practices that allow them to take control of their environmental and economic destinies.
The primary cause of deforestation in tropical climates is NOT commercial logging, but slash-and-burn agriculture and the need of many people to use wood for cooking fires. Therefore, not only has SHI planted more than 2 million trees in the last decade, they have also worked to reduce new deforestation by teaching sustainable agricultural techniques such as multi-story cropping and organic farming, helping local communities develop short-term and long-term cash crops, and offering homestead improvements such as wood-conserving stoves, all of which have a major impact on preserving forests. The combined programs are highly effective in both restoring and preserving tropical forests.
I like how SHI works to balance environmental, economic and social realities when designing their programs. They go beyond just replanting by working through local education to ensure the long-term health and expansion of tropical forests.
They are not a forest investment program, they are not restricted to a single country or wood species, nor do they have additional religious or political agendas to promote. They are in multiple countries, providing a full range of services that we believe will better the social, economic and environmental conditions of the forests and the people dependent upon them.
Since 1997, SHI has worked with more than 2,000 families and 900 students in Honduras, Panama, Belize and Nicaragua implementing alternatives to slash-and-burn farming, a leading cause of rainforest destruction in the region. They note that they have, with local field personnel trained by SHI:
- Planted more than 2,800,000 trees.
- Converted 14,000 acres of degraded land to sustainable uses; thereby saving 70,000 acres of tropical forest from slash-and-burn destruction.
- Improved nutrition through the establishment of more than 200 organic vegetable gardens.
- Increased farm income up to 800%.
- Built 165 wood-conserving stoves (saving 1,650 trees per year)
SHI also offers tours of their programs (visit a chocolate farm!) and a small online store offering products from some of their projects. I think it’s an impressive organization and working to ensure that the forests provide long-term economic benefits for all.
|
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Alphabet Soup Series, Part 5 of Many: CSR
CSR stands for “Corporate Social Responsibility,” and is one of many ways of looking at business and evaluating companies. Companies that embrace CSR recognizes that they must make a commitment to their communities, both local and international. A strong and sincere CSR program means that companies value success not just in financial profitability, but in the happiness of their employees, their contributions to their community, their defense of the environment, and the success of their suppliers and customers as well. (Among many other things.)
In the wood industry, CSR often takes the form of participation and support of “green” programs such third-party certifications, replanting programs, and contributions of stock to groups like Habitat for Humanity. It can also mean the support of local or international charities. Over the next few weeks, I’m going to look at two groups related to international forestry that I think are well-worth supporting.
I welcome everyone commenting here on groups that their corporations have chosen to support. Let’s give some good organizations some advertisements. Tell me who you support and why!
(To see the rest of the Alphabet Soup series, go to my posts on VOCs, LEED, MSDS, and Greenwashing.)
|
