Study Background
The purpose of the project is to document, compare, and summarize the various standards and requirements of Oregon forest landowners under applicable state and federal laws, with two major voluntary forest certification systems. It is not an assessment of implementation, but instead a policy analysis. Specifically, this analysis focuses on the following tasks:

9. Core or minimum standards are common to all systems. In addition to required core indicators, the SFI Verification Program also lists many additional indicators that may be used. FSC or SFI participants in certification programs must show their commitment to continuous improvement over time, a different target from the minimum standards required by Oregon law.
10. Verification under the SFI Program follows well-established accounting and auditing procedures used by major businesses, whereas the FSC system allows accredited certifiers to develop their own auditing systems with some overall direction in procedures.
11. The FSC system includes peer review of the assessment report with the goal of providing an objective and scientifically credible assessment. The SFI Program and Oregon legal process do not include peer review, although ODF decisions about compliance with laws may be appealed.
12. The FSC and SFI systems appear to be converging on transparency and level of performance required. The SFI system has undergone extensive changes during the past year in order to become a stronger third-party certification system. The FSC network is also changing, moving its headquarters closer to world business centers and making certification more accessible to smaller owners through group certification.

Implications of Findings
Implications for Oregon Forest Landowners
      Certainly certification is on the minds of many of Oregon’s private and public forest owners. A September 19, 2001 certification summit in Corvallis was one in a number of certification meetings recently held to help owners understand various certification options. Demand for certified wood products appears to be on the rise, and these products are beginning to show up on the shelves of such retail giants as Home Depot. .
      This study reveals that Oregon landowners appear to be at or above the level of the SFI and FSC certification systems with respect to a number of categories of analysis, specifically water quality, air quality, regeneration, and fire control. If Oregon forest owners find it necessary to become certified, to retain access to wood markets or for other reasons, they will have to make fewer adjustments in management practices than forest landowners in states and countries without a comparable array of legal requirements. If certification were to be widely adopted, it would force other wood- growing regions to meet Oregon’s high regulatory standards and the higher operational costs associated with them. This is good news. A bit of bad news to date is that Oregon landowners have been imposing higher costs on themselves through a stricter state legal standard, but they are not being rewarded for it in the marketplace.
      Oregon forest landowners who embark upon the certification systems examined in this analysis must exceed the legal standard in certain categories, specifically written plans, inventory of resources, monitoring impacts, documenting commitment to community economic viability, and record-keeping for chain of custody. How much they have to do depends on which system they choose. For example, under the SFI system, their current use of herbicides in the forest, which is controlled by state and federal law, may be adequate, but if they choose the FSC system they may be required to make significant changes in herbicide use and documentation.
      One striking difference between the certification systems and state law is that the law does not require a comprehensive written management plan. Both the FSC and SFI systems require a written plan for third party audited certifications. A written plan is also required for other popular certification systems such as the Tree Farm Program. .
3Implications for Certifiers
      The SFI and FSC should be able to use the results of this study when conducting audits of Oregon properties, to locate areas in which Oregon landowners are likely to be strong or weak. This should allow certifiers to streamline audits of Oregon landowners, and possibly make these audits cheaper. This process could likely be enhanced if findings from inspections conducted under the Forest Practices Act were shared with certification audit teams.
      The SFI and FSC should also be able to see from this analysis where their systems measure up to a democratically produced set of forest laws and guidelines that were the product of a wide array of stakeholders in Oregon over the past 50 years. The comparisons in different categories of analysis should be useful in these organizations when they are determining the standard that is adequate for a given category.
      Although it was not the primary intent of this study, the summary tables also allow for comparing the SFI and FSC systems. The two systems have many things in common, but definitely require different standards in specific categories. Whether one system is better or more credible than the other depends on what categories and issues are of greatest interest. For example, while the SFI system has more detail about ensuring that workers have adequate training, the FSC system concentrates more on ensuring that they receive fair wages and long-term employment. In this analysis, there does not seem to be a clearly superior system for all categories analyzed.

Implications for Oregon’s Policy-Makers
      A major point reinforced by this study is that Oregon has an extensive set of laws and regulations to protect public assets such as air, water, and fish and wildlife, as well as the well-being of Oregon’s citizens. Oregon policy-makers and citizens have long been national leaders in recognizing the need to protect these assets, and they have enacted various legislation such as a Reforestation Act, Forest Practices Act, land-use planning laws, and worker-protection laws. All these laws and their attendant administrative rules have served the purpose of protecting public assets, but they have also increased the cost and complexity of managing forests in Oregon.
      The Oregon Board of Forestry may find this study useful in examining the regulatory burden being placed on landowners, and consider strategies to help landowners recover some of regulatory cost in the marketplace. The Board of Forestry may also want to examine collaborative data-sharing strategies with certifiers that will allow certifications to take place in a more efficient manner. Finally, the Board may want to increase the requirements of the stewardship agreements to allow participating landowners the dual benefit of lower regulatory cost and the opportunity of becoming certified under one or more of the certification systems.

Program Administration and Process (Table 2)
Summary Points

• Fundamental differences in philosophy exist between laws and voluntary certification systems. While landowners are required to comply with all laws, certification systems measure how well they conform with specified criteria and standards.
• The FSC and AF&PA are membership organizations, with members and program staff having a direct ability to influence certification rules and programs through committee appointments and other internal input. In the FSC, major policies can be made through a vote of the membership. In the SFI program, the Sustainable Forestry Board approves all policy and rules.
• FSC membership is composed of a wide range of organizations including forest product buyers groups, forest landowners, labor unions, churches, and environmental organizations. The SFI Program is also composed of different types of organizations including forest landowners, forest products manufacturers, conservation organizations, universities, state and county land management agencies, and others through their membership in the AF&PA or a licensee’s program. The FSC certifiers examined represent both a for-profit company (SCS) and a nonprofit network of partners (SmartWood), while the SFI verifiers represent for-profit businesses.
• The length of time various programs and associated organizations have been in operation varies. Oregon forest laws and rules have been evolving over the past 60 years, beginning with the Forest Protection Act of 1941 In contrast, the certification systems have been in operation only since the early 1990s, with FSC starting in 1993 and the SFI program introduced publicly in 1995 after several years of development.
• Oregon forest laws and rules come about through a public process with mandated transparency, stakeholder input, and opportunity for change through the electoral process. The certification systems have some stakeholder input into setting of standards, but their processes are generally less transparent than the state legislative process.
• While certification system standards are reviewed and updated at the pleasure of the system manager, the Oregon Forest Practices Rules require annual review by the Board of Forestry in consultation with other state agencies, and revision in a public forum as needed.
• While Oregon laws require an operation-by-operation notification, the certification systems look at the whole ownership or ownership block at a point in time. While a Forest Practices Forester may never examine an individual property on site, field inspection is required for both the SFI program and FSC systems before certification status is granted. Individual forest practices are not examined under the certification systems unless they fall under the sampling done at the time of assessment. In essence, Oregon law looks carefully at the parts whenever an operation is done, while the certification systems look at a sample of the whole of the forest ownership.
• Oregon law tends to focus on specific targets and the use of best management practices, (i.e., reforestation standards, riparian area protection, stream and wetland protection, and resource site protection standards), while certification systems tend to look at broader resource issues (profitability, biological conservation, equity for workers and communities).
• Verification within the SFI program involves third-party audits from professional accounting and auditing businesses and forestry experts. In addition, the Forest Monitoring Program of the External Review Panel makes external input into the SFI program. FSC assessments generally include only forestry experts.
• Verification within FSC certifiers also varies considerably. While the SmartWood system treats all criteria with somewhat equal weight. The SCS system includes weighting of various criteria in order to put the highest score on the most important criteria.
• The Oregon legal system has included monitoring of system effectiveness, while the certification systems to date have not released any information showing that certification has improved forests or forest management practices.

• If they break the law, Oregon forest landowners are faced with potential criminal and/or civil penalties for each operation or practice. Failure to meet certification conditions for either of the certification systems is handled under the contract with the certifier and can result in loss of certified status by the landowner. In the case of AF&PA, not meeting the SFI standards can also be grounds for expulsion of members or licensees.
• Under the FSC, certifiers can also be punished for poor performance in doing certifications by having their accreditation removed. The biggest potential threat for certifiers performing either FSC or SFI certifications is that their reputation might be discredited and clients would not hire them for assessments.
• A dispute during a forest operation or while an assessment audit is in progress is generally handled within the organization involved (either ODF, FSC certifier, or SFI auditor).
• Dispute resolution processes are in effect for both Oregon laws, and for the two certification systems, although some minor differences in process exist.
• Oregon Department of Forestry appears to have the most specific requirements for both experience and formal education for employees it hires. The department also offers extensive and ongoing training to ensure competency of personnel. Of the certification systems examined, the SFI program has the most stringent criteria for training and credentialing of certifiers. Their system is based on professional accounting and auditing practices with specialties in sustainable forestry auditing; forest-certification auditing requires specialized training. The FSC and SFI systems both recruit teams of forestry experts for their assessments based on the reputation and experience of the team members. The SFI program also requires that one member of the team be a forester as defined by the Society of American Foresters. SmartWood has a formal training package for potential assessment-team leaders and members.
• Of the three systems examined, Oregon’s legal system has the highest level of transparency to the general public through mandated public hearings and reporting requirements. Both FSC and the SFI program seek external input about their programs, but they reserve decision-making for private sessions of appointed committees. The FSC rules committees operate at regional, national, and international levels. The SFI program is directed by the Sustainable Forestry Board, a committee of AF&PA members (40%), and non-member stakeholders (60 %).
• The public has open access to landowner notifications of operations and other reports done by the ODF. In contrast, only selected information (public summaries) is available from FSC certifications, and SFI third-party audit disclosures are not required. Public agencies undergoing an FSC or SFI certification, however, require full disclosure of the entire certification process.