This past fall, scarcely two years after purchasing 232,000 acres of severely cutover forestlands from Louisiana Pacific Corporation, Mendocino Redwood Company (MRC) was "awarded" sustainable forestry certification by affiliates of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
For the multi-billionaire Fisher family, principal owners of both MRC and the Gap clothing empire, certification was a payoff for shrewd business decisions. In the summer of 1999, MRC hired two private certification organizations to evaluate its operation. The company was not certified at that time, but was provided with a list of changes needed for certification.
During the next year, MRC made some progress in complying with these requirements, then paid the certifiers to come back and do a second evaluation. This time MRC was granted certification on the promise that it will eventually conform to FSC guidelinesÑstandards that many environmentalists consider to be over-friendly to industrial forestry corporations and harmful to endangered species like Coho salmon, marbled murrelets and spotted owls.
MRC will soon stamp each board it ships from its mills with the endorsement labels of FSC and its affiliates (Smartwood and Scientific Certification Systems). Idealistic consumers will pay a premium for this lumber, believing it to truly be the fruit of sustainable, environmentally sensitive forestry. Sadly, this is not the case.
Even using FSC's questionable guidelines, the joint Smartwood/SCS evaluation team barely found MRC worthy of certification. All FSC certifications are based on scores assigned to 18 Evaluation Criteria, with 80% being a passing score. MRC scored 80% or higher on only ten of these criteria, and below passing on the other eight. The criteria are lumped into three Program Elements, and MRC's average scores for each of these were barely passing: 82% for Timber Resource Sustainability; 80% for Forest Ecosystem Maintenance, and 83% for Financial and Socio-Economic Considerations.
It is troubling that the FSC affiliates could justify certifying MRC the second time around, considering that the company had failed to satisify a number of Key Conditions the evaluation team had stipulated when they denied certification a year earlier. These include concerns over MRC's rate of cut and cumulative impacts of the company's logging; its lack of an accurate, comprehensive timber data base (meaning no one actually knows MRC's current rate of cut); its lack of an old growth inventory; and its failure to establish set-asides for old growth and sensitive wildlife habitat.
Additionally, the certifiers had concerns over MRC's practice of virtually clearcutting mixed hardwood/conifer stands in the name of "rehabilitation," use of the toxic herbicide Garlon, and lack of adequate wildlife inventories. Despite all these shortcomings, the FSC affiliates certified MRC and gave the company five years to clean up its act.
Forest stewardship certification is analogous to the certification of organically grown food. Both of these movements were started by sincere people within their industries, intent on distinguishing their products from those of the profit-maximizing mainstream. Both define standards to be adhered to by certified producers and distributors, and both utilize product labels to inform consumers. Unfortunately, the similarities end there.
The organic food movement has maintained its idealism, whereas the sustainable forestry movement has allowed itself to become compromised. Robert Fisher is a generous contributor to and sits on the board of the Natural Resources Defense Council (a corporation-friendly environmental organization) which is a key promoter of FSC and involved in the development of its guidelines. Robert Fisher is also a principal owner of MRC, which was just certified by FSC. Is there a connection here?
The organic food movement forcefully pushed for the codification of their principles, standards and review processes into state and federal law, thus allowing public involvement, open access to information, and effective enforcement.
The sustainable forestry movement rationalizes itself as a supplement to existing lawsÑthe federal Environmental Protection Act (EPA), the state Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the state Forest Practice ActÑlaws that are basically sound but which have been largely unimplemented and unenforced, thanks to the corrupting influences of industrial timber corporations.
FSC's voluntary, private approach is in fact a distraction from what really needs to happen: rigorous enforcement of existing laws. Companies like MRC that choose to pay for certification are rewarded with enhanced public images and the ability to charge more for their lumber while continuing to log unsustainably, cut old growth trees, use toxic herbicides and kill endangered species by destroying their habitat. Companies that don't choose certification continue practicing even worse forestry, with practically no regulation. This must change.
The organic food movement bases certification solely on proven performance by applicantsÑnot "lesser of evil" comparisons, half-hearted gestures and promises of future compliance, as was the case in the certification of MRC. The after-the-fact reports issued to the public by the FSC affiliates (their activities up to certification were kept secret) read like MRC public relations pieces.
The certifiers agonize over how harshly the lands MRC purchased were abused by previous owners and rhapsodize over how much better MRC did in its first two years, how good MRC looks compared to other large timber corporations, what a fine effort MRC made in response to the first-year evaluation (in which certification was denied, probably because of intense public protest), how MRC goes a little beyond the totally inadequate waterway protections mandated by the state Board of Forestry, and how earnest the company is in promising to make changes that should have been accomplished before certification was even considered.
There are grains of truth and mountains of problems with all of these points, but the looming question isÑso what? Is MRC stewarding their forests or not?
When a grower applies for organic food certification, it doesn't matter how their land was treated before they bought it or what farmers are doing on other properties. This land must be toxin-free for many years before certification is considered; the applicant must be presently nourishing their soil with only organic fertilizers and protecting their crops with only organic pest controls, and they must not be doing anything harmful to the natural world around them.
It would never wash for someone to say: "Look, I'm doing pretty well, everything considered, but to make a profit I need to keep using synthetic fertilizers and spraying DDT for a while, even though these chemicals are carcinogenic to humans and kill endangered species. I'll give you lots of money and promise to do better in the future, if you will just certify me now."
Several problems relating to the certification of MRC by the FSC have been touched on so far in this article. There is not space here to delve deeper into most of these concerns, but we'll explore two of them a little further, beginning with MRC's sorry track record in managing its forestlands. Then, we will ask why the FSC affiliates granted the company so much slack in complying with conditions they had supposedly imposed on certification.
When MRC first arrived on the scene in 1998, then-president Sandy Dean hosted a meeting with local environmentalists during which he assured everyone that his company was primarily concerned with forest rehabilitationÑthat MRC didn't even plan on milling any lumber until their forests were in recovery. It soon became clear that this claim was nothing but disingenuous public relations.
MRC took over where Louisiana Pacific left off, logging the 104 THPs (Timber Harvest Plans) that came with their deal and filing new plans of its own at an even higher rate than LP did in its final years. To date, MRC has worked more than 200 THPs (completed and active), and they are not models of stewardship. Over 80% of these plans contain some form of clearcutting, and MRC is continuing to disregard cumulative impacts, cut old growth trees, log on steep, unstable slopes, and use the herbicide Garlon (carcinogenic to humans and toxic to juvenile salmon).
In response to an outcry from people living in the watersheds that MRC is ravagingÑand an effective boycott of the Fisher family's Gap clothing chainÑSandy Dean admitted that profitability is his company's bottom line, while "still utilizing high standards of environmental stewardship."
Attempting to placate a groundswell of outrage, Dean and other MRC spokespeople began calling their clearcuts by other names and claiming that they are actually "rehabilitation" measures; made up their own definition of "old growth"; instituted a program to "study alternatives" to Garlon while continuing to spray it; and claimed to be logging at a "sustainable" rate, but with no sound figures to back them up.
The most flagrant of MRC's transgressions is its willingness to sacrifice endangered species. Nearly 100 species of endangered, threatened and sensitive animals and plants reside in MRC forestlands. Once abundant Coho salmon are now absent in 90% of the streams in MRC forests. In Elk Creek, 10 Coho were counted in 1995; five years and 14 logging plans later (12 of them by MRC) there were zero Coho. They and marbled murrelets (an endangered bird with only four detection sites in Mendocino County) are facing imminent extinction.
Rather than seeking out and protecting populations of Coho, murrelets, steelhead trout, spotted owls and other creatures listed as threatened and endangered under the EPA and CEQA, MRC has tried to deny their existence. If there is no evidence of a listed species within a timber harvest plan, timber companies don't have to constrain logging to protect it.
Time and again, the company has failed to conduct mandated wildlife surveys, has suppressed existing data, has violated known murrelet and spotted owl nesting sites, and has fought attempts to link the cumulative impacts of their logging to waterway degredation and habitat destruction.
MRC estimates that it is logging at a rate of 40,000,000 board feet per year (which the certifiers tacitly state is unsustainable) and intends to continue doing so through the end of this year. There is a relationship between this high rate of cut, the distribution of trees within MRC's holdings, the extinction of endangered species, and the slack that the FSC affiliates granted MRC in complying with conditions for certification.
MRC is completing a liquidation program on its forestlandsÑliquidation of the last sizable trees (aside from a few it has grudgingly conceded to be old growth). These larger trees, essential for wildlife habitat and a healthy forest ecosystem, are concentrated in a handful of watersheds: the Albion River, Navarro River, Greenwood Creek and Elk Creek. These are the areas where MRC has focused its assault for the past two and one-half years.
MRC is taking 22% of its annual cut out of the Albion watershed, which comprises only seven percent of its ownership. It is no surprise that the Albion contains the highest percentage (15%) of the few larger trees (24 inches and greater in diameter) remaining in company holdings. This is called "high grading," and is a major violation of forest stewardship principles.
The FSC affiliates gave MRC a full year to complete inventory block analyses which relate directly to the heavy logging within the Albion and other targeted watersheds. By then, MRC will have hammered these areas for over three years and will have likely reduced them to the same sorry state as the rest of its holdings.
The certifiers gave MRC even longerÑtwo and one-half yearsÑto complete an "umbrella management plan" that is the "functional equivalent" of a Sustained Yield Plan (SYP). SYPs, once required of all large timberland owners by the state Board of Forestry, mandate a public review process along with long term planning for forest sustainability and environmental protection.
True to form, the Board of Forestry provided a loophole to SYPs, "Option A" management plans, which MRC chose to take advantage of. If MRC was sincere in its claims relating to sustainability and public accountability, the company would have voluntarily produced an SYP rather than its "Option A" copout. And if the FSC affiliates weren't accommodating MRC's liquidation program, they would have required the company to be operating under a bona fide SYP before they bestowed certification.
The FSC certifiers accommodated MRC big time on the Garlon issue. All they required was assurance that the company will reduce chemical herbicides by 60% over the next four years, and eliminate them "over the long run."
The use of Garlon is tied to MRC's "rehabilitation" clearcutting, which the company now calls "variable retention" (about 20% of the trees in a cutting area are spared, but this small percentage of retention is offset by large increases in forest areas that are entered and logged).
Sizable portions of MRC's holdings presently contain high percentages of tanoaks, native trees that are part of a healing succession that is nature's way of responding to clearcuts. The tanoaks serve to hold soil together and provide shade and nutrients while redwoods and Douglas firs re-establish themselves. If left alone, these trees and other plants will continue to interact until the pre-clearcut balance of species is restored.
MRC and other industrial timber corporations don't have the patience to wait for this kind of natural healing. Their practice is to "rehabilitate" a clearcut with another clearcut, then zap the tanoak sprouts that follow with Garlon to keep them from competing with the rows of baby redwoods that they plant.
This is tree farming by another name, and the name that industrial foresters use is "evenage management." The FSC certifiers had some concerns over the large number of cuts employing "variable retention" (about 45%) and MRC's habit of clearcutting conifers along with tanoaks, but were satisfied with the company's assurances that it will phase out these practices over the next 50 years. If MRC was a true steward of their forests, it would stop now.
The biggest problem with the slack that FSC certifiers are giving MRC to complete its forest liquidation program is what this means to species teetering on the brink of extinction. These creatures don't have time for MRC to finish cutting the last big trees, or to stop fouling rivers and streams with runoff from its "variable retention" clearcuts, or to phase out Garlon over however many years. They need MRC to stop these profit driven practices now.
Smartwood and Scientific Certification Systems seem to be in denial when it comes to this life-and-death reality. They barely mention threatened and endangered species in their respective post-certification public reports, and are giving MRC two years to complete wildlife and habitat inventories, with a de-emphasis on "TandE species": "Specifically, we suggest that inventories of plants and animals, other than TandE species be conducted." (Maybe SCS was hoping that the public wouldn't figure out that they meant "threatened and endangered" by "TandE").
The Smartwood and SCS reports refer to a "vocal minority" who believe that MRC is not complying with environmental laws. Evidently this "vocal minority" includes two Mendocino County Superior Court judges who recently ruled against four MRC logging plans for their failure to properly assess the cumulative impacts of company logging on endangered species habitat, and failure to provide the public with spotted owl data.
The Smartwood report lists five issue areas that it perceives to be the main concerns of MRC critics, but glaringly omits the plight of endangered species. For many of us, this is the biggest concern, which we communicated loud and clear to the certifiers, with detailed documentation.
The individuals who made up the joint Smartwood/SCS team that evaluated MRC are respected professionals, and each of them has a commitment to healthier forest ecosystems. Why then did they collectively recommend that MRC be granted forest stewardship certification?
We can only speculate, but it was no doubt a pragmatic decision. MRC came to Smartwood and SCS stating a willingness to make changes leading toward sustainable logging and ecosystem maintenance. The evaluation team dangled the carrot of certification to pull the company as far in this direction as they felt they could.
MRC probably played hardball, insisting that it be certified before making significant changes on the ground and setting limits on how far it was willing to move. Faced with the choice of bringing this large timberland owner at least part way into the fold of forest stewardship or rejecting it, the evaluation team made its recommendation to certify MRC.
We at the Mendocino Environmental Center consider this to be a most unfortunate decision, one that undermines the legitimacy of the entire forest stewardship movement. In the last issue of this MEC Newsletter, we linked the possibility of MRC certification to a proposed boycott of redwood lumber. The MEC Board had endorsed such a boycott in principle, but had held off on linking a boycott to the certification movement.
At this point, we have no choice. We recommend that people refuse to buy redwood produced by industrial forestry corporations, including MRC lumber with FSC certification stamps. If we learn about any sources of redwood from small timberland owners who are practicing true forest stewardship, we will discuss whether to recommend them.
Meanwhile, we suggest that people be creative in their building projects and consider alternatives to all forest productsÑnot just redwood.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 2001
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited