SFI Takes Issue with Recent Wood Certification Report

After reviewing the BuildingGreen report: Wood Certification: Comparing Programs and Their Impacts, we note a strong bias in its tone, selective focus, blatant errors, and omission of critical facts. Overall, the report uses erroneous and ambiguous language to portray SFI inaccurately and negatively while presenting FSC in a disproportionately favorable light. The report is based on a draft FSC US Forest Stewardship Standard that has been in a revision process since 2018 and recently became further delayed when FSC International requested more consultation. This reference misleads readers about its applicability and relevance. The authors also downplay SFI’s leadership in critical areas such as climate-smart forestry and building meaningful relationships with Indigenous communities. This selective framing undermines a balanced comparison of certification programs.

We do agree with the authors on the need for solutions that not only limit negative impacts but support sustainable forest management. SFI is proud to take a leadership role in advancing responsible forestry, promoting nature-based solutions across our footprint, and fostering meaningful partnerships with diverse communities.

1. Given the number of inaccuracies and biases in the report, responding to each issue individually would be unnecessarily tedious, however, below are eight of the most blatant inaccuracies. The report claims that SFI’s governance is heavily influenced by industry, portraying it as less independent and credible compared to FSC. This is false. Less than one-third of SFI’s diverse Board members are from industry. Industry is in the minority. Two-thirds of SFI’s Board consists of representatives from environmental and social interest groups.

2. The report characterizes the “licensing fees” paid to SFI Inc. by four economic chamber members as a conflict of interest. This is false. Licensing fees have no determination on the certification status of an organization, nor do they influence Board deliberations and votes. In fact, licensing fees are collected by SFI before the certification process commences. In 2024, licensing fees accounted for approximately 65% of SFI’s operating revenue. Other sources of revenue include government grants, service agreements, conference attendance fees, sales of educational materials, and investment income.

3. The report uses a draft FSC forest management standard as the reference for its comparison, making it appear that this standard is in use, applicable, and relevant. This is misleading. The draft FSC U.S. Forest Management Standard referenced in the report has been in a revision process since 2018. Recently, FSC International requested more consultation, delaying the approval even further. The current FSC U.S. Forest Management Standard that is approved dates back to 2010.

4. The report claims SFI’s standards development process is less balanced than FSC’s. This is false. SFI’s standard revision process is open to anybody who cares to participate in task groups, in our workshops, or comment in writing. During the most recent standards revision process, which produced the SFI 2022 Standards, nearly 2,300 individuals and organizations submitted comments or participated in webinars. This included two public comment periods which invited comments from any interested participants. For an added layer of transparency, SFI posts each comment and SFI’s response to each comment on our website.

5. The report claims the SFI certification process isn’t rigorous or credible. This is biased and false. SFI has no role in the certification process, the accreditation of the certification body, or the appointment of the certification body. All certification bodies who conduct audits to certify against an SFI Standard must be first accredited under the Standards Council of Canada or by ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board. This requires a witness audit to ensure the auditor’s competency in auditing to the SFI standards. In fact, many of the same certification bodies who audit to the SFI standards also audit to FSC standards. For a list of certification bodies who decide whether or not an organization meets an SFI Standard, visit this link.

6. The report claims SFI has more leeway for conversions. This is false. The SFI 2022 Forest Management Standard specifies SFI’s commitment to no-deforestation, indicating that “Forest lands converted to other land uses shall not be certified to this SFI Standard” through Performance Measure 1.3. To further reinforce SFI’s stance against deforestation, the SFI Board, at its March 2024 meeting, moved to explicitly prohibit certification to the SFI 2022 Forest Management Standard on lands that are deforested and on practices that are causing forest degradation after December 31, 2020. For more information on how SFI is taking a firm stance against deforestation, forest degradation, and conversion, visit our website here.

7. The report claims that SFI lacks detailed requirements on climate-related impacts. This is false. SFI is a leader when it comes to climate-smart forestry. Objective 9 in the SFI 2022 SFI Forest Management Standard requires SFI-certified organizations to manage their forestlands to address climate change adaptation and mitigation. SFI-Certified Organizations are required to identify and address climate change risks to forests and forest operations, develop adaptation objectives and strategies to address priority climate change risks and identify and address mitigation opportunities in forest operations. This is not only progressive, it’s significant as no other forest certification requires this.

8. The report claims that SFI's standards are weak on social issues like Indigenous rights and rely solely on legal compliance. This is false. SFI is committed to building and promoting forest-focused collaborations rooted in recognition and respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights and traditional knowledge. The SFI 2022 Forest Management Standard requires certified organizations to recognize and respect Indigenous Peoples’ rights and traditional knowledge. Separately, more than 60 Indigenous communities are certified to the SFI 2022 Forest Management Standard or are shareholders in SFI Forest Management certificates.

We are proud of our work and encourage BuildingGreen to allow SFI to write an article about its work to give their readership a better perspective of the positive changes and contributions we are making to forestry, supply chains, conservation, communities, education, and green careers.

To learn more about SFI in general, visit www.forests.org. For those interested in quick facts about SFI, visit the landing page of our website at Key Facts about SFI. For those interested in further details about the factual requirements of SFI and the impact we are making, please reach out to Jason.Metnick@forests.org.

Best regards,

Jason Metnick

Senior Vice President, Customer Affairs

Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Inc.

Editors’ Response: Thank you for your letter. We stand by our analysis. After reviewing your comments, we have not been able to identify any specific, factual errors in the report that require correction. We do appreciate the updated information regarding the Board's March 2024 action tightening up the restrictions on forest conversion to include a more comprehensive prohibition on forest degradation.