When green certification, in the form of the Forest Stewardship Council stamp of approval, arrived in Maine, environmental groups hailed it as the solution to divisive arguments over forest practices. Now, with the withdrawal of a major landowner – one of only two to have their land FSC certified in Maine – it is itself a cause of argument.

Three years ago J.D. Irving Ltd. had nearly 570,000 acres of forestland in northern Maine certified as well managed by FSC, and environmental groups hailed the company’s turnaround. The family-owned Canadian company, which is the state’s largest landowner, once was seen as a strictly bottom-line company and was then being called a “progressive” company and “a leader” by the Maine Audubon Society. The company was “establishing a new standard among Maine’s major landowners,” the Natural Resources Council of Maine said.

This sunny scenario quickly darkened, however, with the Sierra Club contesting Irving’s certification in both Maine and New Brunswick. The Canadian appeal dragged on for years without resolution and, earlier this month, fed up with the lack of FSC action, Irving quietly returned the certificate for its Maine woodlands to FSC. (The Canadian one had been sent back a while ago.) Another problem cited by Irving is that there is no premium paid to landowners for certified wood. Instead, they incur the expense of going through audits and changing practices and see no greater return from the marketplace.

The possible good news is that if Irving is a responsible company, harvesting practices on its land will not change minus the FSC label. The bad news is that FSC, hailed by many groups as the better alternative to an industry-founded certification system known as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, has lost one of its best poster children. This does not bode well for FSC as the governor continues to push companies that own land in Maine to have their land certified. Given the Irving experience, many will choose the easier SFI program.

It is in the best interest of environmental groups such as the Sierra Club to work with FSC – not against it – to solve these problems. However, the club must ensure that the issues it raises are valid. Two of the group’s representatives said they were angered that Irving does not treat its workers and contractors well. They are right to be concerned, but both cited last year’s van accident in the Allagash that killed 14 migrant workers from Central America as an example of this problem. The men, however, were not working for Irving, but another company whose land was FSC certified. In fact, Irving has done more than other landowners, such as providing housing in the woods this summer, to improve conditions for these workers.

One thing both Irving and the Sierra Club agree upon is that the appeal process – a chance for parties to raise objections to certification – is confusing and frustrating. They are likely correct. In the spirit of FSC, which aims to bring together environmental and community groups and the forestry industry, they should work together to change this.