The Baldacci administration is pushing for an increase in certified forest acreage, from the current 6.5 million acres to 10 million acres in 2007. Certification, however, is a relatively new phenomenon. Standards are still controversial and evolving. While establishing standards and using third-party audits to certify that landowners are meeting those standards is an approach with promise, much depends on who sets those standards, what the standards are, and who interprets them.

Presently, there are a number of competing certification schemes in Maine – FSC (Forest Stewardship Council), SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative), Tree Farm and Master Logger. These systems are not the same and have different strengths and weaknesses. Currently, all of these systems have important issues, such as stocking or residual stand damage, lacking clear, measurable, standards. In many cases, goals are broadly stated and open to interpretation by certifiers.

The state does have clear, measurable standards for “Best Management Practices” (or BMPs) to protect water quality. All certification systems require that loggers follow BMPs. A recent state report on BMPs, however, found that “commercial landowners” (a good portion of whom are certified by one scheme or another) only used BMPs appropriately 30.5 percent of the time. Nonindustrial private landowners (few of whom are certified) used BMPs appropriately 45.6 percent of the time.

All certification schemes also require landowners to at least follow the law. Yet, last year, both Plum Creek and J.D. Irving managed to violate the Forest Practices Act (FPA) with illegal clear-cuts. That these companies did not clear the FPA bar was truly a dubious achievement, since the FPA sets the bar so low. Plum Creek, Irving, Seven Islands, and even the Bureau of Parks and Lands also violated Land Use Regulation Commission regulations for water crossings last year. With the exception of Plum Creek, all these companies were certified by both SFI and FSC.

Most of the public assumes that “green” forestry would mean, at a minimum, that the landowner minimizes clear-cuts and uses less herbicides than noncertified landowners. In 2001, industrial landowners, all certified under SFI, did 28 percent of cutting in the state (by acreage), but 82 percent of all clear-cuts and 91 percent of all herbicide spraying.

One would also assume that “sustainable” forestry would mean that cut is less than growth. According to the U.S. Forest Service inventory, in 1995, industrial landowners were cutting timber at twice the rate of growth on their land. The average cut for all other landowners during the same time period was less than growth. Industrial landowners also had the lowest average volume of wood per acre of any landowners class, barely more than 13 cords per acre. These figures from 1995 are, admittedly, from the recent past. But this raises an important question: Are landowners being certified for what they have done or for what they intend to?

One would also think that “socially responsible” landowners would hire local workers first and pay a living wage. The bulk of the bonded Canadians hired in the Maine woods work on the large landownerships that are SFI certified. In 2001, industrial landowners did 83 percent of plantations and 82 percent of the thinning, almost all of which relies on Central American guest workers.

The key to improved forestry in certified forests is improved logging. Loggers need to be paid an adequate wage so they can take the time to take care. Unfortunately, inflation-adjusted wages for loggers have fallen over the past few decades, even as demands for better management have increased. When a bill came up before the Legislature this spring that would allow loggers to collectively bargain for better wages and working conditions, big landowners, including J.D. Irving, which at the time was certified by FSC and SFI, lobbied heavily to kill the bill.

Logging as if the future doesn’t matter is profitable in the short term and it is also legal. The FPA does not prevent understocking or highgrading. It only deals with the size and distribution of clear-cuts. Clear-cutting, as defined by the state, has been declining, but heavy cutting under other names continues. From 1995 to 2001, the acreage of seedlings and saplings in Maine increased by nearly half million acres.

Certification does not offer enough economic incentive to draw away abusers to more sustainable practices. Currently, there is very little, if any, economic premium for certified wood, even though there is an increased cost for certification.

The public is still not willing to pay much of a premium because the public doesn’t know what differentiates certified from noncertified wood. There need to be clear standards that lead to results on the ground that the public believes are superior to logging as usual. Without such transparency, the public will not pay a premium and the program will not have much credibility.

There also needs to be an adequate safety net of regulations, for all landowners, certified or not. Certification auditors spend only a limited time on the ground checking for general compliance with program standards – they are not out in the woods year round checking for violations. As we have seen, even if there are violations, landowners in Maine stay certified anyway. The Baldacci administration, unfortunately, is cutting enforcement staff for both the Maine Forest Service and LURC.

Abraham Lincoln used to delight in quizzing people, “If I told you that a dog’s tail is a leg, how many legs does a dog have?” People would invariably answer five. Lincoln would respond that the answer is four: “Calling a tail a leg does not make it so.” Calling certified forests green does not make it so. If the state increases certified forest acreage in the next few years, but heavy cutting, high grading, short rotations, and extensive herbicide use are still common, the public might not believe the green tale.

Mitch Lansky, a resident of Wytopitlock, is the author of “Beyond the Beauty Strip, Saving What’s Left of Our Forests,” and “Low-Impact Forestry, Forestry as if the Future Mattered.”