Forest Certification on Private Forests in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities

  • Michael Washburn
  • Richard Fletcher
  • Jim Finley
Part of the World Forests book series (WFSE, volume 3)


Forest certification is an evolving approach for linking market desires for forest-derived products with harvesting and extraction approaches that help sustain functioning forest ecosystems. Currently the certification systems available are best suited for use on industrial, large private and public forests. In the United States private forest land ownerships (PFLOs), often called non-industrial private forests,dominate the landscape and contribute significantly to the country’s need for wood and wood fiber. Designing approaches for capturing PFLO interests in ensuring longterm sustainability of these forests is essential if the United States is going to help conserve global forest resources by more responsibly using its own forests. The need to depend on PFLOs is becoming more evident as environmental non-governmental organizations work to restrict harvesting on the nation’s public forests. This chaptersets the stage for understanding PFLO certification, offers several alternative approaches,and explores issues that may encourage PFLO acceptance of certification.

Key words

Forest certification Forest Stewardship Council forest resource manager private forests SmartWood Scientific Certification Systems working easements forest bank Sustainable Forestry Initiative 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AFF 2000. Press Release, June 27, 2000. American Forest Foundation, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Birch, T. 1994. Private Forest-Land Owners of the United States.Res. Bull. NE-134. NEFES, USDA. Forestry Service. 183 p.Google Scholar
  3. Bryant, D., Nielsen, D. and Tangley, L. 1997. The Last FrontierForests: Ecosystems and Economies on the Edge. WorldResources Institute, Washington, D.C. 42 p.Google Scholar
  4. Cooper, P. 1996. Certification and the Forest Stewardship Council.Journal of Forestry 94(4): 290–292.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, A. and Lehmann, L. 1999. Oregonians Discuss ForestValues and More: A Public Opinion Research Project. OregonForest Resources Institute, Portland.Google Scholar
  6. Dudley, N. 1992. Forests in Trouble: A Review ofthe Status ofTemperate Forests Worldwide. World Wildlife Fund, Gland.Google Scholar
  7. Egan, A.F. 1993. Forest Stewardship: The Relationship Betweenthe Articulations and Actions of Pennsylvania’s NIPF Owners.Ph.D. Dissertation (Forest Resources), The PennsylvaniaState University, University Park.Google Scholar
  8. Fajvan, M.A. 1998. The Effects of Harvesting Practices on WestVirginia’s Wood Supply. Journal of Forestry 96(5): 33–39.Google Scholar
  9. Helms, L. (ed.) 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry. Society ofAmerican Foresters, Bethesda. 210 p.Google Scholar
  10. Pell, J.A. 1998. Variables Characterizing Timber Resource Sustainabilityof Recently Harvested Tracts Across Pennsylvania.M.S. Thesis (Forest Resources), The Pennsylvania StateUniversity, University Park.Google Scholar
  11. Rickenbach, M. 1999. Scheme Comparison Matrix for CertificationSystems. Sustainable Forestry Partnership, OregonState University, Corvallis.Google Scholar
  12. Sampson, N. and DeCoster, L. 1997. Public Programs and PrivateForests. American Forests, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  13. Sutton, W.R. 1999. Does the World Need Planted Forests? IntersectionalExpert Meeting on the Role of Planted Forests,Santiago, Chile, April 6–9, 1999. Speech notes.Google Scholar
  14. Taylor, M. 1996. Implementation of Sustainable Forest ManagementSystems and Forest Management Certification inNorth America. Prepared for the Australian Forest and WoodProducts Research and Development Corporation. WorldForest Institute, Portland.Google Scholar
  15. UN 1987. Our Common Future. United Nations World Commissionon Environment and Development, Geneva.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Washburn
    • 1
  • Richard Fletcher
    • 2
  • Jim Finley
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Forest ResourcesThe Pennsylvania State UniversityWashington, D.C.USA
  2. 2.College of ForestryOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.School of Forest ResourcesPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations