Can the wood produced from agroforests qualify for "green certification," i.e. grown according to accepted principles of sustainable management? How might certification affect the operation of an agroforestry practice? Can the use of agroforestry practices help forestland owners become certified? These are some of the issues explored in the following survey of the interactions between sustainable forest management, certification and temperate agroforestry.

Sustainability

The goal of sustainable forest management (SFM) is becoming more widely accepted among both large and small forestland owners in many developed countries. Weyerhaeuser, the world's largest timber company, is "definitely committed" to SFM as evidenced by third-party certification of all of its 35 million acres of forestland worldwide (James, 2003). As signatories to the Montreal Process, both the US and Canada are committed at the country level to the implementation of criteria and indicators for SFM of temperate and boreal forests (Montreal Process, 2003). Members of the American Tree Farm System, perhaps the largest group representing non-industrial private forest owners, have committed to SFM o­n over 65,000 certified Tree Farms covering 26 million acres (ATFS, 2002).

Certification

Independent certification is the means whereby individual forest managers can show both wholesale buyers and consumers that their management practices are guided by the principles of SFM. Private landowners have a choice of voluntary certification programs, such as Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the American Tree Farm System. In Canada, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) administers the CAN/CSA Z809 standard for sustainable forest management. Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI) is primarily focused o­n industrial forestland in the US and Canada. Each of these programs sets standards for certification with which landowners must show compliance through o­n-site inspections and detailed management plans.

Expected Benefits

The process of certification is expensive and demands a large time commitment from landowners. The anticipated "rewards" of certification are several: 1) Perhaps most important is access to markets for certified wood products from large buyers, e.g. Home Depot; 2) By planning and adoption of SFM guidelines, both forest management and forest ecosystems are improved; and 3) Of greater importance to large, high-profile companies, SFM can make public attitudes about particular companies, and forestry in general, more favorable. However, expected price premiums for certified wood products have so far proven elusive (Springer. 2003).

Agroforestry and SFM

To consider whether certification of SFM may be relevant to temperate agroforestry, o­ne must first consider how closely agroforests may resemble natural forests or plantations, both of which are covered by certification standards.

Of the five major temperate agroforestry practices, forest farming may most closely resemble a natural forest ecosystem. Native forest stands can be managed for non-timber forest products (NTFPs) o­n a continuum that ranges from wild crafting, e.g. facilitation of commercial gathering of indigenous plants, to forest farming, e.g. active thinning of the canopy to allow more light to native or introduced understory plants which are cultivated in raised beds. The harvest of NTFPs is a traditional aspect of multiple-use management of native forest but it can also be applied to planted forests.

Likewise, grazing is a fairly common component of native forest management in some regions. Silvopastoral agroforestry is at the more active end of the management-intensity spectrum, whereby livestock, trees and forage crops are managed together in an integrated, multiple-product system. Silvopasture is practiced in both native forests and plantations.

A third agroforestry practice which may be utilized during the early stages of a planted forest is alley cropping. During the period when trees are small enough to be compatible with alley crops, the operation may more closely resemble agriculture than forestry. But after canopy closure and the end of alley cropping, the stand of black walnut, for example, could in time become more like a native hardwood forest as new shrubs and trees invade the understory.

Wood Product Certification

To gain access to new markets or to improve overall management, a forest landowner who practices silvopasture may wish to pursue third-party certification for their softwood timber crop. Or a grower of black walnut who practiced alley cropping during the early years of their plantation may also seek certification for their walnut wood products.

Does the fact that they used agroforestry practices during part or all of the timber rotation affect their eligibility to achieve SFM certification? Based o­n an examination of current standards of some of the major certification schemes, there appears to be no clear answer - o­nly a "maybe."

FSC Principles

For example, FSC is o­ne of the largest third-party certification programs, operating in more than 40 countries worldwide. In the US, regional certification standards have been tailored for nine different biogeographical regions where almost all native forests grow. At the national level, the "Principles and Criteria for Forest Management" outline certification standards in ten key areas: Compliance with Laws and FSC Principles, Land Tenure and Use Rights, Indigenous People's Rights, Community Relations and Worker's Rights, Benefits from the Forest, Environmental Impact, Management Plan, Monitoring and Assessment, Maintenance of High Conservation Value Forests, and Plantations.

Nowhere in these standards does the term "agroforestry" appear, or any other term which specifically refers to an agroforestry practice. FSC's certification standards therefore appear neutral to the use of agroforestry within forests or plantations which may otherwise be considered for certification.

It is therefore up to the individual landowner to show how agroforestry, e.g. forest farming or silvopasture or alley cropping, may complement the principles and criteria for certification. The decision of the assessment team whether or not to recommend an individual forest operation for certification will probably not rest solely o­n their utilization of an agroforestry practice.

Other Certification Programs

The story is similar with other certification programs. Agroforestry is not specifically mentioned in the principles and standards for either the American Tree Farm System (ATFS, 2002) or Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI, 2002). There is no reference to agroforestry in the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers' six criteria for SFM which form the basis for the CSA standard (CCFM, 2003).

Impact of Certification o­n AF

On the other hand, adherence to certification standards could impact the options available to a landowner in how they manage an agroforestry practice that's within a certified forest or plantation. For example, the FSC guidelines discourage the use of chemical pesticides which might be necessary to control weeds or insects impacting the agroforestry enterprise, e.g. the alley crop or silvopasture forage crop.

That could potentially impact the outputs from the agricultural components of the agroforestry system, and thus the overall economic return realized. If the use of certain chemicals that are not allowed by FSC were deemed necessary to maintain an agroforestry enterprise, the landowner should consider alternative certification programs that are less stringent about chemical use.

Effects of AF o­n Certification

The principles of, and criteria for, SFM as defined by the major wood product certification schemes mentioned above share many common elements. All address the basic environmental, economic and social goals of sustainability. All require written forest management plans. And all contain standards o­n which agroforestry practices would have no effect compared to other forestland management, e.g. land rights, adherence to state and federal laws, public involvement, etc.

Nevertheless, there are some important differences between the environmental and silvicultural guidelines specified by different certification programs which could affect how agroforestry practices may satisfy those guidelines. Any landowner contemplating certification of a forest unit which also includes agroforestry should first discuss any potential concerns with the certifying agency. They should be prepared to educate the certification assessment team about the rationale and benefits of their agroforestry practice.

Biodiversity

The presence, abundance and diversity of native plant and animal species within the forest is a common indicator of biodiversity that all certification programs promote. While agroforestry practices are always more diverse than monocrop agriculture, they may not have the same level of biodiversity as natural forest. Forest farming practiced within a native forest stand would probably have the highest level of biodiversity compared to other agroforestry practices. o­n the other hand, silvopasture and alley cropping with hardwoods would be more like plantations than natural forest in terms of species diversity. Therefore the provisions relating to plantations would apply, e.g. FSC principle 10.

Soil and Water Protection

All the certification programs require landowners to adopt best management practices (BMPs) to protect soil and water resource within and downstream of the forest or plantation. o­ne area of potential concern to a certifier may be the potential for silvopastoral grazing to create or exacerbate soil compaction. The management plan would therefore need to show what measures are being taken to reduce compaction within the grazed areas, e.g. by fencing and rotational grazing.

Protection of water quality is an important criteria for all the certification schemes. Properly managed agroforestry practices should not adversely impact water quality, and should instead actively contribute to the improvement thereof. This includes attention to controlled grazing in riparian areas, emphasis o­n non-timber products rather than timber harvest in riparian zones, and measures to prevent soil erosion within silvopastures and alley cropping systems.

Silviculture

There could be potential conflicts between management inputs necessary to optimize yields from an agroforest and those allowed within a certified forest. For example, FSC does not allow the application of synthetic fertilizer which may be necessary to promote the growth of alley crops or silvopastoral forage crops. FSC standards are also more restrictive o­n the use of chemical pesticides, e.g. chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides and toxic chemicals. However, it is probable that acceptable pest control materials could be found for most needs in an agroforest.

Conclusions

From a quick look at the standards for wood product certification administered by FSC, ATFS and others, it appears likely that a well-managed agroforestry enterprise would qualify if all other necessary criteria were met. Agroforestry practices are essentially BMPs: techniques that landowners can use to grow wood and non-wood products in ways to complement the goals of sustainable forest management. The absence of any mention of agroforestry in the certification standards implies neither endorsement or prohibition.

It is the task of the individual landowner to show how agroforestry fits within the overall forest management plan and is compatible with certification standards. Third-party certification schemes like FSC, ATFS and CSA involve accredited organizations that independently certify forests. These independent certifiers assess how well forest management o­n candidate properties meets the principles and criteria prescribed by the certification authority, e.g. FSC. The assessment teams may or may not be familiar with the details of agroforestry practices. Therefore, some basic education o­n the science and application of agroforestry would be valuable to both independent certifiers and the individual landowners who apply for certification.

More About Certification

To learn more about wood products certification, a good place to start is the Forest Certification Resource Center (www.certifiedwood.org), maintained by Metafore, (503) 224-2205, email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. You'll find information about all the major certification programs and a side-by-side comparison of the main features of each.

References

American Tree Farm System, 2002, Standards of Sustainability For Forest Certification, http://www.treefarmsystem.org/aboutfarming/standards.cfm

Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, 2003, Defining sustainable forest management: A Canadian approach to criteria and indicators, http://www.ccfm.org/ci/framain_e.html.

Canadian Standards Association: http://www.csa-international.org/product_areas/forest_products_marking/

Forest Stewardship Council, 2001, FSC-U.S. National Indicators for Forest Stewardship, http://fscus.org/images/documents/FSC_National_Indicators.pdf.

James, Jim, 2003, Benefits of forest certification for landowners: panel discussion, Presented at "Overcoming Barriers to Sustainable Forestry: Critical Issues, Current Findings and o­ngoing Research in the Pacific Northwest, Nov. 7, 2003, World Forestry Center, Portland, OR.

Montreal Process, 2003, Montreal Process First Forest Overview Report 2003, Ottawa, Canada, 20 p. (www.mpci.org).

Springer, Gary, 2003, Benefits of forest certification for landowners: panel discussion, Presented at "Overcoming Barriers to Sustainable Forestry: Critical Issues, Current Findings and o­ngoing Research in the Pacific Northwest, Nov. 7, 2003, World Forestry Center, Portland, OR.

Sustainable Forestry Initiative, 2002, Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) Program, 2002-2004 Edition, http://www.aboutsfi.org/sfistandard02.pdf

By Miles Merwin