In a recent editorial for Forbes magazine's website, economic analysts Wayne Winegarden and Donald Rieck say that a monopoly, even in forest certification systems, can lead to overpricing and a frustrating lack of innovation.
The authors concede that it is difficult to balance what is best for the forests with market demands. However, without competition, certification systems can either focus too heavily on one side of the equation-as many environmental groups feel the Sustainable Forestry Initiative system does-or develop impractical standards without any pressure to change.
The writers cite the Forest Stewardship Council's (FSC) more than 30 standards that vary by region as an example of impractical management.
Under the current program, U.S. foresters end up paying more to be FSC-certified than their counterparts in Russia, China and other countries, which are subject to less-strict standards and can more easily obtain FSC recognition. This puts U.S. foresters and manufacturers at a price disadvantage compared with foreign companies, the authors say.
This disadvantage convinces many foresters to forgo certification to keep prices reasonable, but then when public construction projects require FSC-certified products to be used, builders cannot use domestic timber, regardless of the producers' actual forestry practices.
"Competitive forestry standards avoid this problem by encouraging multiple standards to compete against one another," the article reads. "Just as market competition forces producers to be more responsive to consumers, competitive forestry standards can ensure that regulations are responsive to current and future needs. As a result, the ability to strike the right balance between the interests of consumers and producers is enhanced, as is the ability to maintain vibrant and healthy global forests."
