Scoping Report Rev 1

Report To: Wood Products Group
700 McLeod Avenue

Fredericton, New Brunswick
E3B 1V5
On: On-Product Labeling System Scoping Report
By: Birchwood Environmental Management Inc.

33 Lloyd Street
Hanwell, NB
E3C 1M4
Date: September 5, 2005

Revision 1
On-Product Labeling System Scoping Report Revision 1
Wood Products Group September 5, 2005
Executive Summary
Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. has been contracted by the Wood

Products Group to provide a report on trends and opportunities in forest certification
and on-product labeling systems for member companies involved in the manufacture
and sale of value-added forest products.
There are currently around 105 million hectares of forest land certified across the
country, representing an annual allowable cut of over 91 million m 3. Forest
certification involves an independent, third party certifier with experienced auditors
verifying a company’s sustainable forest management (SFM) planning and forestry
practice to ensure they meet the requirements of the certification standard. The
choices for SFM system certification are currently:
• CSA Z809, Canada’s national standard for SFM;

• SFIS 2005-2009, the American Forest and Paper Association’s SFM standard
for member companies and licensees; and
• FSC, the standard of the international organization, Forest Stewardship
Council.
In the Atlantic Provinces, there have been strong trends towards forest certification,
with the result that nearly all major forest products companies now hold some form of
certification. This, of course, has been facilitated by the requirement in New
Brunswick for all operations on Crown land to be certified. In Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland, there have also been significant efforts towards certification, primarily
due to corporate policy of parent companies (e.g., Neenah Paper, StoraEnso,
Kruger, J.D. Irving Ltd., and Abitibi-Consolidated Inc.). The result has been
divergence regarding choice of certification standard. In New Brunswick, all Crown
licensees have chosen the SFI standard, with several sub-licensees doing the same.
In Nova Scotia, SFI is also the standard of choice (with the exception of Stora, which
also maintains a CSA certification on their Crown land). In Newfoundland, the CSA
standard has been chosen (primarily because of a simplified land tenure system). To
date, there have been no forest certifications in Prince Edward Island. The FSC
standard has not garnered much interest because of a dispute over the development
of a regional standard and an outstanding appeal of the standard with the
international association. There is growing interest in certification of private
woodlots, however, with organizations representing woodlot owners working on FSC
group certification.
On-product labeling is available for all three forest certification schemes. Further,
CSA has been endorsed by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest
Certification Schemes (PEFC), a pan-European organization that establishes mutual
recognition of national forest certification programs. SFI has filed an application to
PEFC and should be endorsed by March 2006. The advantage of endorsement is
the ability to apply the PEFC on-product label, which has recognition in the European
market.
Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. Page ii

In spite of the broad availability of certified forest products, there is little demand for
on-product labels. Most retailers do not want competition for their own product
branding and consumers are not well informed about the various certification options.
As a result, there is no premium for labeled products, although maintaining a
particular niche market may require labeling.
It is not recommended that the Wood Products Group seek on-product labeling for
forest certification. These types of labels are considered Type 1 labels, under ISO
protocol, are expensive to maintain due to the requirement for third-party verification
by certification bodies. There is little demand and the prospect of realizing a return
for such an investment in resources does not warrant the effort. Chain of custody for
secondary manufacturers of wood products tends to be complex, thereby increasing
costs. An alternative is a Type 3 label, which a self-declaration of good
environmental performance, that involves independent verification, but not a
certification body. This type of label can be granted and maintained by WPG directly,
however, care must be taken in determining what sort of message is to be conveyed
with this label. An information sheet, or profile, can accompany such a label and can
be maintained on WPG’s web portal for public access.
This report provides recommendations for further investigating a Type 3 label and
outlines what would be involved in establishing the program.
Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. Page iii

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction...........................................................................................................................1
2.0 Forest Certification Trends in Atlantic Canada....................................................................1
2.1 Forest Certification Standards...........................................................................................3
2.1.1 Sustainable Forestry Initiative...................................................................................3
2.1.2 Forest Stewardship Council.......................................................................................3
2.1.3 CSA Z809..................................................................................................................4
2.2 On-Product Labeling.........................................................................................................5
2.2.1 PEFC.........................................................................................................................7
3.0 Market Interest in Certified Forest Products.........................................................................8
3.1 Illegal Logging..................................................................................................................9
3.2 Procurement Policies.......................................................................................................10
3.3 LEED..............................................................................................................................12
4.0 Recommendations...............................................................................................................14
4.1 Labeling Types................................................................................................................14
4.2 An Alternative Approach to On-Product Labeling.........................................................16
5.0 Next Steps...........................................................................................................................18
Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. Page iv

1.0 Introduction
Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. has been contracted by the Wood
Products Group to provide a report on trends and opportunities in forest certification
and on-product labeling systems for member companies involved in the manufacture
and sale of value-added forest products. This report provides an overview of the
current trends in forest certification and on-product labeling, and provides a
recommended methodology for proceeding with a labeling pilot project.
2.0 Forest Certification Trends in Atlantic Canada

Certification in Canada's forests is on the rise. According to the April 2005 Canadian
Sustainable Forestry Certification Coalition certification status report, 104.6 million
hectares of forest land across the country, representing an annual allowable cut of
over 91 million m3 have been certified (Table 1).
Table 1. Canada's Certification Progress from June 2002 to April 2005 - Million Hectares
Certified
REPORTED April 11 Dec 31 June 06 Dec 30 Sept 7 April 16 Dec 31 June1

IN HECTARES 2005 2004 2004 2003 2003 2003 2002 2002
CSA 63.7 47.4 32.9 28.4 17.9 17.4 14.4 8.8
FSC 4.9 4.4 4.2 4.2 3.1 3.0 1.0 1.0
SFI 36.8 35.5 21.4 25.8 25.5 22.8 12.7 8.4
Total including 104.6 86.5 57.7 57.6
CSA, FSC, SFI
*
ISO 137.9 134.8 127.1 127.8 119.3 116.3 113.8 107.8
Total for ISO, 150.7 150.9 142.6 145.7 129.1 126.2 115.6 109.5
CSA, SFI, FSC*
* If a forest area has been certified to more than one standard, the area is only counted once, hence
the grand total of certifications is less than the sum of the individual totals. Source: Data compiled by
Kathy Abusow on behalf of the Canadian Sustainable Forestry Certification Coalition.
This strong performance among Canadian companies is clear evidence of broad

industry commitment to sustainable forest management (SFM), meeting customer
needs and assuring Canadians that our forests are well managed.
Forest certification involves an independent, third party certifier with experienced

auditors verifying a company’s SFM planning and forestry practice to ensure they
meet the requirements of the certification standard. The choices for SFM system
certification are currently:
• CSA Z809, Canada’s national standard for SFM;

• SFIS 2005-2009, the American Forest and Paper Association’s SFM standard
for member companies and licensees; and
Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. Page 1

• FSC, the standard of the international organization, Forest Stewardship

Council.
Many customers are interested in certification and want to understand more about
the specifics of the three SFM standards in use in Canada. Much effort has been
made to provide interested parties with information, particularly by the Forest
Products Association of Canada, on the SFM standards in use in Canada and to
promote the concept of inclusive procurement, which in the end will result in
widespread improvements in sustainable forest management. A March 2002 IBM
Consulting report (A Greenward Shift) commissioned by IMPACS (Institute for Media,
Policy and Civil Society) report on interviews with 30 key customers of BC and
Canadian forest products and their findings conclude that:
• While the majority of customers interviewed are attempting to shift their

purchasing towards certified products, most major buyers see the three
certification schemes as equivalent;
• Customers are currently grappling with all the complexities that a greenward
shift implies for them and are developing procedures designed to ensure
effective implementation; and
• If other things are equal (price, quality, technical capabilities, delivery, etc.) the
greenest products will be chosen (Source: FPAC).
In the Atlantic Provinces, there have been strong trends towards forest certification,
with the result that nearly all major forest products companies now hold some form of
certification. This, of course, has been facilitated by the requirement in New
Brunswick for all operations on Crown land to be certified. In Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland, there have also been significant efforts towards certification, primarily
due to corporate policy of parent companies (e.g., StoraEnso, Kruger, J.D. Irving
Ltd., and Abitibi-Consolidated Inc.). The result has been divergence regarding
choice of certification standard. In New Brunswick, all Crown licensees have chosen
the SFI standard1, with several sub-licensees doing the same. In Nova Scotia, SFI is
also the standard of choice (with the exception of Stora, which also maintains a CSA
certification on their Crown land). In Newfoundland, the CSA standard has been
chosen (primarily because of a simplified land tenure system). To date, there have
been no forest certifications in Prince Edward Island. The FSC standard has not
garnered much interest because of a dispute over the development of a regional
standard and an outstanding appeal of the standard with the international
association. There is growing interest in certification of private woodlots, however,
with organizations such as the Nova Scotia Forest Fibre Producers and Landowners
Association working on FSC group certification under the SLIMF (Small and Low
Intensity Managed Forests) program. The FSC Maritime Standard is currently under
five year review, and is expected to become more aligned with other regions.
1
The status of Crown License 8, formerly operated by St. Anne-Nackawic Pulp Company Ltd., regarding
certification is uncertain. It is expected, however, that the Tembec/Birla Joint Venture will be pursuing FSC
certification as Tembec has made a corporate commitment to achieving FSC certification on all their managed
land by the end of 2005.

2.1 Forest Certification Standards

The following is a summary of the three forest certification options currently in use in
Atlantic Canada.
2.1.1 Sustainable Forestry Initiative

Adopted by the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) in October 1994, the
Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI) program is an exacting standard of
environmental principles, objectives and performance measures that integrates the
perpetual growing and harvesting of trees with the protection of wildlife, plants, soil
and water quality and a wide range of other conservation goals. An independent
External Review Panel, comprised of representatives from the environmental,
professional, conservation, academic and public sectors reviews the program and
advises AF&PA on its progress.
Sustainable Forestry Board

The Sustainable Forestry Board was chartered as an independent body in July of
2000 to oversee development and continuous improvement of the SFISM Program
Standard, associated certification processes and procedures and program quality
control mechanisms.
External Review Panel (ERP)

A group of 18 independent experts representing conservation, environmental,
professional, academic, and public organizations comprise the Independent External
Review Panel. The mission of the External Review Panel is to provide a framework to
conduct an independent review of the SFI program and to ensure the Annual Report
fairly states the status of SFI program implementation. The volunteer Panel provides
external oversight with their independent review of the current SFI program while
seeking steady improvements in sustainable forestry practices. While some members
of the panel do make field visits to member companies and observe their on-the-
ground practices, it is not a charge of the panel to verify practices on the ground and
the panel does not review individual company data.
2.1.2 Forest Stewardship Council

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is an international, not-for-profit organization
headquartered in Bonn, Germany. The goal of the FSC is to foster "environmentally
appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world's
forests." It pursues this goal through independent third-party certification of well-
managed forests.
The FSC is governed by a Board elected by its members who are divided into three
chambers: "economic" (companies), "environmental" (environmental or conservation
groups) and "social" (indigenous people's organizations, social advocacy groups).
The Board's membership includes roughly equal representation from "northern"

(industrialized) and "southern" (developing) countries. The FSC is represented at the

national level in several countries by FSC national offices or FSC contact persons.
The FSC has developed standards to assess the performance of forestry operations.
In the case of processing facilities, the FSC has defined requirements for Chain-of-
Custody (CoC) certification. A CoC certificate indicates that a company has the
facilities and systems needed to track certified material throughout the production
process from stump to end-use.
Forest assessments require one or more field visits by a team of specialists

representing a variety of disciplines typically including forestry, ecology/wildlife
management/biology, and sociology/anthropology. In addition, the FSC requires that
forest assessment reports be subject to independent peer review. CoC assessments
also require site visits. Any FSC assessment may be challenged through a formal
complaints procedure.
FSC certified products are identified by an on-product label and/or off-product

publicity materials.
The FSC has developed an internationally agreed set of standards, the FSC
"Principles and Criteria" (P&C). The P&C address environmental, social and
economic issues. FSC working groups are developing national and regional
standards based upon the P&C.
2.1.3 CSA Z809

The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) is a not-for-profit, independent
standards writing organization. Their Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Project
was initiated in June 1994 through funding and support of the Canadian forest
industry. The purpose of the CSA SFM system is to provide a credible and
recognized process for certifying sustainable forestry in Canada. The CSA SFM is
modeled on the ISO environmental management systems standard (ISO 14001). The
CSA SFM approach to certification involves verifying that a management system is in
place for a defined forest area.
The management system must consist of six components:
• A commitment to SFM in terms of the organization's vision, principles, and

human and financial resources.
• A structured public participation process to identify SFM indicators, set goals
and objectives for the forest, and provide ongoing evaluation of actions.
• A long-term (minimum 50 yr.) SFM plan that specifies how goals and
objectives are to be achieved. Objective statements must be quantified with a
pre-determined acceptable level of deviation, a schedule for implementation,
and interim milestones that can be audited.
• A schedule for implementation including work plans, inspection protocols, and
auditing programs.

• Systematic, periodic assessment of the status of each indicator to identify

deficiencies and corrective actions.
• Mechanisms to provide for continual improvement in SFM through regular
comparison of the trends in indicators against projections.
After developing its own Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) standards, CSA
worked with the Canadian government to create a national standard for sustainable
forestry. CSA published Canada’s National Standard for Sustainable Forest
Management (CAN/CSA Z809) in 1996. A subsequent review and update was
completed in 2002. The Z809 standard was developed through the collaboration of
the government, environmental groups, forest industry and academic interests. In
response to public demand for sustainable forest products, CSA International created
the Forest Products Marking Program, a chain of custody system that tracks forest
products from the tree to the retailer’s shelf. After a third party audit according to CSA
standards, companies may apply to the CSA SFM Mark, an eco-labeling system.
2.2 On-Product Labeling

Because the SFI standard is currently the dominant standard being adopted on
Crown and industrial freehold land in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, companies
interested in on-product labeling are considering the SFI label. Table 2 provides a
list of certifications in Atlantic Canada, including certification type, and AAC. Access
to “certified wood” is essential, particularly for secondary producers of wood products
who do not directly manage forest land. There are examples of several companies
holding a FSC chain-of-custody certification, but there is little FSC certified wood
available, and therefore, they cannot use the FSC label without procuring wood from
outside the region. To further entrench the use of the SFI label, the Canadian
Federation of Woodlot Owners is currently developing a Canadian alternative to the
American Tree Farm system, a certification system for private woodlots in the USA.
American Tree Farm is recognized by SFI as the equivalent standard for private land,
and the new “Pan-Canadian Private Woodlot Certification Scheme”, when available,
will seek to be mutually recognized by SFI for use in Canada as well. This will further
expand the availability of SFI certified wood, and offers to be a viable option for the
smaller woodlots (or particular significance in provinces with a large proportion of
forested land in private ownership, such as PEI and Nova Scotia.
A recent development with the Pan-Canadian Standard is that the SFB has rejected
the endorsement of the standard stating they because they are seeking PEFC
endorsement, they will no longer endorse other standards outside of this process.
Also, the CSA is developing a small woodlot version of Z809 using the Pan-Canadian
Standard as the model.

Table 2. Certifications by Company and Certification Type in Atlantic Canada.
New Brunswick
Company
Bowater Canadian Operations Baker Broo

Miramichi
Dalhousie
Fraser Papers Freehold a
J.D. Irving Ltd. Black Broo

Chipman,
Deersdale
Sussex
UPM Miramichi Inc. Crown
Weyerhaeuser Company Ltd.

Birchwood Environmental Management Inc.
Crown
Page 6
All three SFM standards currently offer on-product labels (Figure 1). Each standard
has established minimum content requirements for the use of the label. Further,
there are strict controls over what products may use the label and how they are to be
promoted and displayed.
Figure 2. On-Product Labeling for Secondary Wood Producers
2.2.1 PEFC
The PEFC Council (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification
schemes) is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organization, founded in
1999 which promotes sustainably managed forests through independent third party
certification. The PEFC provides an assurance mechanism to purchasers of wood
and paper products that they are promoting the sustainable management of forests.
PEFC is a global umbrella organization for the assessment of and mutual recognition
of national forest certification schemes developed in a multi-stakeholder process.
These national schemes build upon the inter-governmental processes for the
promotion of sustainable forest management, a series of on-going mechanisms
supported by 149 governments in the world covering 85% of the world's forest area.
PEFC has in its membership 31 independent national forest certification systems of

which 18 to date have been through a rigorous assessment process involving public
consultation and the use of independent consultants to provide the assessments on
which mutual recognition decisions are taken by the membership. These 18 schemes
account for over 100 million hectares of certified forests producing millions of tonnes
of certified timber to the market place making PEFC the world's largest certification
scheme. The other national members schemes are at various stages of development
and are working towards mutual recognition under the PEFC processes.

In March 2005, PEFC endorsed CSA Z809, which enables CSA certified companies
to carry the PEFC label on products. The Sustainable Forestry Initiative has recently
(June 2005) applies for PEFC endorsement as well. The application is undergoing
assessment and it is expected the SFI will be endorsed by March 2006.
With PEFC endorsement is the right to display the PEFC on-product label on
products that meet their label use requirements. This requires a chain of custody
certificate issued by an independent certification body meeting the requirements of
Annex 6 (Certification and Accreditation Procedures) of the PEFC Technical
Document, and shall state compliance with Annex 4 (Chain of Custody of Forest
Based Products - Requirements) or with national, regional or sectorial applications
approved by the PEFC Council (e.g., CSA Plus 1163 for CSA Z809 certified forests).
Figure 2. PEFC Label for Products with Recycled Wood Content
3.0 Market Interest in Certified Forest Products

A recent study by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE),
where they conducted a review of the global forest products market, concluded the
following points regarding the demand for certified forest products:
• Public procurement policies continue to be a driving force for certification and

an important source of demand for certified forest products (CFPs).
• Demand for CFPs by private end-consumers remains minor, which is a major
obstacle to market growth; however, general consumer sentiment about
deforestation and forest degradation keeps the sector under pressure to act.
• Chain-of-custody (CoC) certificates increased by about 50%, reaching almost
4,500 certificates worldwide, driven mainly by a doubling of the PEFC
certificates, which now constitute 30% of total certificates.
• Germany and France are leading in CoC certificates within the UNECE region,
while Japan and Brazil have more certificates outside the UNECE region.
• Policies have been developed by which forest certification could potentially
play a role as a verification mechanism for small-scale afforestation and
reforestation projects under the clean development mechanism in the first
commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

• Mutual recognition between the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the
PEFC is not expected; however, the other major schemes have established
mutual recognition agreements between themselves and the PEFC.
This report, although focusing on European trends, tends to mirror sentiments in

North America. There are very few report of premiums being paid for certified forest
products. It seems that being certified has more effect on market access than market
preference.
3.1 Illegal Logging

Illegal logging of forests around the world continues to be a major concern. Illegal
logging and illegal trade in forest products is actually a complex set of interrelated
legal, political, social and economic issues. It is important to note that there is no
international definition of illegal logging. Logging without a government-approved
management plan may be perfectly legal in the U.S. South, but would be illegal in the
Brazilian Amazon. Some nations with poor forest practices may in fact have a low
level of “illegal logging” simply because their standards are so lax. As a generalized
definition, “illegal logging” is most often referred to in the literature as when timber is
harvested, transported, bought or sold in violation of national laws. Harvesting in
national parks or reserves would be an obvious example of illegal logging, but often,
poor forest practices (whether in violation of a specific set of rules or not) are also
claimed to be associated with illegal activities. Within the context of illegal logging,
they can be summarized as:
• harvesting without authority in designated national parks or forest reserves;

• harvesting without authorization or in excess of concession permit limits;
• failing to report harvesting activity to avoid royalty payments or taxes; and
• violating international trading rules or agreements, such as export bans or
CITES.
Figure 2 provides a graphical representation of the significance of this problem. A

recent trend with respect to certification is to obtain independent verification of
sources of forest products with respect to controversial sources. FSC and PEFC
both acknowledge non-controversial sources as valid for on-product labeling
purposes. Such sources are typically characterized as not coming from illegal
harvests, but FSC also includes forests of high conservation value, and genetically
modified organisms.
A number of organizations are now providing “certificates of origin” for companies

that procure forest products but may not be directly responsible for forest
management activities. For example, SGS has a Timber Tracking Programme, and
PriceWaterhouseCoopers has an Independent Chain of Custody Standard. In the
case of SGS, they are working with the International Tropical Timber Organization to
develop a graduated certification system that would encourage producers to improve
but recognize their efforts although they may not yet qualify for full certification.

Figure 2. Estimation of Percentage of Illegally Harvest Wood Entering EU

Countries
3.2 Procurement Policies

Metafore, a consulting firm specializing in facilitating market development for forest
products and conducting associated analyses, completed a study in 2003 that
researched procurement policies of Fortune 100 companies. They concluded that:
• More than half of Fortune 100 companies choose office paper containing
recycled content.
• Of those specifying recycled paper:
o 23% choose paper with at least some recycled fiber;
o 18% choose 30% post-consumer fiber, the minimum standard accepted
by the federal government; and

o 18% choose virgin fiber derived from well-managed forests in addition

to post-consumer recycled content.
• Companies’ policies regarding the use of paper products are generally limited
to reducing, reusing, and recycling office paper.
• 10% of companies have solid wood purchasing policies.
• 58% of companies acknowledge using solid wood but have no specific policy
guiding wood purchasing.
• 33% believe their solid wood use is insignificant and therefore have no wood
purchasing guidelines.
• While many companies substitute traditional wood products with those made
from alternative materials, the use of informed environmental performance
criteria to guide these decisions is not common.
Examples of company procurement policies with respect to wood purchasing are

provided in Table 3.
Table 3. Excerpts from Corporate Procurement Policies
Company Procurement Policy

Office Depot Office Depot values the suppliers of forest and paper products
composed of wood fiber derived from well-managed forest operations,
such as those certified and verified by an independent third party.
L.L Bean L.L.Bean will source all paper from responsibly managed forests. To
verify that best practices are employed, we seek third party certification.
We recognize that there are multiple certification systems in place and
not all certifications are right for all situations. We give preference to fiber
certified under Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards when
feasible, based on market conditions. More broadly, we look for forest
management standards that are based on continuous improvement,
including Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), Canadian Standards
Association (CSA), American Tree Farm System (ATFS), and Maine
Master Logger Program (MMLP).
Home Depot The Home Depot will give preference to the purchase of wood and wood
products originating from certified well managed forests wherever
feasible.
IKEA IKEA does not accept timber, veneer, plywood or layer-glued wood from
intact natural forests or from forests with a clearly defined high
conservation value. Our long-term goal is to source all wood in the IKEA
range from verified, well-managed forests that have been certified
according to a forest management standard recognized by IKEA.
Kodak Our suppliers already have or are actively seeking certifications from
bodies accredited by the internationally recognized Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC), or are working closely with environmental, indigenous,
and social interests to develop FSC standards or comparable standards
where none exist.
Credible certification programs include the Canadian Standards

Company Procurement Policy

Association Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Standard, the
International Organization for Standardization 14001 EMS program, the
Sustainable Forestry Initiative by the American Forest and Paper
Association and their chain of custody processes.
UK Government Departments can accept certification schemes as providing some

degree of assurance from suppliers that they have taken steps to
endeavour to comply with the terms of their contracts. The better known
certification schemes currently operating are:
• Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
• Pan European Forest Certification (PEFC)
• Canadian Standards Association (CSA)
• Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI)
• Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC)
• Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute (LEI)
• Brazilian Forest Certification System) (CERFLOR)
• Finish Forest Certification System (FFCS)
Because relatively little of wood certified in North America is traceable under CoC,
labeling of products is typically not required. One development of interest is the
efforts of the Paper Working Group, headed by Time Inc., to mandate a high
percentage of certified fibre in their publications, thereby forcing companies such as
UPM and StoraEnso to scramble to source certified fibre. This is largely the reason
for the development of programs such as the Pan-Canadian Standard and the
Atlantic Master Logger Certification Program. The Paper Working Group has
endorsed the Maine Master Logger Program for use on woodlots less than 500 acres
that are harvested by Master Loggers and have written management plans. The
Canadian Woodlands Forum who sponsors the Atlantic Master Logger Program, is
seeking similar endorsement. Further, they are seeking FSC endorsement as
“controlled wood” under their CoC standard. Regardless, the Paper Working Group
only requires verification of source and not labeling.
3.3 LEED
The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating
System™ is a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for developing high-
performance, sustainable buildings. Members of the U.S. Green Building Council
representing all segments of the building industry developed LEED and continue to
contribute to its evolution. The Canadian Green Building Council has been
established to administer projects registered in Canada.
LEED was created to:
• define "green building" by establishing a common standard of measurement

• promote integrated, whole-building design practices
• recognize environmental leadership in the building industry
• stimulate green competition

• raise consumer awareness of green building benefits

• transform the building market
LEED provides a complete framework for assessing building performance and

meeting sustainability goals. Based on well-founded scientific standards, LEED
emphasizes state of the art strategies for sustainable site development, water
savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality.
LEED recognizes achievements and promotes expertise in green building through a
comprehensive system offering project certification, professional accreditation,
training and practical resources.
For new construction projects, LEED includes within their rating system, provisions
for recognizing certified building materials. Presently they are only recognizing FSC
certified products, however, a new version of the rating system (version 2.2) is
currently out for public comment and includes an amendment to also recognize CSA
and SFI certified products. Regardless, this does provide a growing market for
certified products. Table 4 provides a list of LEED projects currently registered in
Atlantic Canada. Various levels of government are committed to LEED ratings on
their project. Public Works and Government Services Canada, for example has a
commitment to LEED as part of their Sustainable Development Strategy.
Table 4. LEED Projects in Atlantic Canada
Project Building Type City Province

QEH/St. Pat's High School Halifax NS
School
Western HRM School Tantallon NS
Nova Scotia College Dartmouth NS
Community College
- New Metro
Campus
Chiefs and Petty Assembly/high rise Halifax NS
Officers' and residential
Officers' Facilities,
CFB Halifax
Iona P-12 School School Iona NS
Upper River Valley Hospital Waterville, Carleton NB
Hospital Co.
DNR District Office Office building Bathurst NB
New Science Laboratory St. Andrews NB
Building, Biological
Station
GOCB Building Office building Charlottetown PE

4.0 Recommendations
The demand for certified forest products remains relatively small, and within this
small market, the requirements for on-product labeling is even smaller. For a
company to seek such a label, the key to a successful on-product labeling program
will be flexibility. They must be able to respond to whatever their market requires. It
is unlikely, however, that a company going to the effort and expense of establishing
an on-product label will realize any real benefit, unless it is in direct response to a
specific market requirement.
A further complicating factor is chain of custody. This must be established in order to

determine the percentage of certified wood in a product. Secondary manufacturers,
by virtue of the type of forest product they use, tend to have very complex
procurement systems. They may have numerous sources of product and often are
procuring wood “third-hand” and do not know the origin. Some companies procure
wood outside of NB and therefore do not have the advantage of transportation
certificates to determine origin. This all adds to the complexity of the system and
therefore increases cost. The alternative is to sole-source to suppliers of certified
wood products, but this may be cost-prohibitive.
4.1 Labeling Types
It should be noted that on-product labels denoting the percentage of the product that
originates from certified sustainably managed forests represent a specific type of
environmental label. Environmental labels that are independently verified are called
Type 1 labels. Table 5 provides a brief summary of the main types of environmental
labels currently in use.
Environmental labels have often been voluntarily adopted for marketing purposes.
However, it has become increasingly important to develop clear guidelines for
products to help consumers make informed purchases because the wide variety of
environmental statements currently in the marketplace can be misleading and lack
credibility. An environmental label’s value depends directly on consumers’ trust in the
label. Table 6 examines the three types of labels and provides a comparison of
benefits and limitations.
Table 5. Summary of Environmental Label Types
ISO* Type 1 Label

• Indicates environmental preferability within a sector.
• Based on life-cycle performance of pre-defined and weighted set of core
environmental attributes.
• Independently verified.
• E.g., Environmental Choice EcoLogo — provides logo to top performers.

ISO Type 2 Label

• Environmental declaration made by manufacturers/importers/distributors.
• Not independently verified (no certifying body means there are no regulatory costs)
• Declaration may be defined by a regulatory body.
• E.g., “green power,” “recycled content,” or “biodegradable.”
ISO Type 3 Label

• Similar to food labels in that they list data of interest to the consumer within
established categories – in this case, categories of environmental attributes.
• Based on life-cycle performance of pre-defined and weighted set of core
environmental attributes.
• Independently verified but not required to be by a certification body
• E.g., Environmental Profile Data Sheet — used by the pulp and paper industry in
Canada.
Performance Standard
• Indicates environmental preferability within a sector.
• Based on a single performance standard.
• Independently verified.
• E.g., Energy Star — provides logo to top products based on energy efficiency
*ISO =International Organization for Standardization
Different combinations of these label types are also used. For example, EnerGuide
labels address a single attribute similar to a performance standard, but provide
explicit data on the attribute, similar to a Type 3 label, which the consumer can use in
making a value judgment.
Table 6. Comparison of Environmental Labeling Types*

Type I Type II Type III
Information Indicates Environmental Comprehensive data lists that

on Label environmental declaration made give environmental information
preferability within by on a product throughout its life
its sector. manufacturers/im cycle.
porters/
distributors.
Value Certifying Consumer Consumer evaluates product

Judgment organization evaluates product based on data provided. Label
evaluates product. based on is nonselective.
Customer chooses declaration. Label
product because it is nonselective.

Type I Type II Type III
has the label.

Label is selective
to products that
meet criteria.
Verification Third-party verified Not May be verified through a third-

through a testing orindependently party audit.
auditing process verified.
Criteria Based on LCA Single May use an LCA approach.

criteria. issue/criterion.
Benefits Clarity and ease of Easy and free for Label provides “unbiased”
choice to the manufacturers to information.
consumer. adopt.
Limitations Label has inherent Credibility and Higher level of consumer

cultural, social, and consumer awareness needed for label to
environmental confusion over be meaningful.
biases. term definitions
may result.
Examples • TerraChoice • Green Power • Environmental Performance

EcoLogo • Recycled Data Sheets (EPDSs)
• Green Leaf Content • Environmentally Preferable
Hotel Rating • Phosphate- Electricity Program
Program free (Scientific Certification
• CSA Mark • Biodegradable Systems, U.S.)
• Green Seal
(U.S.)
• Blue Angel
(Germany)
• Nordic Swan
(Scandinavia)
*From a report prepared by the Pembina Institute for the Canadian Transportation Fuel Cell Alliance
4.2 An Alternative Approach to On-Product Labeling
Since Type 1 labels are not in demand within the secondary manufactured wood
products sector, a variation of a Type 3 label may have some merit. The Wood
Products Group, in an effort to raise awareness of the quality of their member’s is in
a good position to establish their own “seal-of-approval” label. Such a label would a

combination of on-product logo, which directs the consumer to more detailed

information. In WPG’s case, this could be their web portal.
The scope of the label should focus on the environmental performance of the
manufacturers. A performance standard could be developed that incorporates the
following considerations:
• Compliance with environmental laws and regulations:

o Fuel and chemical handling
o Waste disposal
o Air and wastewater emissions
o WHMIS
o Etc.
• Non-toxic / low impact chemicals used in manufacturing (finishes, preservatives,
etc.)
• Sustainable source of raw material (where verifiable):
o From third-party certified forests
o Recycled wood
o Non-controversial sources (not from high conservation value forests,
illegal logging, etc.)
• No net increase in greenhouse gas emissions (considers the long-term carbon
storage of solid-wood products)
• Product utilization and value-added processes
• Employee training and competency programs
• Inspection and corrective action processes
• Review and improvement processes
In order for a member company to display the label, a verification site visit would
need to be organized by WPG to confirm that all requirements of the performance
standard are being maintained. Once verified, an information sheet would be
developed that described what the member company does (or does not do) to
warrant the label.
In order for this type of program to be functional, the following are examples of
documentation that would need to be developed:
• Program manual – describes program roles and responsibilities, performance

standards, etc.
• Verification procedure and checklists
• Logo use document
• Member profile templates

5.0 Next Steps

Further research is required before proceeding with a Type 3 label. A fundamental
question to be answered is, “what is the message to be conveyed to the consumer
with this label?” The program standard does not have to be limited to environmental
information, for example. A sustainability message could be conveyed incorporating
socio-economic criteria in the standard. Alternatively, business practices could be
highlighted with quality assurance and product security criteria.
Once the message is determined, it is advisable to establish a committee from

member companies to participate in the development of the label and standard. The
label needs to convey information that will be useful to member companies, thereby
creating interest on their part. Surveys or focus groups could also be used to solicit
input.
It would be useful to establish several pilot programs among member companies so

that the various documentation can be trialed during development. These companies
should represent a cross-section of the membership.
The content of the program standard can be derived from various existing
environmental labeling programs, again, once the content has been determined.
There are numerous product labeling programs around the world that have been
quite successful. How these programs are administered should also be examined.

Scoping Report Rev 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scoping Report Rev 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report To: Wood Products Group

700 McLeod Avenue

On: On-Product Labeling System Scoping Report

By: Birchwood Environmental Management Inc.

Date: September 5, 2005

Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. has been contracted by the Wood

• CSA Z809, Canada’s national standard for SFM;

Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. Page ii

Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. Page iii

Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. Page iv

2.0 Forest Certification Trends in Atlantic Canada

REPORTED April 11 Dec 31 June 06 Dec 30 Sept 7 April 16 Dec 31 June1

This strong performance among Canadian companies is clear evidence of broad

Forest certification involves an independent, third party certifier with experienced

• CSA Z809, Canada’s national standard for SFM;

Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. Page 1

• FSC, the standard of the international organization, Forest Stewardship

• While the majority of customers interviewed are attempting to shift their

Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. Page 2

2.1 Forest Certification Standards

2.1.1 Sustainable Forestry Initiative

Sustainable Forestry Board

External Review Panel (ERP)

2.1.2 Forest Stewardship Council

Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. Page 3

(industrialized) and "southern" (developing) countries. The FSC is represented at the

Forest assessments require one or more field visits by a team of specialists

FSC certified products are identified by an on-product label and/or off-product

2.1.3 CSA Z809

The management system must consist of six components:

• A commitment to SFM in terms of the organization's vision, principles, and

Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. Page 4

• Systematic, periodic assessment of the status of each indicator to identify

2.2 On-Product Labeling

Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. Page 5

Table 2. Certifications by Company and Certification Type in Atlantic Canada.

Bowater Canadian Operations Baker Broo

Fraser Papers Freehold a

J.D. Irving Ltd. Black Broo

UPM Miramichi Inc. Crown

Weyerhaeuser Company Ltd.

Figure 2. On-Product Labeling for Secondary Wood Producers

PEFC has in its membership 31 independent national forest certification systems of

Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. Page 7

Figure 2. PEFC Label for Products with Recycled Wood Content

3.0 Market Interest in Certified Forest Products

• Public procurement policies continue to be a driving force for certification and

Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. Page 8

This report, although focusing on European trends, tends to mirror sentiments in

3.1 Illegal Logging

• harvesting without authority in designated national parks or forest reserves;

Figure 2 provides a graphical representation of the significance of this problem. A

A number of organizations are now providing “certificates of origin” for companies

Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. Page 9

Figure 2. Estimation of Percentage of Illegally Harvest Wood Entering EU

3.2 Procurement Policies

Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. Page 10

o 18% choose virgin fiber derived from well-managed forests in addition

Examples of company procurement policies with respect to wood purchasing are

Table 3. Excerpts from Corporate Procurement Policies

Company Procurement Policy

Credible certification programs include the Canadian Standards

Birchwood Environmental Management Inc. Page 11