| Abstrakt: |
During the past 40 years or so, the U.S. and most other countries with advanced economies have transformed their awareness and understanding of and approach to environmental issues. Prior to 1969, there were virtually no nationally uniform, consistent, or effective legal restraints on the discharge of pollutants to the environment, the uncontrolled disposal of wastes, or the alteration and use of land and other natural resources. Since then, an extensive legal and regulatory structure has been developed that arguably addresses most of these acute concerns. Remaining environmental concerns have much less to do with point source pollutant discharges, and much more to do with more subtle, larger scale, and longer term phenomena such as climate change, effects of multiple chemical compounds from chronic exposure (e.g., pesticides, pharmaceuticals), and non-point source runoff (e.g., from agriculture). Accordingly, many both inside and outside of government have become skeptical of the wisdom and effectiveness of instituting further regulatory controls and "command and control" strategies for stimulating further environmental performance improvements. As an alternative (and indeed, an adjunct) to regulation, there has been steadily increasing interest in and use of non-traditional, non-regulatory approaches. Prominent among these is the use of consensus voluntary standards. Such standards have found particular favor in industries with trade flows that span international boundaries and that involve activities for which existing regulatory authority may be limited. Thisarticle examines one such collection of voluntary standards, those that have been developed to ensure sustainable forestry practices. These standards are interesting for several reasons. First, there are several different and competing standards addressing forest management and related products that continue to evolve and are rapidly finding acceptance in the market place. Second, the ways in which these competing standards have been developed and what they require differ in some important ways. Finally, the continued evolution and application of these programs provide some interesting examples of the interplay between regulation and voluntary action, and the importance of context in determining the appropriate mix of public and private sector interests and activities in pursuing an agreed-upon goal, in this case sustainable forests over the long term. The article describes what these different sustainable forestry programs are, how they have been developed, what they require, and the ways in which they are similar and different, as well as how they compare, at a general level, with other consensus-based environmental standards. It also provides an assessment of the degree of market acceptance that each has received, and present recent trends in certifications in North America and other geographies. Finally, the article examines supply and demand conditions in North America, and assesses whether and to what extent calls for greater use of certified wood products are realistic and, indeed, sustainable. The article shows, among other things, that as they have evolved, the competing sustainable forest management programs have many more important similarities than differences. The article also explores how these programs both employ and extend well beyond existing regulatory controls to form comprehensive forest management approaches. All share an extensive set of core requirements and expectations, and all employ common approaches to several basic components of any certification program. There also are some important differences among these programs, which to a significant extent can be explained by the context in which each has developed. Over time, however, the differences between these programs have diminished, and substantial convergence over the past ten years is apparent. These findings have implications for voluntary environmental program developers, both in and out of government, as well as for those interested in the increasingly volatile and public debate over which program provides the best assurance that the world's forests will remain healthy, productive, and sustainable in the long term. Given the aggressive, and at times effective, public campaign tactics being pursued by opponents of paper use (e.g., "do not mail" coalitions), the issues raised in this article also will be of interest to decision makers in the forestry and forest products industries, as well as in firms making extensive use of wood, paper, and other forest-related products. At a more general level, the case of sustainable forest management standards as described herein, may have some interesting implications for policy makers, particularly as they consider how best to fill legal/regulatory gaps in environmental protection programs and extend their reach during a time of severely constrained public resources, at all levels of government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
