THE FOREST OR THE TREES?

Back on the chopping block

by Eric de Place

Before June a handful of people in Olympia will decide the fate of forests vast enough to fill Mount Rainier National Park six times over. That's because Washington owns 1.4 million acres of west-side forest held "in trust" for state residents.

Every ten years Washington's Board of Natural Resources sets logging rates for trust forests, but 2004 is a pivotal year. The rate of cutting could double or the state could become a national leader in sustainable forestry.

Although logging will continue in state forests, some environmental groups, like Washington Environmental Council, are urging the state to seek Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification for all 1.4 million acres of Western Washington's trust forests. FSC certification is the most environmentally stringent label for wood products, limiting timber harvests to sustainable levels and curtailing the worst ecological impacts of logging.

Though the particulars of FSC certification are complex and variable, the upshot is that forests are to be managed for ecology as well as economy. And ecological sensitivity is increasingly important for dwindling populations of forest-dependent species like northern spotted owls and the native salmon that have collateral effects on harbor seals and orcas. Forests are also valuable carbon-sinks, trapping climate-altering gases before they can reach the atmosphere.

But some environmentalists are concerned that Washington will forgo the chance at FSC certification. So far, the Board of Natural Resources--the state's decision-making body for trust lands--has been mainly listening to people with an interest in more logging. Last December, when the Board held public hearings to solicit input on forest management, they met in mill towns like Aberdeen and Port Angeles. They neglected, however, to hold even a single meeting in Seattle (the closest location was Des Moines), or anywhere in Pierce and Snohomish Counties. What's more, many of the Board members represent institutions with a financial stake in more aggressive logging.

Even so, environmentalists have cause for optimism. In a separate decision, Republican Doug Sutherland, Commissioner of Public Lands and chair of the Board of Natural Resources, recently proposed permanent protection for all 60,000 acres of old-growth forests on trust lands. Though roughly 46,000 of these acres were already protected, the move signals a commitment to conservation, at least for the three percent of trust land with old-growth. It also removes a principal barrier to FSC certification.

Analysis from Washington Forest Law Center suggests that the state's current forest management is probably compatible with FSC certification, with an important exception: old-growth must be permanently off limits to logging. Consequently, if old-growth and other ecologically critical areas are kept safely out of harm's way--and the Board also chooses to maintain status-quo cutting levels--Western Washington's trust forests may be FSC-eligible. In fact, a detailed report from the Washington, DC-based Pinchot Institute for Conservation finds that with some modifications, much of the state's trust forests are already ripe for certification.

Still, timber sales from trust lands netted the state $75 million annually in recent years. Moreover, Washington's trust lands are required by law to generate income for school districts and other state-funded institutions like prisons, mental hospitals, and rural fire districts. In the past, this funding arrangement has tended to force an unhappy choice between forest protection or education and public safety, especially when budgets are tight.

From a revenue standpoint, FSC labeling makes good business sense because certified wood appears to be commanding higher prices. In other words, with certification Washington could cut fewer trees but sell the wood for more money than it could otherwise. What's more, market demand for certified wood is strong and growing. In 1999, Home Depot, which favors FSC lumber, sold just $15 million worth, but in 2002 it registered $250 million in FSC sales. Furthermore, the US Green Building Council is spurring demand by rewarding projects that use FSC wood. There's even evidence to suggest that certifying state trust lands--and thereby introducing a large reliable supplier--would further catalyze the market for FSC wood, which currently cannot meet demand.

With 1.4 million acres of west-side timber to their name, the people of Washington are among the largest forest owners in the Pacific Northwest. Unlike the US Forest Service, with it's distant headquarters in the other Washington (DC, that is), or private corporations, with their monomania for profit margins, trust lands can be managed in the best interest of the state's residents. Our forests--whether we steward them for profit, recreation, or ecology--are a living reflection of Washington's values.

Eric de Place is a researcher at Northwest Environment Watch, a Seattle-based research and communications center. You can reach him at eric@northwestwatch.org.