I have been a Tree Farm Inspector for 27 years. I’ve been a New Hampshire Licensed Forester since 1991 and am involved with the Forest Guild. My comments reflect a long history of involvement with foresters and landowners.
In July 2006, I received two mailings that finally prompted me to resign as a certified Tree Farm Inspector in Vermont and New Hampshire. The NH Tree Farm Inspectors News Notes, dated July 2006, arrived first, headlining third-party certification and the ramifications for the Tree Farm inspection process. A letter followed soon after announcing yet another series of certification workshops for Tree Farm inspectors in Vermont.
The inspection procedures and policies of the Tree Farm Program have always been problematic; they are becoming more so as the program attempts to pass itself off as a valid certification system, but one without on-the-ground, independent, third-party verification. The biggest problem with the Tree Farm Program has been, and continues to be, the policy that allows foresters to inspect their clients’ properties and to certify the practices and management of those properties. It never seemed appropriate to me that foresters were allowed to – and even expected to – inspect and certify their own work. This practice has existed to expedite the certification process, not to ensure program integrity; it represents an inherent conflict of interest and is simply unprofessional.
Think of the many negative implications of decertifying a Tree Farm. For one, landowners would lose documented stewardship status under the New Hampshire Current Use Program. Then there are the adverse impacts of being the “bad guy” forester who de-certifies the Tree Farm. It would alienate clients or potential clients, thereby negatively impacting the inspecting forester’s business interests. Under what circumstances would a forester decertify a client? It rarely happens. I know of landowners whose Tree Farms are recertified despite chronic nonperformance and nonconformance (over 20 years in one case) to the standards; they have been certified and/or recertified based on their interest in forestry, not based on fulfilling program requirements.
These and other problems with the Tree Farm Program need to be discussed in an open, frank public forum by all stakeholders, not just by foresters “behind closed doors” at their various meetings. These problems have existed for as long as I’ve been an Inspecting Forester, but addressing them is now more critical in the context of “Green Certification.” Despite the repeated suggestion by the National Tree Farm System that foresters not inspect their own clients, New Hampshire and apparently Vermont have rejected this concept. In fact, a recent letter I received regarding the Vermont program appears to shift the inspection process away from public forester involvement to private foresters, who will be permitted to charge a fee for inspections. This change further complicates the conflict-of-interest situation rather than alleviating it.
Over the years, I have had conversations with many foresters regarding the Tree Farm Program. Many consulting foresters state that Tree Farm is a good program because it provides a mechanism to keep in touch with landowners every five years. Industrial foresters have confided that the Tree Farm Program is an effective tool for procuring timber.
I submit that the Tree Farm Program exists more for the foresters and wood products industry than it does for the landowners. This in itself is not “wrong” or unethical. What is wrong and unethical is to suggest and promote the program as one that primarily recognizes a landowner’s commitment to forest management when it is really intended to promote the business interests of consulting foresters and the procurement interests of the forest-products industry. The Tree Farm Program is a very effective “sales” tool, as demonstrated by the many landowners who want to get that sign.
All of this is not to say that foresters and landowners involved with the Tree Farm Program are corrupt, unethical, or inadequate land stewards. There are some highly qualified and skilled forest practitioners heavily involved with the program, and there are some very committed landowners stewarding their land to the highest of standards. Many individuals committed to the program are well intentioned. Those individuals practicing excellent forestry exist regardless of the Tree Farm Program, not because of it. As in every endeavor of excellence, when people perform to the highest standards, those individuals are to be applauded.
This does not relieve the Tree Farm Program of the obligation to hold itself to the highest ethical standards in administering the program and to the highest performance standards in the forest, as is the Program’s frequent claim. As Tree Farm continues to attempt to align itself as a bona fide certification program, the implications of self-inspection, and the obvious conflict of interest inherent in that process, become increasingly important. I hope that state programs and the national program will closely examine the Tree Farm System and institute fundamental and comprehensive changes that insure program integrity. I look forward to an open and honest dialog with all stakeholders about this.