Forest certification systems are voluntary, market-based tools designed to verify forestry and forest products as “responsible” or “sustainable,” enabling consumers to choose wood and other forest products that meet their environmental and social standards. The major systems in North America are the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI)[1]. Procurement of certified wood can be a relatively straightforward way for project teams to support CSF when a certification standard is strong enough to secure climate benefits.
CSF may be practiced under any certification system as well as in forests managed by landowners who choose not to participate in certification programs. However, when using certification as a tool for identifying and procuring CSW, peer reviewed studies[2] and independent reporting from respected outlets like BuildingGreen indicate that FSC standards prescribe[3] key elements of CSF to a degree that other systems have yet to achieve.
In general, in order to meet FSC forest management standards, forestry operations must adopt practices that lead to improved long-term outcomes compared to conventional forestry in the three critical areas of: 1) mitigation, 2) adaptation, and 3) equity (see CSF definition).
While FSC requires practices that exceed most forestry regulations in the USA and Canada, SFI may not assure management that reaches significantly beyond the regulatory floor[4]. This difference informs a consensus within the conservation community that FSC is the stronger standard[5]. Examples of practices required by FSC’s forest management standards that result in greater carbon storage[6], ecological resilience, and social equity include:
Again, CSF may be practiced under any certification system as well as in forests managed by landowners who choose not to participate in certification programs. SFI-certified and non-certified wood may be considered climate smart when additional supply chain transparency and traceability support a conclusion that CSF is being practiced in the source forest.
Additionally, it should be noted that not all FSC certified products come directly from FSC certified forests — a fact that applies to other forest certification systems as well. All certification systems allow for the mixing of material from certified and non-certified forests in manufacturing, albeit with the application of controls on the latter to avoid wood from unacceptable sources such as illegal logging, destruction of high conservation values, etc. In FSC, the system of controls over non-certified material used in mixing is called “Controlled Wood.” Products that come from certified forests and those that result from mixing are also labeled differently: “FSC 100%” in the former case, “FSC Mix” in the latter.
Most mixing relies on a mass balance system where the volume output of certified products must be “covered” by the volume of certified material that comes into the manufacturing process. In FSC, this is called the “credit system” – credits are banked in an account based on the quantity of certified material procured and can be applied flexibly to outputs sold as “FSC Mix” anytime in the 48 months after they are banked.
Practically speaking, mixing is essential for the workability of FSC and other forest certification systems. It reduces the operational costs and hassle of making certified products significantly because it avoids the need to segregate certified and non-certified material in dedicated production runs. And it is unavoidable in certain sectors such as pulp/paper where there is insufficient certified material to produce FSC 100% and the nature of the manufacturing process is such that segregation is impossible. The drawback, of course, is that the direct link between certified products and certified forests is broken because it is impossible to tell if any given FSC Mix product is from certified forests, if it is Controlled Wood, or some combination of the two.
Traceability and transparency are not currently inherent to forest certification systems[7]. However, in the case of FSC which generally requires performance significantly beyond regulatory baselines, certification reduces the need to map supply chains and verify specific forest origin, forest management plan, or harvest prescription. Wood certified under other certification systems should be complemented by additional information gathering efforts to verify the specific practices that enable a project team to conclude climate benefit compared to status quo practice.
[1] While FSC is a global system, SFI operates only in the U.S. and Canada. Internationally, SFI is one of numerous national forest certification schemes that are united under the umbrella of the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) and have the right to use the PEFC name and label. PEFC does not itself set sustainable forestry standards at the national level; instead, it endorses systems that meet its international standards and guides. SFI has its own label and brand identity, thus the PEFC label is generally only seen on imported products. SFI also recognizes and accepts material certified under two additional systems that operate in North America, American Tree Farm System Certification which serves smaller, non-industrial landowners and PEFC Canada which operates only in that country.
[2] https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/11/8/863
[3] https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/webpage-5.pdf
[4] https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/9/8/447/html
[5] https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art3/
[6] Globally, FSC forests that measure carbon on average realize a 17% increase in carbon stocks over a management cycle.
[7] The FSC 100% label, though uncommon in North America, does provide some additional traceability and transparency, especially for products with short supply chains like lumber.
©2026 Climate Smart Wood Group. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy