However, chain of custody is not the be all and end all of sustainability. There are only two organisations that have a chain of custody system: FSC and PEFC. However, it is misguided to think that if timber does not have an FSC/PEFC certificate it does not come from a sustainable resource. The FSC scheme works well for certain timber products, most notably softwood, and people are happy with it as it is intelligible and the most visible system as it applies to so many everyday goods in DIY stores.
However, among North American hardwoods, the FSC scheme has little support. Should we therefore abandon this rich array of timbers? Contrary to general US environmental policy, our research into US hardwood supplies shows that stringent forestry controls mean supplies are increasing and more than 100 years of forestry history support this. Nearly all US hardwood log suppliers are uninterested in adopting a chain of custody system since their own history proves that they are using their forests responsibly.
The FSC bandwagon has made the whole idea of sustainability extremely confusing. There is genuine confusion amongst specifiers and joinery contractors who are trying to fulfil contracts while asking suppliers for FSC-certified timber without anyone researching the viability at the specifying stage. This is causing delays and misunderstandings. I’m worried about the Olympics construction projects, especially since the Wembley debacle.
As an industry, let’s try to promote other forms of timber sustainability. There is a huge amount of information on the internet which should prove to anyone that temperate hardwoods are not a negative drain on the world’s resources. The main causes for concern are timbers from Africa, South America and Asia. So let’s start to be realistic and not make the use of timber harder than it should be.
Duncan Richards
DF Richards (Veneers) Ltd
