The Impacts of Making Lumber

Thank you for the review you gave WWPA’s

Eco-Profile of Lumber Produced in the Western United States: Life Cycle Inventory of WWPA Western Lumber. Your comments on the study were both thorough and fair.

There are two issues addressed in the review which I feel deserve further comment. The first regards the possible error contained in Appendix A which explains how to convert the data from kilograms to actual pieces of lumber. A group of people including representatives of Scientific Certification Systems, WWPA members, and WWPA technical staff worked together to determine the conversion factors published in the study. It was this group’s conclusion that the conversion should be based on moisture content as a percentage of total weight, which is what we published. In hindsight, and after learning of your concerns, the group concedes a mistake may have been made, though it may not be as clean-cut as your review implies. The group is currently reviewing it further and the study will be revised to correct the error, if appropriate.

The second issue regards your statement that the study “sidesteps the most important issues relating to wood use and the environment” by not addressing forest ecosystem impacts. While it is true the study’s system boundaries do not include forest ecosystem impacts, it is not true that WWPA “sidestepped” these issues. Indeed, months were spent trying to develop a mechanism to incorporate available biological inventory data sets into the Life Cycle Inventory framework, but to no avail. As you know, there currently is no consensus on distinguishing between renewable and non-renewable resources within Life Cycle methodology, much less to address other factors involved with ecosystem impacts.

Resource issues have moved into the impact analysis phase of Life Cycle Analysis, a next step which is highly unresolved in terms of how it can be applied. WWPA’s study is currently limited to the inventory phase, which is the first step and includes coverage for those areas for which there is consensus-built guidance. If Life Cycle Inventory could adequately address resource- and ecosystem-related issues, they would have been included in the study.

Lacking a way to address these issues within the study, WWPA not only acknowledged their importance, we also addressed them in the press materials sent along with the study. It seems only fair that your readers hear what we have to say in this regard.

The wood products industry is blessed with a resource that is infinitely renewable and being renewed at an astonishing rate. Billions of trees are planted each year, and growth exceeds harvest by more than 35 percent each year. In the process of growing this resource, the Western forest products industry shows its commitment to environmental stewardship through forest practices which protect the wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic and recreational values which the public considers to be of equal or greater importance than the wood products these forests provide.

Forests of the western U.S. are among the most productive timberlands in the world and are subject to the world’s most stringent environmental laws and regulations. These state and federal forest practices laws and best management practices guidelines govern harvesting techniques, reforestation, fish and wildlife habitat protection, water quality issues, soil conservation, and ecosystem diversification.

The environmental benefits derived from these practices cannot yet be accommodated within the parameters of Life Cycle Analysis, let alone a relatively simple Life Cycle Inventory. However, the laws themselves represent the very toughest kind of third-party auditing—enforced compliance which fosters sustainable performance. A simple check with the government agencies that enforce those laws will reveal the Western forest products industry has a compliance level exceeding 95%. Further checking will show that most instances of non-compliance are not malicious, but rather the result of misinterpretation of the statutes. Like your readers, the forest products industry in the Western United States is committed to sustaining our environment, while at the same time providing people with a wide variety of wood products suitable for building and other uses.

Timm Locke

Western Wood Products Assoc.

Portland, Oregon

Editor's Reply:Thanks for your comments. We’d like to address several points you raise. First, we stand by our opinion that the procedure in Appendix A is in error. Second, in stating that “the study sidesteps the most important issues…” we didn’t mean to suggest that WWPA is not addressing these issues. The study itself, however, leaves them out of the picture. We agree that given current LCA practices, including forest ecosystem management issues in a quantitative study such as this is not feasible, and our review mentioned the attention you gave these issues in the accompanying press material.

Finally, we would agree that the forest products industry has made great strides in improving its environmental practices, but balancing the long- and short-term needs of the corporations and their stockholders with environmental priorities is no simple matter. Many forest ecologists would take issue with your claims that the forest products industry has found that balance, or that the laws governing logging are sufficient, even when followed. At the same time, given the threat of uncontrolled logging in places like Siberia, where trees take much longer to mature and large areas of pristine forest remain, we agree that working forests in the U.S. are an environmentally preferable resource.

– the Editors