The ink is hardly dry on the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA), and already proponents of the various certification factions are claiming victory for their favored schemes. All the hoopla whirls around a covenant in the CBFA that the parties (industry and ENGOs) will join together to develop ecosystem-based management guidelines for more than 72 million hectares of forestland, including nearly 30 million hectares of critical caribou habitat. The initiative’s official homepage states that the signatories are committed to “implement world-leading, on-the-ground sustainable forest management practices”. Independent third-party auditing will be implemented to verify compliance on the ground. The deal is important to printers and publishers in the US – Canadian pulp goes into much of the paper used in this country and, as we all have seen, ENGO pressure on US paper consumers such as Limited Brands’ Victoria’s Secret, Scholastic, and Kimberly-Clark, and has resulted in their adoption of more “responsible” paper procurement policies. While industry and ENGOs work toward mutually acceptable management guidelines, there also will be joint efforts to secure market recognition for forest products from the area – and the signatory ENGOs have agreed to suspend “do-not-buy” market campaigns against signatory companies while the wheels are in motion. The landmark agreement seems to have stirred the posturing pot among certification organizations and pundits alike. FSC announced in its May 20, 2010 weekly newsletter that the since the CBFA adopts the on-the-ground application of the existing Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) National Boreal Standards as a reference point for the development of the management guidelines, the agreement “confirms that FSC standards are the highest social and environmental standards of forest management available.” Third-party industry observers, including blogger D. Edward Tree, claim that the CBFA represents de-facto acknowledgement by ENGOs of the legitimacy of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative and the Canadian Standards Association certification schemes (both endorsed by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes – PEFC). Some wonder, can formal mutual recognition be far behind? SFI's response has been well-tempered. In a written statement to WhatTheyThink.com - Going Green, Kathy Abusow, President & CEO, SFI, Inc. acknowledged the "tremendous efforts" of the parties that worked toward the agreement and added, "We are pleased to see that all certification standards are recognized in the boreal agreement and that the choice of the standard to be used is left to the corporations involved."  It is possible that the management guidelines that eventually emerge from the parties’ deliberations will align precisely with the FSC Boreal Standard. But it is just as likely that the guidelines will focus more heavily on the ecological issues (conservation of biodiversity, habitat protection, climate change) and place little or no emphasis on the social issues (such as rights of First Nations) that form a core element of the FSC standard. However, FSC and SFI seem to be on the same page regarding First Nations. Ms. Abusow's statement also included the following:  "I believe that this agreement can succeed if it involves and respects the rights of owners of the land including First Nations and government agencies.  SFI is prepared to work together with all partners to identify boreal and ecosystem based practices and we will also consider the needs of all of our SFI program participants as we move forward together." That said, if the ultimate agreement differs materially from the FSC standard, or if it obviates the need for FSC's First Nations protections, the market may very well perceive that companies operating under the CBFA agreement as responsible actors (and ENGO-blessed.) If so, there may be less incentive that exists at present for forest operations that are not FSC certified to become so. As always, the devil is in the details. Those charged with implementing the terms of the CBFA have years of work ahead. One cannot begin to imagine the twists and turns that the drafting of guideline language will take, and there will surely be some outside pressure (from a cadre of ENGOs who do not like the agreement in the first place, and, perhaps, from industry hardliners) seeking to derail the whole process. So, for the next three years, let’s watch, listen, and learn, and hope that the guidelines that evolve from the CBFA process reflect the best practices of all the certification schemes, enabling operators to produce responsibly and with some the blessings of the broader ENGO community.