Last month, Lands Commissioner Goldmark complained that a judge's decision allowing the Okanogan PUD to place power lines on state land, over Goldmark's objections, would harm the value of school trust lands. He claims the decision will reduce revenue to Washington's schools. We noted Goldmark's plan to certify state trust forest lands using a system designed by environmental activists known as Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), would do far more harm, cutting school revenue by about 30 percent according to his agency's own numbers.
Now, Goldmark has shifted his position on the issue. In an interview on TVW last month, he argued that our claim is "Not based in fact at all." In our blog poston the issue on June 8, we made two claims: 1) Goldmark "is advocating increasing the amount of state forest certified under the Forest Stewardship Council" and 2) this would "reduce the amount of timber harvested, and revenue to the schools, by an estimated 25 percent." Though it comes from his own agency, Goldmark may not like the second claim, but he only appears to be disputing the first claim.
In September 2008, when he was running for office, Goldmark was clear that he would seek FSC certification. In the video below from a campaign stop in Bellingham, he says (text begins at 6:00 in the video):
"Unlike Mr. Sutherland, who is supporting Sustainable Forestry Initiative certification, which is basically an industry sham, FSC stands for something that is real, which provides for better sustainable management of our state lands while delivering more value for our state. There is more value in the retail marketplace for FSC than there is for SFI, about 8 to 9 percent. And I will work hard to certify all the state’s forests in a progressive manner so we manage our state’s forests sustainably and we get more revenue stream for school construction.”
So, Goldmark makes three points in the speech: 1) Sutherland isn't committed to certification, 2) SFI is "an industry sham," and 3) He will "work hard to certify all the state's forests" using FSC.
He seems to have changed his position on all of these things. In the TVW interview last month, Goldmark responded to the piece we wrote. Beginning at 10:50 in the video, he says the following about his position on FSC certification:
“Well, I find this very fascinating, because my predecessor, who Todd Myers often is the advocate for, actually was the first to adopt FSC certification on trust lands. In 2008, when he was the commissioner at the time, actually had certified roughly 144,000 acres of state trust lands to FSC standards. So he started the whole process. My approach is that if FSC can deliver more value for the trust beneficiaries and attain greater ecological protection at the same time, I’m more than happy to go forward with it. But, actually this is a false accusation on the part of Mr. Myers. As you can see I am not the first commissioner to certify trust lands and I have not certified any further trust lands to FSC standards, but I am looking for ways to acquire more value for the trust beneficiaries and if FSC certification can achieve that added value or any other certification, I am happy to proceed."
Here Goldmark makes three points: 1) Sutherland was the first to seek certification, 2) Goldmark is willing to certify using "any other certification" which would include SFI and 3) Goldmark hasn't certified any further lands under FSC and will do so only "if FSC can achieve added value." These are directly at odds with what he said in 2008.
It is unclear what he thinks is a "false accusation" on our part. In context of the video, it seems Goldmark argues that our claim that he is seeking FSC certification is false, since now he only wants to do so "if" it adds value. He seems to have made a significant shift away from his campaign position to one that is in line with Sutherland's policy. It would also be a refinement of the position he announced earlier this year in the Goldmark Agenda, where he wrote his administration would "Increase the amount of land with Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification..."
Often, politicians find policymaking very different than campaigning, and this may be the case with Goldmark's position on forest certification. If he sticks to the new position he outlined on TVW, it is unlikely he will certify any additional state lands due to the high cost. If this is the case, we wholeheartedly agree with his new position which would limit any reduction in revenue for schools.
