If SFI is interested in establishing themselves as a credible green standard for forest products, they need to realize that, whatever their current status, their history as an organ of the timber industry makes them inherently suspect -- and for good reason.

They could start by addressing the issues raised in the linked Grist article: protection of old-growth forests, protection of biodiversity, protection of sensitive forests overseas, and protection of the rights of native and indigenous peoples.  These issues were also quite true and valid at the time this article was written. Have things changed?

Given where they are coming from, SFI is going to need to work to establish their credibility, not make some vague statements that amount to "something is better than nothing".  Particularly when the fact of the matter is that something is NOT necessarily better than nothing.  A certification standard that lets the uninformed consumer believe they are making environmentally sound buying decisions while failing to provide actual ecological protection is worse than nothing.

Ms. Abusow should consider the possibility that part of the reason such a small fraction of the world's timber is certified may be because only a small fraction of the world's timber production CAN be performed in a sustainable and ecologically sound fashion.