environment chamber comprises about 36 percent and the social chamber only 18 percent. Southern members of all FSC chambers still account for less than 30 percent of total members. While some national FSC structuresincluding Canadahave done a good job in maintaining democratic balance, this is not true of many other countries like Ireland and Malaysia. The Rainforest Foundation and other critics of the FSC are careful to emphasize that they still feel that FSC certification, properly organized and monitored, represent one of the best tools to create sustainable forestry. But their criticisms indicate dilemmas for wood certification that parallel those in other areas of alternative valuation like green building assessment. The success and growth of these systems present new problems of cooptation and corporate interest, as well as logistical problems of monitoring and management. These problems are aggravated by the growth of powerful environmental NGOs like the WWFwhich has, it should be pointed out, been criticized for its activities in other realms (Isla, 2000) that risk becoming agents of a new enclosure of the global commons by corporate organizations. Maintaining and extending accountability, democracy and a vision of truly ecological production is a tremendous challenge in this era of corporate globalization. But if this can be done, the possibilities are great. According to WWF studies, even at current consumption of wood, sustainably-managed forestry operations could realistically supply all of industrys needs from one-fifth of worlds forests. In addition, the concentration of the forest industry presents certain opportunities. 90 percent of production comes from 600 million hectares in just 25 countries, and while almost half the annual wood harvest is processed by the top 50 forest products companies, the top 50