The Forest Stewardship Council is under pressure from environmental activists to reform its sustainable forestry certification system

 

The Forest Stewardship Council is under pressure from environmental activists to reform its sustainable forestry certification system

It had all been going so well. Timber users and traders, social groups and environmental NGOs came together to establish the Forest Stewardship Council in 1993 to introduce worldwide sustainable forestry standards. Within a year, the multi-stakeholder initiative introduced the FSC certification scheme, which went on to become – and still is – the most recognisable label for sustainable wood products.

Over the years, FSC has become the label of choice for those wanting to use wood from sustainable forests and plantations. A large number of multinational companies – including Gap, Nike, Body Shop, Ikea, Fedex, Coca-Cola, Alcan, Dell, Starbucks, Goldman Sachs, the BBC and Google – insist on buying FSC certified wood and paper products as part of their sustainability commitments. Leading green building certification scheme LEED requires use of at least 50% of wood materials in construction from FSC certified sources. A host of universities, government agencies and non-governmental organisations choose FSC certified wood and paper products.

Not surprising then that the architects of New York’s upcoming high profile public park High Line decided to use FSC certified Amazon wood for seating and decking. But they were surprised when activists from Rainforest Relief and New York Climate Action Group – both environmental groups based in the city – descended on the park in September to protest against the use of any wood from Amazon forests. Activists claimed that the wood came from the Amazon’s ancient forests, which they believe should not be harvested for industrial use. They also attacked FSC for certifying logging in these forests as sustainable.

Losing support

The past couple of years have seen several environmental groups questioning the effectiveness of FSC in managing forests sustainably. Even NGOs that were once part of FSC have started leaving the organisation in protest.

Friends of the Earth UK, a major environmental campaigner and a founding member of FSC, decided to withdraw its support in September last year. A statement from FOE UK said it was “deeply concerned by the number of FSC certifications that are now sparking controversy and threatening the credibility of the scheme. We cannot support a scheme that fails to guarantee high environmental and social standards. As a result we can no longer recommend the FSC standard.”

Earlier, in May 2008, the Association for the Ecological Defence of Galicia, a major Galician environmental group, withdrew its support for FSC after its demand to cancel the certification of Norfor, a local eucalyptus plantation, was not met. A few other smaller Galician environmental groups had already withdrawn support for FSC in 2006.

And in March 2008, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation quit FSC, calling the council’s standards weak and “not good enough”. The same month, Robin Hood, a German NGO and long time member, quit FSC International, protesting against the policy of certifying large-scale plantations, though the group said it would continue to work with FSC’s German council.

In 2007, a small group of NGOs in Ireland had decided to withdraw support to FSC when their representatives were not included in a stakeholder discussion to discuss a draft Irish national standard.

A year earlier, in 2006, NGOs from Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Ireland, Spain, South Africa and Uruguay had asked FSC to withdraw certifications of certain plantations in these countries alleging non-compliance. FSC decided to briefly suspend the certification process in Indonesia after local environmental and human rights organisations raised doubts over the reliability of the scheme in 2001, saying it was not effective in protecting the rights of indigenous people in the forest area. The same year, FSC-accredited certifier Rainforest Alliance suspended certifications for four of five plantations, spread over 113,139 hectares, managed by state-owned company PT Perhutani in Java, Indonesia, for non-compliance.

Victim of transparency?

Richard Donovan, senior vice-president and chief of forestry at Rainforest Alliance, a non-profit organisation that is also one of the accredited certification bodies for FSC, says FSC attracts criticism because it is very transparent. He says FSC puts all information related to certifications, audits, corrective actions, stakeholder comments and draft policies in the public domain. “This means just about anybody can raise an issue any time,” he says.

Donovan says criticisms of FSC are often inaccurate or driven by alternative agendas and have nothing to do with actual impact on the ground in terms of forest conservation and the rights of local communities.

Alison Kriscenski, head of communications at the FSC International Centre in Bonn, Germany, says FSC has an official complaints and disputes procedure that is designed to help stakeholders make their concerns known and to find the best way of resolving complaints. “As a multi-stakeholder organisation, FSC is limited in its ability to react to criticism or critics that only address general issues without specific details, or have a vision of the world which is not compatible with FSC’s,” Kriscenski says.

While some NGOs have deserted FSC, WWF and Greenpeace continue to support and promote the council. A study report published by WWF in September 2009 – Great Apes and Logging – concludes that “responsible logging in accordance with FSC standards is a good guarantee for the preservation of adequate living conditions for great apes”.

NGO discomfort

Critics of FSC have three broad concerns. First, they are against awarding certifications for primary and ancient forests – such as the Amazon and in Indonesia – that they say should be left intact. Second, they oppose certification of plantations, such as teak and eucalypt, which they say are being created after destroying primary forests. Third, they say some FSC-accredited certification bodies are issuing certificates to non-compliant forest operations for profit.

FSC certification is issued by independent companies and a few non-profit organisations accredited by FSC. The council only sets the standard and does not participate in forestry audits or assessments. Plantation or forest operators directly contract with FSC-accredited certification agencies such as SGS and Bureau Veritas for certification.

Simon Counsell, director of Rainforest Foundation UK, which was one of the founding members of FSC but now runs a campaign to reform FSC, says: “There are a number of major structural flaws in the FSC system.” He says that FSC does not have much control over its accredited certification bodies and that they compete with each other to get contracts. “All of them know that the way to get more business is to have a track record of being lenient and perhaps turning a blind eye when they find problems and keep issuing certifications.”

In 2002, the Rainforest Foundation published a 159-page report, Trading in Credibility, analysing the performance of FSC in 2002 and made several recommendations for changes. Counsell says that none of the recommendations has been implemented by FSC.

He recommends that FSC should directly contract with certification-seeking forest operators and then assign the job to one of its accredited certification bodies rather than allowing a direct relationship. He says that FSC should also retain powers to cancel certificates if it finds they are in non-compliance with its standards.

The Rainforest Alliance’s Richard Donovan doubts, however, if a change in the relationship will have any significant impact on the quality of audits. “FSC already has the most rigorous accreditation process,” he says.

The large number of plantations around the world seeking FSC certification is a big logistics challenge whether or not FSC tries to enter into direct contracts with clients. Donovan says FSC needs to develop a system to identify low-risk auditors and high-risk auditors based on their track record. He also says that new auditors should not be allowed to operate beyond their core region until they clearly demonstrate the capacity to undertake inspections over a larger area.

Counsell points to the significant role given to the timber industry in FSC. Timber industry members enjoy one-third of the voting rights in FSC and hold one-third of governing board seats. The head of Orsa Florestal, a major Brazilian forest operator, is currently FSC’s chairman.

“People question whether it is right for an organisation that is supposed to be setting and implementing standards for the timber industry to have the industry itself in there and influencing what those standards are and how they will be implemented,” Counsell says.

Broader church

Donovan argues that bringing in the timber industry has resulted in wider acceptance of FSC standards. He points out that the two-thirds of the votes are in the hands of non-profit members that can prevail over timber industry representatives.

And, in spite of the criticism, Counsell agrees that there is no better alternative to FSC at the moment. “That is why NGOs have worked hard both within and outside the organisation to try to reform it and improve it,” he says.

There are many other industry-driven certification schemes such as the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification, CSA International, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, the Malaysian Timber Certification Council, the Australian Forestry Standard, OLB and Keurhout. But the website – www.whyfsc.com – promoted by business groups that advocate using FSC certification notes that independent research, including work by societal interest groups and scientists, has shown that there is reason to doubt the reliability of other schemes.

So FSC needs to deal effectively with the growing criticism, and that may mean making changes in the way it conducts its business in order to stay credible.

Donovan agrees that it is time for certain changes in the FSC system. The Rainforest Alliance has made several recommendations that FSC is considering. One of these is to identify “high visibility operations” run by large companies that have historically had bad reputations with NGOs. The Rainforest Alliance wants FSC to have a different policy on how to handle certification requests from these companies.

Given the wider acceptance of FSC label, an increasing number of large plantation and forestry companies are approaching for FSC certification, Donovan says. As some of them have a controversial background, he suggests a system in which FSC’s certification body can issue a certificate only when a technical panel appointed by FSC reviews the evidence and approves the certification.

Currently, under FSC criteria forests converted into plantations after 1994 do not qualify for certification. But Donovan says FSC should review this policy in order to deal with the reality that a large number of conversions have taken place since the mid-1990s. He says FSC and stakeholders should acknowledge the challenge and develop a new tool to deal with such plantations. “If someone did convert after 1994, it’s not that they cannot be certified; but what they have to do in order to get certified.”

Other recommendations made by the Rainforest Alliance include introducing a set of common interim standards for all certification bodies, requiring all certification bodies to promptly make public all information related with assessments, strengthening the stakeholder engagement process, making the accreditation process more stringent and improving the oversight of certification bodies.

And FSC has announced some changes. In September 2009, it published new accreditation standards saying it will raise the quality of the certification process. It also revised standards that apply to group certifications, usually small community forestry groups coming together through one entity to seek certification to reduce costs.

Apart from the need to make its certification system and accreditation process more stringent, FSC faces a complex challenge of stopping NGOs leaving its fold. Equally important is to work with dissenting environmental and social groups and resolve more sensitive issues of ancient forests and large-scale plantations. Frequent media reports of NGOs withdrawing support or campaigning against those who use FSC certified products can erode customer confidence in the FSC label.

Counsell says: “The entire value of FSC rests on its credibility. It has to be perceived to be working and people have to believe the promise that it offers. The scheme will lose its value if NGO support continues to diminish.”

Campaigners and activists on the other hand should be more willing for a constructive dialogue to save the scheme, as there are no alternatives. Killing FSC will not do any good to the cause of forest preservation and protecting the rights of local communities. FSC is too big to be allowed to fail.

FSC at a glance

• 116m hectares of forest and plantation area certified worldwide
• 81 countries covered
• 940 forest management certificates issued
• 47% of total certified area is in Europe, 35% in North America, 3.5% in Africa and 2.1% in Asia
• Estimated value of FSC labelled sales: $20bn

Source: Forest Stewardship Council

FSC’s principles for forest stewardship

• Tenure and use rights and responsibilities.
• Indigenous people’s rights
• Community relations and workers’ rights.
• Multiple benefits from the forest
• Assessment of environmental impact.
• Management planning.
• Monitoring and assessment of management impact.
• Maintenance of high conservation value forests
• Responsible management of plantations.

Source: Forest Stewardship Council