The limits of forest certification

By Saskia Ozinga. Published by Fern 24.11.00

Introduction

Forest certification is a market initiative using consumer power to influence company behaviour. With meaningful standards, an open and transparent process to set standards, sufficient supply of timber from certified forests and a sufficient demand for such timber -even if the price is slightly higher- certification can play an important role in improving forest management.

Today there are some 60 million ha of certified forests in the world, 17 million of which have been certified under the FSC system. More than 19 million ha are certified with systems recognise by the PEFC. The rest has been certified under several national systems including the CSA in Canada, the SF1 of the USA and the Indonesian LEI. Forest certification has therefore clearly taken off. With the Dutch Parliament adopting a law to make labelling of timber products mandatory, and the UK Government announcing that all its departments will actively source timber and timber products from sustainable and legal sources, certification goes beyond being a purely market driven initiative and enters the Governmental arena.

With all the energy of all stakeholders going into developing certification schemes it is important to look at the potential impact of certification on forests and forest peoples, its risks and its limits.

Potential of forest certification

Certification based on the FSC scheme has had a clearly positive impact in countries such as the UK and Sweden. In the UK there has been a greater species diversity in new plantings, more restoration of plantations on ancient woodland sites, more use of alternatives to clearcutting and more security of public access. In Sweden the Sami, Sweden’s indigenous peoples, have acquired the user rights of FSC certified forests to allow their reindeer grazing in winter. In Brazil, certification of a concession arguably has prevented it from being clearcut for other land use. Nonetheless the FSC has only been in operation for a relatively short period and forests in countries with enormously varying circumstances have been certified. It is therefore impossible to give a general idea on the impact of FSC certification. The same is even more true for other certification schemes. More research into the long term impacts of forest certification is therefore clearly needed.

Arguably one of the most important results of FSC certification is that it has provided traditionally marginalised groups the possibilities to put forward their case. Because of the FSC’s structure in which social, environmental and economic stakeholders all have an equal say, the FSC has provided a platform for discussion on all aspects of forestry, including the social aspect. This participatory process of consultation with multiple stakeholders groups has provided a new dimension in the perspective of SFM and is a result of FSC certification quite often overlooked.

The other side of the coin, however, is that the political reality needs to be such that highly political sensitive issues, such as land rights, can be discussed. For example, indigenous peoples from Sarawak, Malaysia were recently forced to withdraw from the national timber certification scheme in Malaysia because measures were not contemplated to ensure a recognition of their rights in the establishment of forest

reserves. In Cameroon and Canada the economic and political power of forestry companies is such that opposition to their wishes is difficult and sometimes dangerous. In these sort of circumstances the development of national certification standards with an equal participation of all sectors is very difficult or even impossible.

Another positive aspect of certification is that is has increased the information flow among others by disclosing summaries of certification reports. Furthermore requirements for documentation within the FSC scheme could arguably improve or strengthen company practices towards sustainable forest management and improve forest management of smaller forest owners.

Certification could play an important role in curbing trade in illegal logs. Illegal logging is one of the most serious threats to forests in South and North, with 70% of logging in Indonesia being estimated as illegal, 80% of logging in the Amazon province and 20 to 40% of timber coming from Russia being untraceable. If all companies required a certificate for the timber bought this could bring a serious blow to the illegal timber trade. The promise made by the UK government -as described above- to address this issue should be followed by others.

The risks of forest certification

Despite obvious successes there are also concerns. The success of the FSC, strongly supported by environmental NGOs, has created a demand for certified products that cannot always be fulfilled quickly, despite the demand from some businesses. Other players in the certification debate, such as The WB-WWF Alliance, have fuelled this debate by setting high certification targets without specifying a certification scheme. These developments have lead to the creation of several other national and regional certification schemes, most of which have not as high standards as the FSC and do not have a standard setting process involving all stakeholders. Moreover, some of these schemes should be treated as purely ‘greenwashing’ the current timber flow. As many of these schemes are projected to deliver high quantities of certified timber on the market there is a danger that this will lead to confusion among consumers, possible harmonisation of different schemes leading to the adoption of the lowest common denominator and driving down standards. All of these developments would seriously undermine the certification process.

Within the concept of this paper it is particularly relevant to look at the impact of certification processes on forest peoples and local communities. Although there are some positive impacts, as in the case of the Sami, the overall picture is more gloomy. When the FSC was created, there were hopes that it would favour community based forest management initiatives run by forest owners and forest peoples on their own land. However the high overheads of managing forests to certifiable standards and the demand from large companies for big quantities favour economies of scale. Some small scale operations do not have the skills or can not afford the technical inputs required to develop and implement well documented forest management systems. Although costs have not found to be daunting by small forest owners in Western Europe -if they use the group certification scheme provided- costs might be daunting for some Southern producers. The combination of these obstacles has meant that less than 10% of FSC certified forests are community managed. Concerns have been expressed that FSCcertification may actually be squeezing local communities out of the market-place as it fails to compete with large-scale certified forests, more in demand by big industry. FSC is seriously addressing this issue, by its group certification scheme, its annual conference and support for small forest owners.

More worrying is the proliferation of competing certification schemes with much lower standards than the FSC, often with no equal participation of all stakeholders and sometimes set up and run by the forestry industry. The fact that big players as the World Bank has avoided unequivocally which certification process it plans to support in the realisation of its target, sharpens this concern.

The limits of certification

There are also clear limits to the reach of certification as an instrument. As certification is about sharing power and negotiating a common position between different stakeholders, it means that decisions are made slowly and will not be revolutionary. Certification is therefore no quick and easy solution to the forest crisis. With about 40 soccer fields of tropical forests disappearing every minute and forests in the North often being converted to plantations and seriously undermined by air pollution, forest fires and droughts, it is not exaggeration to state that there is a forest crisis.

Forest certification can help to improve the standards of forest management in North and South, but only if proper standards are being developed and adhered to, which go far beyond what is legally required. Certification cannot contribute to save Europe’s forests from fires, pests, droughts and air pollution, nor can it really contribute to saving forests from being logged for other landuses such as oilpalm (main cause of deforestation in Indonesia), mining an large infrastructural projects such as roads (cited as one of the main underlying causes of forest loss).

By providing a platform for discussion on land rights, the political reality permitting, certification can potentially contribute to one of the largest causes of forest loss:

inequitable land distribution and lack of access to forest land, even although it can by no means solve this problem. Certification can contribute to curbing illegal logging, but many more measures are needed. Furthermore certification can work best in an environment where companies are legally forced to implement good long term forest management. This is unfortunately not the case in many countries around the globe. Experiences in Africa, WWF Belgium states that it is therefore of utmost importance that these elements be put in place first, as it is a mistake to expect that certification will be able to resolve all of these problems.

Although it is limited in its reach, as are all instruments, certification can contribute to halting the forest crisis, as long as the right standards are being adhered to and proper processes, giving equal weight to all stakeholder groups, are being followed. Forestry is a political activity. Forest certification is and should be about sharing power.