by Saskia Ozinga

What I hope to convey is that I, and I expect other environmental NGOs, can understand why European forest owners and part of the forestry industry have decided to set up their own certification scheme. I can personally sympathise with that approach and even with some of the content of the scheme. Nonetheless I think it is a pity that forest owners did not feel able to work within the framework of the FSC, as that would have been better, for the forests, for the forest people, for the consumer and possibly for the FSC as well.

It was clear from the beginning, reading several press releases by forest owners’ organisations, that forest owners felt hostile towards the FSC. They felt FSC did not meet their needs for several reasons of which the two most important were 1) FSC was not suitable for small forest owners 2) FSC was totally led by NGOs.

However, I believe there was a strong psychological element involved: forest owners were unprepared, as they had not been involved in the international discussions on certification, and felt confronted with a process over which they felt they had no influence and which could affect them deeply. It might be true to say that FSC, and particularly the FSC supporters in Europe, could and probably should have done more to actively engage forest owners in the certification processes from the start.

The private forest owners’ initial response to the ‘certification debate’ was ‘certification of European forests is not necessary, as all European forests are already managed sustainably’. Although an understandable response, that claim is definitely not true as is proven again and again by the EU’s European Environmental Agency (EEA) among others. (See Box below.) In several countries forest owners or their associations, brought so-called ‘labels of origin’ on the market. In short: the total response was very similar to that of the governments and the timber industry of Malaysia and Indonesia a few years earlier. No environmental NGOs can accept these sorts of claims.

Box

Some comments on the state of forests in Europe

The total area of ‘forests’ is increasing. Extensive forest management continues to be replaced by more intensive and uniform management. The use of exotic species is still increasing. The severe loss of old natural and semi-natural woodlands has continued…The concept of sustainable forest management is beginning to be introduced in forest use and management but general effects on biodiversity have yet to be seen. (European Environmental Agency - EEA)

More than one third of the bird species in Europe are in decline. This is mainly caused by damage to their habitats by land-use changes, particularly through intensification of agriculture and forestry. (EEA)

Despite the large area of forest cover, only around 1% of the forest area in Western Europe is old growth forest. Natural forests are under greater threat here than almost anywhere else in the world. (European Environmental Almanac, IIEP London)

Nearly all original European riverine forest has been destroyed. (EEA)

The interaction between forestry and society in general should be strengthened by raising awareness of the concept of sustainable forest management (SFM) and the role of forests and forestry in sustainable development…particularly organisations of forest owners should be encouraged in their development and capacity to reinforce SFM practices and to facilitate inter alia production and marketing of products and services, including new and hitherto non-marketed forest products and services (General declaration of the Third Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe)

End box

I therefore think it is a step forward that European forest owners are now truly thinking about certification and continue to develop a certification system, i.e the PEFC. However, I do feel it would have been better if, rather than setting up a new system, they would have joined the FSC. Although it might not be perceived as such, the FSC has proven to be a relatively flexible and open system and can and has been influenced according to its member’s needs. There are at least four clear examples of this:

At the founding assembly NGOs were given 2/3 of all votes. Due to complaints by industry, among others, there is now an equal division of votes between the social, the economic and environmental chamber.

 

On requests of small businesses and forest owners the FSC has set up a scheme for group certification.

 

The FSC’s Principles and Criteria have been changed, particularly the two principles about logging in primary forests #9 and plantations #10.

 

4) FSC is in a continuing process to deal with ‘percentage based labelling’, an issue which is particularly important for Northern NGOs and Northern industry.

At the launch of the PEFC scheme, the relevant PEFC documents did not sufficiently deal with issues such as certification criteria; audit and certification procedures; chain of custody and product labelling. Particularly the certification criteria and the chain of custody elements were lacking. Reading the latest documents available the system still comes across as vague, although improvements have been made. Virtually all environmental NGOs who attend the annual Forest Movement Europe meeting (FME) feel they cannot support the PEFC system. There are many reasons for this, which I will elaborate on below.

There are no overall performance based certification criteria developed for the PEFC scheme. The PEFC document refers to the six Pan-European Criteria and related indicators, developed by the Governmental Pan-European Process. Their selection by the PEFC is remarkable because these criteria as well as the indicators, have no relation to certification and are in many cases not even relevant for sustainable forest management. These criteria were purely developed for Governments to assess their national forest policies and to be able to follow up commitments made at UNCED (UN Conference on Environment and Development) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and during the IPF (Intergovernmental Panel on Forests) process. The Pan European Operational Level Guidelines, developed by the same Pan European Process are more suitable, - although not developed for certification either - as they do provide much more of a basis for a certification scheme. Nonetheless they are not binding for the PEFC scheme and are only being used as a reference. Even if they were binding they should be improved to fully contribute to better forest management by:

1) Ensuring that no logging of old-growth forests in Europe will take place;

2) Putting more emphasis on restoration of all forest types which have nearly disappeared; and

3) Ensuring that all customary rights of Indigenous Peoples (Saami) are fully respected.

With the overall criteria so vague, it is not surprising that existing national standards vary greatly and respective criteria and indicators fall short in several areas. Therefore the PEFC as such gives no guarantee that it will indeed lead to improvement of forest management. Indeed logging in the last remaining old growth forests in Scandinavia is still continuing on PEFC certified land and the same forest owners associations who have been taking Saami people to court -thereby threatening the Saami culture- are involved in the creation of the PEFC scheme in Sweden.

It should however be noted that national PEFC standards are improving and in some cases come very close to national FSC standards, although the wording is often less precise and leaves room for different interpretations.

NGOs have always argued that certification should take place at the Forest Management Unit level, or in Group Certification Schemes. The PEFC is to a large extent based on regional certification. Regional or national certification would never be acceptable to NGOs as it would not give the necessary information to consumers. This is particularly the case with the PEFC scheme as in the last year more than 23 million ha of forests were certified, without sufficient control being carried out.

Most people would agree that a system for setting safety standards for cars would not have much credibility if the safety criteria were solely set up and decided upon by the car manufacturers. However, that is exactly what the current PEFC documents state in terms of development of the criteria for sustainable forest management. I think most people would agree this is not a desirable situation. The point is not that the PEFC does not invite other stakeholders to their meetings, but rather that it does not allow these stakeholders to have an equal say in any decision making procedure, such as the setting of standards or the running of the organisation. This brings me to the next point.

It is clear from the statutes that the PEFC is a membership organisation. However the only members with voting rights are the national governing bodies. National governing bodies will be set up by forest owners associations who can (but are not obliged to!) invite national organisations representing (but not with equal representation!) all relevant interested parties. The higher the annual cutting rates the more votes - to a maximum of three - the national governing bodies have in the General Assembly. This all makes clear that the PEFC is an organisation by and for forest owners.

A chain of custody has recently been developed. Although an essential element of the scheme, the wording in the chain of custody document is unnecessarily vague at different points. For example, the system includes the requirements for a company buying raw material or products ‘to ensure that the supplier has a valid forest management certificate or a valid chain of custody certificate or the origin of wood can be reliably verified otherwise’.

More worrying is the fact that the PEFC does not have a clear description of a control mechanism to check whether the forest manager continues to act in line with the certification criteria. With large areas certified under the PEFC system this is a serious concern.

European NGOs welcome the increasing openness of forest owners and forest owners’ associations towards forest certification. However forest owners are encouraged to start a dialogue with FSC on how FSC can better meet their needs. There will not be much support from European NGOs for the PEFC at this moment since:

1) The PEFC has not yet demonstrated how it will ensure meaningful improvement of forest management in Europe, as there are no overall performance-based criteria formulated in the scheme. The six Pan European Criteria do not provide a basis; this is made clear by the fact that existing standards vary greatly.

2) The scheme is run by and for forest owners and needs structural changes to ensure that equal input of other sectors will be taken on board. Decisions made at UNCED to fully include all stakeholders in decision-making processes related to forests should be adhered to.

3) There is as yet no effective control mechanism in place to ensure that certified timber does come from well-managed forests.

4) The scheme only addresses European forests.

Despite these shortcomings, the PEFC has dramatically improved in several countries, specifically where some of the national standards are concerned. This development should be encouraged, as it will lead to better forest management, but only if a proper control mechanism is put in place. However, arguably, the largest impact of certification is that it provides a platform for all stakeholders to discuss all aspects of forests and forest management in an open, transparent and equal manner. The PEFC does currently not provide such a platform. It is my personal opinion that it would be extremely valuable if the forest owners opened up their scheme to allow full and equal participation of all economic, social and environmental stakeholders. The European forests, which are still in a bad state, need it.

Saskia Ozinga is the director of Fern and co-ordinator of the Forest Movement Europe. Fern is an NGO working towards changes in EU activities in order to achieve the conservation and sustainable management of forests; respect for the rights of forest peoples and greater transparency of EC aid to tropical forests. The Forest Movement Europe is an annual gathering of forest NGOs from most European member states. It includes national offices of international NGOs such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF as well as many national NGOs, such as Robin Wood and Finnish Nature League. FME participants work closely with other NGO networks including Taiga Rescue Network and the World Rainforest Movement. Saskia can be contact at 1c Fosseway Business Park, Stratford Road, Moreton-in-Marsh GL56 9NQ, UK(Fax: ++44 1608 652878, Email: saskia@gn.apc.org)