The Australian Forestry Standard (AFS): another PEFC in disguise?

May 2001

By Tim Cadman MA (Representative, Native Forest Network Southern Hemisphere, spokesperson on certification for the National Forest Summit)

 

Abstract

There are structural, process, market and content problems associated with the current process for the AFS. They fall into two categories:

Non-sectoral structural weaknesses:

·        independent, third party certification of agreed performance standards; 

·        product claims and market credibility.

 

Issues of particular concern to environmental stakeholders (ENGOs) include:

 

·        Intent of the AFS

·        Management prescriptions

·        Consensus building and

·        Pace and timing.

 

Openness and Transparency

 

Social, environmental and economic elements need to be combined to deliver sustainable forest management.  The current structure of the AFS is discriminatory against multi-stakeholder participation. The Steering Committee is completely comprised of government and commercial interests.

 

The current structure has restricted the access of some stakeholders to decision-making processes. Other stakeholders have a larger degree of influence over the process than other sectors and have already determined the parameters of the Standard without wider consultation.

 

Stakeholder participation is a key component of the standards setting process.

 

In order to obtain meaningful accreditation by Standards Australia, the structure of the Steering Committee needs to include all key stakeholders. The same can be said of the Technical Reference Committee. All interests need to be represented and balanced to ensure no one interest ­ or group of convergent interests - predominates.

 

Independence

 

For a certification standard to enjoy market support, it must be clearly independent of government and free from dominance by any one interest group. Furthermore, the operational aspects of such a standard need to be monitored and audited by a third party.

 

The AFS has been developed to date by Government, in collaboration with industry associations. This challenges the assumption that the process is independent and representative of all sectoral interests. It could be legitimately argued that industry associations have been the principle contributors to the Standard to date, particularly in its formative stages.

 

The general thrust of the Standard to date has been to build on the forest management protocols and processes outlined by Montreal and Australia’s various Regional Forest Agreements, along with the development of management systems via the ISO "14000" series. It is uncertain if these processes will provide for independent monitoring and auditing of the standard. The use of forest practices boards, or similar bodies, who are linked to forest management agencies and industry is not sufficient. Furthermore, a management-systems approach to operational issues does not necessarily guarantee that agreed on ground performance of management has been attained on the FMU.

 

The AFS requires provisions for allowing independent certification agencies to audit compliance against the standard with the Standard, and to work with all stakeholders when auditing reported breaches.

 

Product Claims and Market Credibility

 

If significant stakeholders are absent from key components of the standards setting process, it is not possible to claim that the Standard has been developed in collaboration with all stakeholders. Excluded parties are within their rights to inform the market that the Standard does not enjoy cross-sectoral confidence. The very purpose of the standard will therefore have been undermined.

 

On a number of occasions materials generated by the AFS (or participants in the AFS process) have claimed that the Standard has been developed in conservation interests.

 

The AFS should avoid all such claims until they can be substantiated. Otherwise, a false and misleading impression is created in the market. This will further undermine confidence if and when the final Standard is. Until all relevant stakeholders are meaningfully included in decision-making processes this claim cannot be made on any materials.

 

Intent of the Australian Forestry Standard

 

On the information that has been made available it is difficult for ENGOs to make an informed assessment as to the intent of the Standard. Clearly, the international market is demanding verifiable standards for management that enjoy the support of the community. This is the main reason for the current market predominance of the Forest Stewardship Council and the current lack of consumer confidence in such schemes as Pan European Forest Certification. A credible certification system is required that goes beyond superficial improvements and integrates the needs of stakeholders other than forest managers and owners.

 

ENGOs therefore seek a clear indication from the AFS as to its intent. Is it:

·        A certification standard that will deliver a recogniseable label guaranteeing products that have been sourced from well-managed operations supported by all stakeholders? Or

 

·        A Government/industry initiative that meets the requirements of government policy and has been developed on behalf of industry?

 

Management Prescriptions

 

ENGOs are deeply concerned that the AFS will deliver a Standard that is based on existing practices and policies. Clearly, the desire to develop an AFS is a recognition that the market requires more than the current status quo, or there would be no need for an Australia Forestry Standard. Therefore, to promote the current regime as a new standard is deceptive.

 

Of particular concern is the possibility that any existing forestry operations could continue under the Standard. Forest conversion to plantations, logging of old growth, clearfelling, loss of threatened species habitat and chemical use are just some of the elements of existing management practices that ENGOs feel must be examined and negotiated by stakeholders. Clearly ENGOs could not support a standard that refused to examine such issues.

 

Consensus Building

 

ENGOs welcome the desire of forest owners, managers and government to develop an AFS. The Steering Committee is likely to be aware that ENGOs themselves are in the process of exploring the value of national forestry standard and at this stage the environmental requirements for certifying plantations in particular.

 

There is considerable scope to move forward with certification in Australia through these two parallel initiatives. The most logical step would be to combine the two processes, basing discussions around areas of commonality and working cooperatively on those.

 

At this stage ENGOs are primarily concerned with working cooperatively with the plantations sector to develop a national certification standard. It is possible that this process may lead to further engagement with the forestry sector, in particular as its relates to private forest management, where there is a need to improve standards. This in turn could lead to the development of consensus surrounding public native forest management.

 

Therefore, ENGOs would like to see the AFS address the development of a standard for plantation management as a first step in building confidence amongst all stakeholders. Further discussions relating to other sources of wood products could ensue depending on the degree of mutual trust generated via this initial standards setting process.

 

Pace and Timing

 

ENGOs are concerned that the development of the Standard may be being driven by political, rather than stakeholder considerations. They are of the opinion that a process that delivers outcomes ­ albeit over a longer timeframe ­ is better than one that collapses due to external pressures for a quick delivery. Furthermore, the quality of such a Standard would be inferior to one that is produced in the fullness of time.

 

ENGOs would therefore like to see the current timeframe of provision of a draft standard revised, in favour of a multi-stakeholder process that delivers a mutually acceptable outcome.

 

Links

 

"The Development of an Australian Forestry Standard: An Environmental NGO Perspective" (Preliminary Submission to The Ministerial Council Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture), please go to:

http://www.nfn.org.au/sfm/dafs.html

"Hearing The Message And Recognising The Signals:
The Engo Perspective On Forest Product Certification",

http://www.nfn.org.au/sfm/engo.html

 

Annex 1:

 

National Forest Summit Statements on Independent, Third Party Forest Product Certification

 

Australian Conservation Groups' Position Statement On Independent Certification Endorsed By The National Forest Summit, May 5-7, 2000

 

In 1999, the Federal Minister for Forestry in Australia, Wilson Tuckey,travelled to Europe and the United States to promote a new forest certification program which would operate under government control and without any non-government organisation (NGO)input. It is a concerted attempt to undermine non-government schemes, in particular the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), which is currently the world's most universally recognised independent certification system.

 

The FSC was founded in Toronto, Canada, in 1993. Its objective is to promote improved environmental, social and economic management of forests worldwide. The FSC established an independent label based on clearly agreed and measurable environmental standards via ten internationally binding Principles and Criteria (1).

 

While the FSC is not without its failings in some areas, it is nevertheless the most significant independent certification scheme in the world (2). It has now certified 18 million hectares of forest worldwide and is supported by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth (FoE), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the World Bank.

 

Internationally, many conservation organisations support the FSC because of its contribution to improving environmental standards. In addition, FSC principles demand that all stakeholders, including conservation NGOs and Indigenous/Aboriginal people, determine what forests should be protected and not compromised, and how forests should be managed. The FSC has endorsed national contact persons and national working groups in 16 countries creating a global FSC network including Brazil, Germany, the US and the UK. A growing number of consumers of timber are changing their buying habits and have switched to FSC certified timber.

 

Amongst others, British Railtrack has decided to cancel a 100-year contract (worth over $4 million a year) and agreed not to buy any West Australian timber because it doesnt carry an FSC label. Despite intense pressure from the timber industry, British Railtrack is standing firm because it believes an FSC label carries greater environmental credibility than government or industry assurances about the ecological sustainability of current logging.

 

Globally, the logging industry is greatly concerned at the environmental gains that have been achieved as a result of the FSCs entrance into the international market and growing demand for certified wood. To meet these industry concerns, the Australian government is playing a key role in trying to convince other countries that governments know best, whilst overlooking the communitys concerns. Consequently, Government and industry are promoting their own business as usual approach and ignoring the concerns of other stakeholders. We oppose this push to present the Regional Forest Agreements which underpin clearfelling and woodchipping of native forests as worlds best practice.

 

As there is no independent certification scheme in Australia, conservation groups have decided to develop a common position regarding independent certification, and to develop a nationally consistent set of management principles. Until this process has been completed, the National Forest Summit warns all buyers groups, retailers and consumers not to accept the environmental claims made by any certification schemes that have not been endorsed by the National Forest Summit (3).

 

17th NATIONAL FOREST SUMMIT COMMUNIQUE

 

The 17th National Forest Summit, representing environment groups from all forested States, met in Canberra 3-5th November 2000...

 

Subsequent to its May 2000 statement regarding independent third party forest product certification, the National Forest Summit has agreed to develop a national standard for plantation certification.

 

This follows from the Summits previous statements opposing the clearing of native forests and woodlands for plantation establishment and supporting the maximum commercially feasible use of existing plantations - under ESD principles - to take the pressure off native forests.

The Summit is now developing ecologically sustainable guidelines for the establishment and management of plantations and is considering the circumstances under which certification would be appropriate.

 

This approach to developing a broad-based community process will stand in stark contrast to the Federal Governments industry-driven Australian Forestry Standard, which is being developed behind closed doors and excludes conservation and other community stakeholders. ...

 

18th NATIONAL FOREST SUMMIT COMMUNIQUE

 

Over 100 representatives from more than 35 environmental groups working on

forests met in Hepburn Springs April 27-29th.

 

The Australian Forestry Standard was rejected by Summit participants as

a government process designed to deliver business as usual to the forest

destructive industries.

 

The National Forest Summit calls on the Australian Forestry Standard

Technical Reference Committee to acknowledge the requirements of ENGO

stakeholders by proceeding with the development of a national standard for

plantation certification. It should drop the impractical "one size fits all"

approach of incorporating native forest logging and plantation forestry,

which is both impractical and unworkable.

 

Following up on its previous commitment to develop a standard for

independent, third party certification of plantation management in

Australia, the NFS has agreed to investigate participating in a Forest

Stewardship Council -type process for plantation and agroforest

certification.

 

Proposed In Principle Framework Agreement On Plantation Certification

Endorsed By The National Forest Summt.

 

26/4/2001

 

The NFS agrees in principle to investigate an FSC-type certification process

for plantations and agroforests;

 

The NFS agrees to develop a co-ordinating committee which will form

technical working groups to assist its participation in the certification

process.

 

The working groups will:

 

* Develop this document with the intention of sending it out for peer

review.

* Develop an agreed definition of terms.

* Develop guidelines for a consultative process which enables an effective

and representative ENGO sectoral participation within an FSC-type National

Initiative format.

 

 The agreed goals, hopes and expectations of the process are to:

 

* Improve the environmental, social and economic performance of industrial

producers and plantation owners/managers;

* Encourage development of the farm forestry sector;

* Explore a process to further differentiate "environmentally preferred"

products in the marketplace;

* Incorporate principles of management planning to ecological restoration

and ecological sustainability across the landscape to address environmental

degradation (eg salinity);

* Reduce the pressures on native forests by supporting the goals of the

National Forest Summit namely: ending woodchipping of native forests and

protecting high conservation value forests whilst supporting the maximum

commercially feasible use of existing plantations - under ESD principles;

* End clearing of native vegetation;

* Foster increased levels of community participation in landscape mapping

and planning, with all stakeholders able to participate on an equitable

basis;

* Ensure plantation management contributes to the social, cultural and

long-term economic wellbeing of the community, especially local and

Indigenous communities and in particular traditional owners;

* Operate under the principles of the Earth Charter [See

http://www.earthcharter.org  ];

* To have open access to all relevant information and data, including from

Government agencies.

 

Endorsed by:

 

West Australian Forest Alliance, Leuwin Conservation Group, Conservation Council of Western Australia, Conservation Council of South Australia, Environment Victoria, Wombat Forest Society, Friends of the Earth, Australian Conservation Foundation, Native Forest Network, The Wilderness Society, Nature Conservation Council of NSW, North Coast Environment Council, Tasmanian Conservation Trust, Tasmanian Cleanwater Network, Otway Ranges Environment Network, Forest Action Network, Queensland Conservation Council, Forest Farmers' Association of Queensland, ENGO Forest Certification Core Group New Zealand, Pick Apene and Cherry Tree

Environment Centre, Greens Victoria, Cobaw and Wombat Forest Action Group,

Enfield Forest Alliance, Forest Rescue, South West Environmental Action

Group, Concerned Residents of East Gippsland, Rusden Environmnetal Network,

Doctors for Native Forest, BORAL Green Shareholders, Students and

Sustainability, North East Forest Alliance, Goongerah Environment Centre,

Lawyers for the Forest, Victorian National Parks Association, Gondwana

Steering Committee, West Victorian Forest Protection Network, Japan Tropical

Forest Action Network, Tarkine National Forest Coalition