***********************************************
FOREST CONSERVATION NEWS TODAY
Don't Buy It: Forest Stewardship Council's Green Timber Labels 'Flawed'
***********************************************
Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org, Inc.
http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Portal
http://www.EnvironmentalSustainability.info/ -- Eco-Portal
http://www.ClimateArk.org/ -- Climate Change Portal
November 20, 2002
OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Forests.org
The credibility of the Forest Stewardship Council's green timber
labels continues to justifiably be questioned. A new report entitled
"Trading in Credibility, The myth and reality of the Forest
Stewardship Council" by the Rainforest Foundation-UK claims that
consumers are being misled by FSC's green labels, which supposedly
guarantee timber has come from environmentally-friendly sources. It
finds that "green" certificates are "being given to companies
responsible for illegal logging and human rights abuses in countries
including Brazil and Indonesia." The report found that FSC has "for
years been knowingly misleading the public in the UK and across the
globe." The full report can be found at:
http://www.rainforestfoundationuk.org/FSC/RFA4REPORTfull.pdf .
A compelling case is made that there are serious flaws in
certifications being carried out in FSC's name, and as a result
consumers are not ensured that wood product carrying FSC's logo comes
from a well-managed forest. The report makes an important
contribution to illustrating several fundamental deficiencies of
"green" certification of industrial forestry. Commercially
harvesting timbers from the World's much diminished and last primary
forests is not environmentally sound. The FSC approach "is
discriminatory against community-based forestry". FSC certification
legitimizes commercial management of the World's remaining large
forest expanses by multi-nationals at the expense of both local
communities and the global family of humankind. The World's last
large primary forests are ecologically, evolutionarily, socially,
spiritually and economically priceless. In my opinion, WWF,
Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network and others that endorse FSC
logging while professing their goal is to conserve forest
biodiversity and ecosystems are guilty of muddled thinking, are
trying to have it both ways, and are undermining efforts sufficient
to truly protect ancient primary forests and local livelihoods.
One Greenpeace campaigner condescendingly explained to me that
"certification is only one of many tactics to protect primary
forests". But forests that are being logged at a commercial scale
are not protected. Primary and old-growth forests that are
industrially logged - certified or otherwise - are dramatically
ecologically and genetically simplified and diminished. Use of
certification as a tactic implicitly legitimizes ecologically and
socially disastrous industrial logging. FSC certification practices,
as they now stand, undermine efforts by the forest conservation
movement to end such practices in the World's remaining ancient
forests, and strictly protect and place under local community eco-
forestry management all remaining large areas of contiguous and
intact forest ecosystems.
The World is way past the point where remaining ecosystems are
functionally, structurally and compositionally adequate to support
global ecological sustainability - both the full-range of
biodiversity and ecological processes. A sustainable and equitable
future for humankind requires a "green" forest conservation
certification that lives up to the label - and stresses quality over
quantity. Environmentally friendly timbers come from certifiably
well managed regenerating and planted forests, and by appropriately
scaled community eco-forestry in primary and old-growth forests - not
from commercial desecration of the World's last bits of ancient
primary forests. Fully functional forest landscapes are sustained
through properly scaled human activities relative to the resource
base. Somewhere along the line the idea of "sustainable forestry"
was co-opted (big surprise, huh?).
Those that question the conventional wisdom that massively logging
primary forests by multi-national companies for over-consumption by
the rich is the best we can do in terms of forest conservation and
community development are marginalized, mocked and/or ignored. The
case has not been made that logging of primary forests is
environmentally acceptable, indeed desirable. The ecologically rich
vision of a range of small and medium scale eco-forestry management
activities being practiced by local peoples for their own betterment,
in conjunction with strict protection of large areas of adjacent
primary forests, has largely been lost. We now find ourselves in the
situation where we are told that buying timbers from ancient forests
that have been stolen from local peoples is an environmental good.
FSC certified forest products and their environmental apologists - do
not buy them.
g.b.
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
ITEM #1
Title: Green timber labels 'flawed'
Concern has been raised about environmental claims
Source: Copyright 2002 BBC
Date: November 20, 2002
A group campaigning to protect the world's rainforests claims
consumers are being misled by "green" labels suggesting timber has
come from environmentally-friendly sources. But the criticisms have
been rejected by the body which regulates the system.
And the claims have been denied by other leading environmental
groups.
The Forest Stewardship Council has put its logo on wooden furniture
and timber for the past eight years as a guarantee they have been
produced in a way which does not add to the destruction of forests or
exploitation of local people.
It can now been seen on products sold by most major British DIY
chains.
Serious concern
But the Rainforest Foundation, begun by the pop star Sting, has
produced a report alleging the system of checking these claims is
seriously flawed.
It says it has resulted in certificates being given to companies
responsible for illegal logging and human rights abuses in countries
including Brazil and Indonesia.
The council itself says the allegations are out-of-date and says it
does everything possible to verify its claims.
It has been backed by the Worldwide Fund for Nature which says it is
the only credible system available.
It says it will continue to press the council to keep the highest
possible standards.
ITEM #2
Title: Leading 'ethical audit' system - Forest Stewardship Council -
is misleading the public
Source: Press Release, Rainforest Foundation
Date: November 20, 2002
PRESS RELEASE
CONTACT: Simon Counsell, Director, Rainforest Foundation
Office tel: +44 (020) 7251 6345
Home tel: +44 (020) 7354 1014
Mobile: (0)7941 899579
Email: simonc@rainforestuk.com
A report published today (20 November) by environment and human
rights experts claims that one of the world's best known and trusted
environmental and social audit schemes has for years been knowingly
misleading the public in the UK and across the globe.
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) was set up in 1993 and is
endorsed by global conservation organisations including the World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), as well as the timber industry. It audits
timber companies worldwide and claims to certify that wood and paper
is produced in an environmentally and socially acceptable way.
Products labelled with the FSC's "seal of approval" are sold by major
UK retailers, including B&Q and Homebase.
However, the report, the result of two years research by independent
international experts, working with environment & human rights
charity Rainforest Foundation, highlights serious flaws in FSC's
certification system. In particular the FSC's authorised auditors
have a vested commercial interest in certifying timber companies
regardless of whether or not they actually comply with the FSC's
strict requirements. The FSC has been unwilling or unable to actually
control these auditors.
It is claimed that, as a result, timber companies "certified" under
the FSC system include those that:
* Have been implicated in gross abuses of human rights, including the
torturing and shooting of local people;
* Are logging in pristine tropical rainforest containing some of the
world's most endangered wildlife species, such as the Sumatran tiger;
* Have falsely claimed to comply with the FSC's audit requirements,
such as by allowing "uncertified" wood to be labelled with the FSC
"seal of approval".
The report includes the results of detailed investigations of the
FSC's activities in Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia and
Thailand.
The report, to be presented to the FSC at its General Assembly in
Mexico on 22 November, shows that fundamental reforms are urgently
required if the FSC is to re-establish credibility and reassure the
public. Most importantly, the report proposes that the FSC must
eliminate conflicts of interest in the audit process, and cancel the
contracts with all its authorised auditors.
Simon Counsell, Director, Rainforest Foundation UK, said:
"We are among several independent organisations that have been
informing the FSC for a number of years that there have been serious
failings in its forest audit system. The report was given to the
FSC in September, but there has been no response to it. Conservation
groups such as the World Wide Fund for Nature should consider whether
they wish to continue being associated with an organisation that it
is clearly misleading the public".
-ends-
Executive Summary of Report follows this Release
NOTES:
The report has been written and edited by Simon Counsell and Kim
Terje Loraas of the Rainforest Foundation. Authors of local detailed
investigations include Dr Anna Fanzeres and Dr Klemens Laschefski.
The Rainforest Foundation, with offices in the UK, US, Norway and
Japan, supports indigenous people and traditional populations of the
World's rainforests in their efforts to protect their environment and
fulfil their rights. This is done both by providing financial and
technical assistance to projects that assist forest people directly,
and by campaigning in the UK, Europe, USA and elsewhere.
To date, the Foundation has assisted thousands of indigenous people
to gain acknowledgement of their rights and an improved quality of
life. The Foundation worldwide currently supports more than 30
projects in 15 tropical countries.
For a full copy of the Report, please contact Simon Counsell (details
below)
Further information and interviews:
Simon Counsell, Director, Rainforest Foundation
Office tel: +44 (020) 7251 6345
Home tel: +44 (020) 7354 1014
Mobile: (0)7941 899579
Email: simonc@rainforestuk.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"TRADING IN CREDIBILITY:
The myth and reality of the Forest Stewardship Council"
A report by the Rainforest Foundation, November 20th
Executive Summary, Including Main Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Introduction
The Forest Stewardship Council has come to be seen as one of the most
important initiatives to promote the conservation and better
management of the world's forests. It aims to do this by setting
standards for the independent auditing of forestry operations and
companies, and allowing its logo to be used as a "seal of approval"
on wood and paper products that come from certified forests. The
public is led to believe that products labelled with the FSC logo are
from "environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial and
economically viable" sources.
However, the report "Trading in Credibility" documents serious flaws
in certifications being carried out in FSC's name, to the extent that
the public cannot be assured that a wood or paper product carrying
FSC's logo actually comes from a well-managed forest. Such flaws are
found to be linked to certain structural weaknesses in the FSC
system, to specific political decisions within the organization and
to a lack of effective control mechanisms. The report presents a
compelling case that urgent and fundamental reform is essential if
FSC is to survive as a credible mechanism for the certification of
forestry operations.
2. Outline of report
The report consists of a critical analysis of the effectiveness of
the FSC. It contains the following mains sections:
* A brief review of the history of certification;
* A consideration of the main objectives of the FSC;
* An analysis of the main interests involved in the FSC, as
well as issues of democracy and accountability of the organisation;
* Nine case studies illustrating some of the problematic issues
raised in the preceding sections.
Each of the main sections and a number of the case studies include
specific conclusions. The report presents recommendations in response
to the problems identified, with the aim of restoring FSC's
credibility and ensuring that the FSC logo is only found on products
that have been produced in socially benign and environmentally
acceptable ways.
3. Summary of findings and main recommendations
The report documents serious flaws in certifications being carried
out in FSC's name, to the extent that the public cannot be assured
that a wood product carrying FSC's logo comes from a well-managed
forest. Such flaws have been found to be linked to certain structural
weaknesses in the FSC system, to specific political decisions within
the organization and to the lack of effective control mechanisms. The
issues listed below have been identified as some of the key elements
undermining FSC's performance as a credible certification system. The
issues described below synthesise the key conclusions drawn in each
of the generic sections of the report, as well as those found in the
case studies. For each of the issues, a set of general
recommendations is presented.
Issue 1
Inherent weaknesses exist in the operational model of the FSC, where
certification bodies (which compete for clients in the market)
function as intermediaries between FSC and forest managers, with whom
they have direct economic relations. These flaws have been allowed to
develop in the absence of properly functioning disciplinary and
control mechanisms.
Specifically;
Vested corporate interest in ensuring successful outcomes to
certification assessments has resulted in certifiers granting
certificates to forest managers who are clearly in serious breach
both of the FSC Principles and Criteria (P&C) and the certifiers' own
assessment requirements. Similarly, certifiers have a vested
interest in granting Chains of Custody certificates, regardless of
whether they can genuinely be guaranteed to be integral and reliable.
As a consequence, consumers of FSC labelled products have been misled
about the quality of management of the product's forest of origin.
The interpretation of the FSC P&C by different certifiers has
resulted in assessment systems that in some cases do not fully
incorporate the P&C, and are inconsistent. This has also resulted in
the granting of certificates to forest managers not in compliance
with the P&C. The FSC logo on products therefore has variable
"content", depending on which certifier carried out the assessment,
and is misleading to consumers.
In practice, the FSC has been unable to develop disciplinary
procedures to ensure proper certifier compliance with the FSC's
requirements, let alone exercise the necessary sanctions. Without
such sanctions, the FSC is unable to function effectively as an
accreditation body.
Recommendations:
The organisational model of accreditation of "independent"
certifiers to implement the FSC P&C should be abandoned. Forest
managers seeking certification should do so directly through the FSC
International Secretariat. The Secretariat should appoint assessors,
who would be approved by the National Working Group in the country
concerned. Assessments would only be conducted according to National
or Regional standards agreed by a properly constituted National
Working Group. Certification decisions would be made by the FSC
Secretariat on the basis of the recommendations provided by the
assessors. FSC would recruit and directly employ specialist Chain of
Custody assessors to undertake CoC certification assessments.
Certification fees would be paid directly to the FSC. Certification
assessments should not be undertaken in countries lacking a properly
constituted National Working Group or National/Regional standards.
Periodic (annual) evaluation of the Secretariat's certification
decisions (using an appropriate sample) should be conducted by
independent evaluators, commissioned by, and reporting directly to,
the FSC Board of Directors.
Issue 2:
FSC's "fast growth" strategy has promoted certification of non-
compliant forest managers, undermined multi-stakeholder processes,
and disregarded the policy context in targeted countries.
Specifically;
Fast growth has been pursued without consideration of the potential
availability of truly certifiable forests. In some countries, the
national policy framework appears to be fundamentally incompatible
with the FSC's P&C. This has also encouraged the granting of
certificates to forest managers not in compliance with the P&C.
Civil society in many targeted countries is not able to participate
as an equal stakeholder at the national or local level, either
because of political restrictions or lack of capacity.
The fast growth strategy has encouraged the making of policy
decisions, such as the adoption of a weak percentage-based labelled
policy, and the pursuit of inappropriate Mutual Recognition
agreements, which have served to expand FSC's market share, but
seriously threaten its credibility.
There is a case to suggest that a fast growth approach is
discriminatory against community-based forestry.
FSC anyway cannot win the "game of quantities" against other
certification schemes, wherein each certification scheme seeks to
attain the largest market share. Because FSC aims to be a rigorous,
multi-stakeholder process based on assessment of performance, it is
quantitatively at a major competitive disadvantage compared to other
schemes. FSC's advantage can only be on quality.
Recommendations
The "fast growth" strategy should be formally abandoned. A revised
organisational strategy should be developed, based upon a thorough
review of FSC's mission and "activities". Specific organisational
objectives should be defined, based upon a wide consultation with all
stakeholders, ensuring that proper mechanisms are established to
allow for the full participation of weakly resourced stakeholders.
A systematic assessment should be conducted of the potential for
expansion of FSC in major timber producing countries, taking into
account not only the physical constraints (forestry management
practices) and policy conditions, but also the possibility for
meaningful and equitable participation of civil society, including
marginalised stakeholders.
FSC's relationship with major "drivers" of demand for FSC products -
especially the Trade Networks- should be reviewed. The targets
established for, and demand created by, these networks should be
clearly related to the assessment proposed above.
The Percentage Based Claims policy should be abandoned. The FSC label
should not be permitted for use on products containing non-recycled
wood from non-assessed sources.
The FSC General Assembly motion of 1999 concerning Mutual Recognition
agreements should be fully complied with.
Issue 3
The absence of defined "major failings" in the P&C is seriously
problematic, and also results in consumers being misled about the
"guarantee" provided by FSC.
Specifically;
The absence of agreed definitions of "major failings" allows for the
making of essentially arbitrary certification decisions. This results
in major inconsistencies in the "content" of the FSC label, allows
for the certification of "non-compliant" forest managers, and
misleads consumers.
The use of "certification conditionalities" for non-compliance with
FSC's P&C, instead of immediate failure against defined "thresholds",
is tending to weaken FSC's basis of performance-based assessment, in
favour of a continuous improvement approach to certification.
Recommendations:
Through a thorough consultation with environmental and social
stakeholders, definition and guidance on "major failings" should be
incorporated directly into the P&C, at the level of each individual
criterion and principle.
As has already been recognised by FSC (but not yet fully
implemented), all National and Regional Standards should also
incorporate clear definitions of "major failings" at under each
principle.
Issue 4:
FSC's Chain of Custody system is seriously flawed, and allows for
easy abuse. This also potentially results in consumers being misled
by the FSC's label.
Specifically;
The incompleteness of the Chain of Custody (not requiring
certification of wholesalers and retailers) allows scope for entry of
non-certified products into the certified trade chain.
Similarly, 'non-exclusive' Chains of Custody are, in practice, often
unenforceable due to the high costs of monitoring non-certified links
in the chain.
There is, in effect, very little or no opportunity for the public to
independently verify certified Chains of Custody.
Recommendations
The requirement for Chain of Custody certification should be extended
to all parts of the trade chain, from forest to retailer.
The FSC should establish credible procedures for monitoring legality
of non-certified wood back through the entire trade chain, especially
all non-certified forest sources and non-certified primary
manufacturers.
The FSC should immediately abolish the Non-exclusive Chain of Custody
certification option in trade chains that have been found to either
falsely label uncertified but legal wood as certified, launder
illegal wood into the legal chain, or falsely label illegal wood as
certified.
Systems should be developed to allow public access to information
about all links in certified Chains of Custody.
Issue 5:
The FSC functions poorly as a democratic membership-based
organisation, and its claim to be based firmly upon multiple
stakeholder principles is at least partially unjustified.
Specifically;
Key stakeholders are effectively excluded from many FSC processes.
This problem is manifest at the international, national and local
levels, as has recently been recognised in the draft Social Strategy.
Whilst the draft Social Strategy contains much of value, the
underlying reasons for the lack of social stakeholder participation
go beyond the issues addressed in the strategy. The challenge of
improving the participation of "social stakeholders" must firstly be
addressed through the reforms proposed above.
Whilst legitimate forest stakeholders, such as local communities and
indigenous people, remain marginalised in FSC's decision-making
processes, the influence of other stakeholders - such as
certification bodies and their commercial clients - has grown. This
has distorted FSC's priorities, and is undermining its credibility.
The FSC's complaints procedures concerning certifiers and their
certifications are essentially non-functioning. They are cumbersome
and onerous, discriminatory against weaker stakeholders, and biased
in favour of the certifiers and their commercial clients. There is
therefore no effective means of redress for many stakeholders in the
event of dispute.
There has been a serious lack of transparency or "democracy of
Knowledge". Key FSC processes have been undertaken without proper
information being available to the membership and the wider public.
This has undermined accountability of the organisation to its
membership.
Recommendations:
The draft social strategy should be modified so as to take account of
the conclusions and reforms detailed herein. A policy and working
culture of "presumption of disclosure" of information should be
established, whereby access would only be restricted to sensitive
commercial information. This should embrace information about
certifications, policy decision-making processes, complaints,
monitoring, and dealings between the FSC and external agencies.
The complaints procedures should be streamlined and made more
accessible to marginalised stakeholders.
Clear policies should be developed on the relationship between the
FSC and potential major sources of "informal influence", including
major commercial clients and donor agencies.
###RELAYED TEXT ENDS###
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving forest conservation informational materials
for educational, personal and non-commercial use only. Recipients
should seek permission from the source to reprint this PHOTOCOPY.
All efforts are made to provide accurate, timely pieces, though
ultimate responsibility for verifying all information rests with the
reader. For additional forest conservation news & information please
see the Forest Conservation Portal at URL= http://forests.org/
Networked by Forests.org, Inc., gbarry@forests.org