Summary 1, oct. 7-9: Themes and opinions from the e-conference debate

number of participants: 3

Thread 1: If we were reinventing FSC today knowing what we know, what would it look like? OR, what do we want FSC to look like in 5 years time?

1. Comments on FSC's mission, particularly in relation to the South:

We cannot expect to achieve sound forest management worldwide within just one decade or even two decades, it will take much longer. To promote forest management in the North would take several decades, but in the South it will take many generations. This process requires changes not only in the marketplace, but also in the minds of many other stakeholders like politicians and landowners. During the last ten years FSC has demonstrated that its mission is correctly focused. Forest certification is a new concept that is driving forest management around the world, but it still has a long way to go. After ten years FSC's achievements can largely be seen in the North, where there are many certified areas and companies, and many certification bodies. FSC needs to achieve the same level of success in the South before changing or expanding its focus.

FSC has lost complete touch with what it set out to do. That was to use certification as a tool in the hardwood arena, not just softwoods. While we all agree that FSC has gained a vast area of certified standing timber, most of it has come from well-managed areas where FSC has not faced any major problems. The hardwood issue is a harder nut to crack and has been put on the back-burner. At the end of the day FSC was set up to cover the whole timber industry.

It's unfair to say FSC has lost touch with its mission. However, certification has been very slow in natural tropical forests. If it were to be started today, FSC might look at where the least responsible forest management occurred and target efforts accordingly. But it is well known that deforestation, illegal logging and weak governance are the biggest problems in the tropics and are major barriers to certification. A new FSC would have to be a radically different animal if it were expected to directly tackle these kinds of forest exploitation. Could FSC address such issues and also promote responsible forest management through certification?

2. Changes are needed for FSC to become more effective:

A newly formed FSC might wish to introduce institutional support for tropical forests producers, in order to facilitate improved management, perhaps including a "stepwise" approach to certification. The success of such measures would ultimately depend on the pull from markets for environmentally friendly products. At present, these markets are severely limited to a small number of countries and industry sectors. With hindsight would FSC have put more resources into stimulating markets? It is a standard coda of business to check demand for a product before going ahead with production. A well-funded FSC should be more proactive and lobby at all levels to stimulate demand for FSC certified products. The alternative is to rely on Environmental NGO's who, despite continuing and valuable support for FSC, have their own agendas and whose interest may wane.

In order for FSC to move on it MUST work in the commercial world and act like a commercial organisation. If you look at other NGO's they all work in the business arena as a business. The FSC model works, but FSC must be a little more open and work with other organisations so that all parties become linked and stronger. FSC must ensure that the chain of custody is complete from start to finish, i.e. the shop floor. FSC should also look at a standard chain of custody, like the one being considered by the wood panel industry, as this meets all areas from forest floor to shop floor. FSC must work harder to reach the mainstream PR e.g. through TV. FSC MUST change and must change NOW if it is to exist in five years time.

3. Funding is key:

Relatively speaking FSC is run on a shoestring budget e.g. ITTO is run on roughly ten times FSC's annual budget. There is a need for a radical rethink in the way FSC is, or can be, financed. One way of approaching this is to look at the benefits of certification both globally and locally and to whom they accrue. Licensing the FSC label is a good idea since it focuses on the retailers, who can arguably be said to be gaining most in market terms. However, there are also national, international and global benefits from responsible forest management and the wider beneficiaries such as governments, EU, and the World Bank might be persuaded to directly support FSC (as well as other certification schemes if they wished).

If the major retailers selling FSC product really want to show their support why not offer say 0.10p to FSC on every FSC item sold? Consumers will pay for the knowledge that an item came from a certified source. We only need look at the organic industry for proof of that. FSC should look at other services they can "add on", like carbon certificate trading, whereby FSC could pick up a commission on trade. FSC must think big for the next five years, not only to remain the best but to gain a bigger market share of the money available from outside sources as well as value added services.

4. The role of National Initiatives and the formation of a federation:

National initiatives have a critical role to play and, were they to be sufficiently financially supported, could provide the kind of devolved or federal structure advocated. The importance of a change in the structure of FSC in this way is that such an organisation should be more acceptable to those in the forest industry and elsewhere who currently do not recognise the mandate and independence of the FSC to set forestry standards.

FSC faces many challenges in the coming decades which will require a strong FSC presence and hard work around the world. This must be done through supporting and strengthening the national initiatives and developing certification bodies in the South. The idea of organising those national initiatives into a federation seems good. Historically federations have proved to create stability.

The FSC objectives conference is funded by DFID-FRP (UK) projectnr ZF0185, and facilitated by Treemail (NL)
For more information please contact: info@fscobjectives.org