Summary 4, oct. 16-20: Themes and opinions from the e-conference debate

number of participants: 10

Thread 3: Is FSC too narrow in its approach?

1. FSC must diversify:

FSC must keep evolving and offer services that meet the needs of the companies currently using FSC and the new companies wanting a certified product. Things like carbon certificates could be part of the remit for FSC and a good add-on as it is a global issue which wins votes. With recycled products the FSC would be wise to build a partnership with another organisation and have a new FSC logo to promote this. In the role I have, I am trying to look years ahead and understand what it going to affect us 5-7 years down the line. I do not think of FSC as a certification body I think of it as an add-on item which helps our company sell its products, so the more FSC has online the easier it is for me to plan ahead. Could it be that FSC are short of funds because they do not offer added value products and services to the commercial world on a global platform? Carbon note trading is happening now, so why not utilise this and gain funds through its transactions?

Certification of downstream processing and life-cycle analysis seem to be the next logical step in diversifying FSC's certification mission. Many companies are in favour of using recycled materials and it is important that the origin of the recycled material introduced is established for percentage-based certification. And this, together with downstream processing could become an integral part of the life-cycle analysis certification process.

FSC is clearly associated with forest management, but there is an emergence of the "stewardship" model of natural resource management. FSC should be involved in the development of a "Global Stewardship Council" that concerns itself with the management of a range of resources (e.g. minerals, marine and terrestrial animals, water etc.) These need to codified and harmonised, and the inclusive structure of the FSC General Assembly and "chamber" system, along with universal principles of participation, need to be developed.

If certification is to make sense in the developing world, FSC must position itself to deal with the larger issue of poverty alleviation through sustainable forest management.

FSC's current focus on standards, accreditation and certification targets a very narrow segment of the world's forest-dependent industries - probably less than 20%. The other 80% is outside FSC's range of significant influence. How do we extend FSC's reach to touch that 80% and bring them along a path toward more responsible management?

2. FSC must concentrate on its core mission:

One can often spot a failing enterprise by a tendency to diversify away from its core business. This happens when problems with the core business seem insurmountable and a decision is made to "re-invent" the business. To achieve the strategic goal of transforming from a catalyst to a successful global enterprise FSC must focus on its core business of forest certification. It is enough to do this and do it well. At this point FSC is losing momentum on many fronts, and while it seems to deliver on its mission in one place, in another it lacks traction. The FSC brand needs to be in the hands of consumers in every key region of the world, providing them with the confidence that the forest from which the product originated is well managed. Accomplishing this is an enormous undertaking. But this is what FSC set out to do. FSC must remain focused on the core business of forest certification and avoid distractions.

As a forester working to get forests FSC certified, it terrifies me to hear people talking about FSC getting involved in poverty alleviation schemes, carbon sequestration, all sort of other things rather than its core function - setting the standards for good forest management and managing the process by which forests are assessed. Such comments assume that the organisation is doing its current job so well that it is time to broaden the scope. I would argue that this really isn't the case. Lets get FSC working better at delivering the things it was set up to do before we fly off wondering what else we might be able to do. There is a lot of need out there that needs addressing, more than enough to occupy the current FSC for the next 20 years.

FSC should remain focused on its present goal and establish the Principles of Forest Stewardship. FSC should really concentrate on these and not lose its focus as we see that a lot still has to be done in Southern countries. Here even the most basic principles are still far from being known by most of the people or the people near the forest.

If FSC starts diversifying into more lucrative fields it may lose its focus.

I do not agree that a good way to add value is through diversification, or to bolt on environmental services to FSC certification. FSC does not have the capacity to carry out its present mission effectively. Why dilute things further by trying to be all things to all people? I am against FSC being associated with carbon trading. It is not responsible forest management to encourage fast-growing, largely exotic tree species to produce carbon credits for recalcitrant carbon-producing companies to carry on 'business as usual'. The inclusion of environmental services such as watershed management and biodiversity conservation should be contemplated only in so far as this helps to promote the FSC brand and the value of certification to producers. FSC forest and chain of custody certification should remain the focus. Add value by creating demand and then licensing use of the label.

3. FSC can't be all things to all people, partnerships are needed:

FSC should spend most of its energy (re) focusing on its core business of forest certification. This core business is a huge task and most agree that current FSC efforts need to be redoubled as a larger impact from FSC certification is sorely needed. However, I feel that it's crucial that FSC devote some energy to establishing key partnerships with organisation that can work on establishing building blocks or enabling conditions necessary for certification to really blossom in developing countries. These enabling conditions include better forest governance (including forest surveillance), improved forest management rights and responsibilities for local communities, and testing and implementing best-practice silvicultural systems in natural forests. It is clear to many, that if these enabling conditions are not in place, the FSC mission will not be realised on a large scale in these countries.

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