Summary 6, oct. 17-27: Themes and opinions from the e-conference debate

number of participants: 6

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. Work towards our common goal and move forward with mutual recognition?

Conflicts between the different certification schemes have probably hampered quicker expansion. The existing certification schemes should better work together, while keeping their identity, to help develop certification systems in other parts of the world rather than compare their respective credibility and look for increasing market share. If the objective of certification is sustainable forest management, FSC and the other certification schemes should join their efforts, agree of framework conditions for mutual recognition and share their experience with southern countries. This would result in a win-win-win-win situation; beneficial for forests, forest owners/managers, forest-based industries and consumers. No need to re-invent FSC. Just look together with the other credible certification schemes in the same direction: the expansion of sustainable forest management.

I disagree. Mutual recognition was first created in order for other, less credible certification schemes to be seen as equivalent to FSC. To borrow from FSC's public acceptance and to confuse the buying public by saying that really, they are all the same anyway, when in fact, they are not the same at all. In the end, they are all trying to co-opt the language of true sustainable forest certification and pretend it is all the same thing.

Is FSC's target to survive and beat other schemes? There has been a lot of neurotic energy put into worrying about other schemes in the past few years.

2. Ensure all FSC members are committed to FSC's aims and principles:

It was a calculated risk for FSC to fully engage the industry that it was seeking to change. Not only would FSC encourage these companies to pursue certification, it would grant them member status, voting privileges, and allow them to enter into negotiations over the very standards they would have to meet. This "full engagement" with large industry has brought with it many benefits; additional expertise and resources, and overall "buy-in" to the program. Through the involvement of prominent industrial players, the international profile of the organization has been lifted and links to retailers facilitated. However, it has come at a cost. Along with those practicing low-impact forestry, FSC has attracted companies most desperately in need of improving their environmental image. The "industrial forestry" component of FSC is often at odds with the goals of the rest of the organization. From FSC policy development, to accreditation of certifiers, to regional standards development, this element has often impeded progress. I am in favour of continuing to fully engage the industry we seek the change. But it is time to reaffirm that first and foremost, members must be committed to the organization's principles and criteria.

3. Urgently develop tangible Goals and Objectives for the next three years:

I wonder whether the group involved in this discussion couldn't challenge themselves to write a mission statement, goals and objectives for FSC for the next three years. Goals and objectives must be measurable and should avoid statements like 'help the world's poor' or 'deliver services effectively'. How can we know if we have achieved this? One objective could be 50 new FSC certificates, half in community managed, natural tropical forests by Dec 2005. Once we have an objective like that, we can work out a series of activities to achieve it. Just saying 'help the south' doesn't help you allocate scarce financial and personnel resources. 'Get more staff' isn't helpful either - why get more staff? It only becomes helpful if the call comes after a strategic think through of what the organisation is trying to achieve, and you know you need more staff and what skills they should have. Once we have measurable objectives, then making decisions about things like strategic alliances make sense and fit into a context of what the organisation is trying to achieve. In the context of the above objective, does it make sense to spend a lot of time developing strategic alliances with the Marine Stewardship Council? I'd suggest not, it should have a lower priority than say, forming an alliance with donor X active in country Y where there are large areas of natural forest and an interest in getting them certified. Once you know this, you can get more money too, because you will be much more focused on why you are asking for it, and who you can ask to give it.

4. Do what you are supposed to do, but do it better:

FSC, please keep your eye on the ball, don't diversify. Do what you're supposed to do, but do it better; do it professionally and don't spend the next ten years trying to work out how, please just get on with it. Make radical changes to the way the organisation is run (along the lines of Hannah Scrase's re-election platform) and do it soon. If you don't you will not survive and then we all really will have something to complain about.

5. Could FSC lose out to a more dynamic scheme?

Let's say that FSC remains the same. If in 1-2 years time there is another certification scheme available that has the same processes and offers the same certification as FSC, but also offers other services that; help rural forest owners to get certified without a mass of paperwork; helps them get their products sold and adds value; provides other add-on services like carbon note trading; understands the commercial problems facing large and small producers; covers the global market (no north/south divide); provides support by linking to certified shippers.
With the above in mind do you think that:

1. FSC certification and membership will remain the same;
2. FSC certification and membership will increase;
3. FSC certification and membership will decrease;
4. FSC will not be required due to the existence of a truly global certification provider.

A change is needed, and we need to move on.

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