Summary 7, oct. 20/27-nov. 1: Themes and opinions from the e-conference debate

number of participants: 6

Final contributions to all three e-conference threads

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. FSC's relationship with the certifiers:

I don't think FSC should have in-house certifiers. This would make supervision (i.e. auditing) of the certifier difficult. Certifier competition is fierce in some regions. In general I think this is healthy, but for it to remain healthy FSC must remain diligent. FSC certifiers must operate at a generally consistent level or there will be inappropriate competition, i.e. cheaper certification and a cheap end product (a poor certification).

FSC charges certifiers on two ways: FSC audits of each certifier, and an annual accreditation fee. Neither is cheap. Certifiers with pre-existing global certification systems (i.e. they certify multiple products already, in multiple systems) don't find FSC costs too high. Certifiers who don't have that international structure, or are building it, find FSC costs high, in some cases very high. [Could this be a barrier to new certifiers in developing countries?]

2. FSC's inclusive approach is a good thing:

FSC has sought to engage all forest managers of all scales, and all the affected stakeholders. The FSC umbrella is big, and that can make it unwieldy. But the large FSC umbrella has given us the opportunity to affect large numbers of businesses and large forest areas. At the global level, this can be overwhelming. It all starts to make better sense through regional and national efforts. We must continue to engage all scales and types of operations.

3. The membership chambers need to work together:

FSC certification aims to regulate specific economic activities namely the exploitation of woodlands. It follows that the prime focus of FSC is the economic activity of forest exploitation. FSC is not a social development organisation supporting forest-dependent communities, nor is it an environmental campaigning organisation. In order to have sufficient input from environmental and social interests in the decision-making process about economic activities (forestry operations), the 3-chamber structure was devised. Although the system has benefits it also has shown a number of weak spots. One of these is the tendency of the chambers to be too inward-looking and too self-absorbed with the issues concerning themselves. This tendency has the potential of splitting FSC into opposing factions fighting their own narrow interests, rather than a forum for different interest groups to present their arguments and to find a common practical solution. It is time for each of the 3 chambers to reformulate not only their own role in the overall FSC organisation, but also indicate how they see the roles of the other chambers and what they expect of them.

Thread 2: How can FSC really start to deliver on its mission in the South?

1. Can community forestry help FSC move forward in the South?

Currently illegal logging and unsustainable forest management dominate the southern region. However they are not long-term solutions to poverty, unlike community forestry. If community forestry was introduced alongside certification the whole community could benefit. FSC could initiate a programme and then put all the monies back into the region, for say, the first five years. Such a programme could be included in projects run or coordinated by organisations such as the UK Government's Department for International Development (DFID), the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), focussing on good forest governance.

Well said, but could this be viewed as "adding value" or "services" to FSC so that it can gain more of a market hold in the South? Again FSC must look at rural issues to promote FSC and good forestry, and aim at getting FSC certification there first.

Community forestry implies that the land is owned by local people. You will find the trouble with the south is that the land has been acquired by multi-national corporations. This has been aided and abetted by governments who have placed legislative impediments in the way of continued local ownership and control of land, and selectively subsidised the large corporations.

Thread 3: Is FSC too narrow in its approach?

1. Good certification takes time:

Because the [FSC] certification programme is intransigent and because it takes time to fulfil the ten principles there hasn't been a surfeit of FSC rubber-stamped certification. The FSC scheme is performance related and follow-up auditing very comprehensive. Time will show that people embrace FSC's standards and are prepared to pay the price for good stewardship of natural resources.

2. Be cautious about diversifying:

Scope expansion is both an opportunity and a danger. This takes careful strategic management. At some future point FSC could consider carbon certification. Right now there are other, higher priorities.

3. Expand on what you currently have - introduce modular certification:

FSC should consider a focus on modular verification, particularly for developing countries. A legal and chain of custody module (principles 1, 2 and 8, or at least the chain of custody part of it), a social module (principles 3 & 4) etc. A modular approach would allow forest managers in developing countries to "get in the FSC door", demonstrate commitment etc.

4. What game are we playing?

To say that we must not change and just look at the core business is unrealistic. Its all well and good saying we must keep our eye on the ball, but before that we must make sure we understand what game we are playing. To move ahead FSC must look at the bigger picture; remove the North/South divide, and look at the global issues relating to environmental and client needs.

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