1. If we were inventing FSC today, knowing what we now know, what would it look like? - Or what do we want FSC to look like in 5 years?

Summary 1, oct. 7-9, 2002; thread 1
Summary 3, oct. 10-16, 2002; thread 1
Summary 6, oct. 17-27, 2002; thread1
Summary 7, oct. 20/27- nov. 1, 2002; all threads

By Hannah Scrase

FSC has over the past ten years grown beyond expectation. When we discussed the first ideas, certified the first operations and started on the first standards, nobody really dared to imagine that in less than ten years FSC would grow into such a global network. And more - FSC has changed the global forestry debate as well as put tangible social, environmental and economic benefits on the ground. FSC, its members, its national initiatives, its supporters, its partners and its many clients have all reason to be proud of what they have created.

But is that really enough? Have we really contributed to achieving our mission? Are we still contributing to our mission? Is this contribution effective? What lessons can we learn from the past? What was our recipe for success and what were the mistakes? Where have we failed and what do we need to achieve in the future?

The current model of FSC as an international accreditation and standardization body based on a direct membership organization was developed almost ten years ago when forest certification was a new concept and when there were no other organizations to learn from. It's time FSC took a fresh look at whether the model we have is the best one to deliver our mission and promote social and environmental benefits and economic viability.

In the past ten years we have changed as much as the world around us. Forest certification is no longer an idealist concept but is operating on the ground globally. There are other forest certification schemes trying, in their own ways, to follow in FSC's footsteps. FSC itself has grown far beyond our expectations and not always in the ways we expected.

The role of FSC National Initiatives has become increasingly important but their critical role is not reflected at all levels in FSC. Members and certification bodies still relate directly to the international FSC all too often bypassing national initiatives - for example in policy development and complaints management. We need and appreciate national initiatives for bringing together stakeholders, facilitating dialogue, seeking consensus and often taking the heat. But do we really draw on their extensive experience and give them voice and vote, when it comes to tough decisions?

Other models have since been developed in other sectors such as the Marine Stewardship Council for fisheries and now under development a "Climate Stewardship Council" and a "Herb and Spice Stewardship Council" as well as the proliferation of other forest certification schemes. All these have used the experience of FSC, learned from our mistakes as well as from our strengths to design their organizations. FSC, however, is still operating under our original basic model. While FSC has gone through many developments and improvements, we haven't taken enough advantage of our own wealth of experience. We should not live in the past simply because that's how it was always done, but seek better ways of doing things which will help us achieve our mission more effectively. There are aspects of FSC which we believe are the best and we must keep them, but FSC and the world around us have changed and we must make sure we are always learning and always leading in our field.

As our membership grows it becomes increasingly difficult to manage centrally. Reaching quorum for ballots and holding General Assemblies present an ever increasing challenge in terms of effort and cost to FSC. One suggestion for the future is to move toward a model where FSC becomes a federation of its national initiatives. In such a model the members of FSC would relate directly to the national initiative of FSC, and the National Initiatives would be the members of FSC. The members in each country would elect delegates to represent them at the international level and General Assemblies would be of the National Initiative delegates.

FSC´s work to date has been largely donor funded but this cannot be expected to continue forever and is already insufficient to enable FSC to fully implement the programs that our members rightly demand. Other ways of paying for FSC's services and programs will have to be found.

Some stakeholders question the nature of the relationship between FSC, the certification bodies and the certified operations. Some consider that there needs to be a less direct financial relationship between the certifiers and their clients. Others believe that the basic model should stay the same but that FSC should license its accreditation rather than carry it out directly, so that FSC can make use of the existing accreditation capacities in many countries. Suggestions for alternatives include:

• FSC becoming a broker between the certifiers and their clients whereby companies apply to and pay FSC for certification and FSC appoints the certification body and pays them.

• FSC becomes the certifier itself, contracts auditors directly and takes the certification decisions itself.

• FSC operates a franchise system instead of an accreditation system and certifiers become FSC franchise holders.

• Another model suggests that FSC licenses its accreditation to national accreditation bodies which use FSC accreditation standards to monitor certification bodies.

The FSC model seems to work reasonably well in many developed countries but has been less successful in many developing countries. (See Question 2 in this email conference) There may be aspects of the FSC model which could be better adapted to work in developing countries.

Questions have been raised over the years about the chamber structure of FSC. It seems to work well in many ways but also has problems and is challenged in many countries where stakeholders want to have four, five or even more chambers.

Finally it is clear to those who have been involved in FSC over the years that it is difficult to make decisions in a relevant timeframe or to deal with problems quickly as they arise. There may be changes we could make which would help to address this.

These are a few of the ideas I find myself discussing with FSC members and observers on a regular basis. They are neither all my own views nor FSC's position, but they certainly deserve serious consideration. I have put these ideas together to start this discussion but don't feel constrained by them.

You don't need to respond in detail to each issue above. Concentrate on the ones that interest you. Try not to be tied down by what we have now, instead try to think about how you would design FSC now if it didn't exist. After all we are not here to protect an institution, but to implement our mission. And think boldly!

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