| |
Contributions from
the Column
Tribune
Patronage vs. popularity
“An internationally binding frame of reference”
A decade of private policy making
12/2004
|
|
[ Ecology ]
A decade of private policy making
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is considered a successful model for policy-making. Environmentalists, business people and trade unions jointly determine rules for sustainable forest management. However, only one fifth of the forest area managed in accordance with the FSC rules is in Africa, Asia or Latin America. After the rapid growth of the FSC in the last ten years, problems are looming in the future.
[ By Philipp Pattberg ]
The Forest Stewardship Council is a complex institution. It acts as an intermediary between industry (forest owners, distribution channels and the wood-processing companies), internationally active environmental organisations, local trade unions and human rights’ activists. Together they determine standards for sustainable forest management. Only forests, which comply with these standards, are given FSC certification. In turn, only products from their timber may carry the reputable logo of the FSC. The significance of the FSC depends, among other things, on the involvement of influential NGOs (such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club or the German section of Friends of the Earth), important companies (Homedepot, IKEA, OBI and Habitat) as well as of local pressure groups and trade unions.
Experts are interested in the FSC for two reasons. Firstly, it embodies the trend to the privatisation of global regulative mechanisms, which is seen also in the work of the International Organization for Standardization or the Marine Stewardship Council. Secondly, it serves as a model for conflicting interests achieving compromise in a cooperative decision-making structure.
The FSC-criteria unite stakeholders in 74 countries. These include developing countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Namibia and Uganda and emerging economies as Malaysia and Brazil. The FSC has an impact on the living conditions of countless people who live in forests or who otherwise depend on them. In Germany alone, 266 companies have a so-called “chain of custody” certificate tracking timber from the forest through to the finished product to ensure it is sourced from a certified forest. Politicians too have embraced the FSC: the 2002 coalition agreement of Germany’s red-green government states that public forests must be certified under the FSC criteria in future.
The FSC was founded in 1992. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio that year had failed to come up with binding rules for the protection and sustainable use of forests. The diplomats reached only a minimal consensus under the revealing heading “Non Legally-Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of all Types of Forests.” However, at the time, influential environmental organisations, particularly in the USA and Britain, were increasing pressure on retail chains and DIY stores. The sale of garden furniture, flooring and timber suddenly became a politically sensitive issue. In this context, the formation of the FSC offered something for everyone. It was able to create sensible social and environmental standards, which would help wood producing and processing companies keep out of the firing line.
The “Principles and Criteria” agreed after the FSC’s founding meeting in Toronto in 1993 form the basis of the FSC’s work. They define which practices are considered socially beneficial, environmentally appropriate and economically viable. The principles require, for example, compliance with all applicable national laws and international treaties and agreements (including the provisions of the Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, the International Tropical Timber Agreement, and the Convention on Biological Diversity), the recognition and respect of the rights of indigenous peoples to own, use and manage their lands, and the conservation of biological diversity and other non-monetary values. During the ten years it has existed, the FSC has also developed detailed rules for sustainable forestry.
In October 2004, approximately 47 million hectares of forest area worldwide were certified in FSC-terms. This amounts to roughly four times Germany’s forest area. The thirteen certification organisations accredited by the FSC have issued more than 4000 certificates to forestry companies and businesses. Conservative estimates are that 100 million cubic meters of timber from FSC-certified sources reach the market each year. This equals a world market share of more than 5%. The FSC believes it will be possible to increase the amount to 140 million hectares by 2010.
But despite these figures there is also cause for scepticism. The trend thus far might not continue uninterrupted because the forest areas, which were certified first, were not controversial. Problematic areas, especially in tropical rain forests and in temperate virgin forest are only slowly coming to the fore. Moreover, currently 63% of the certified area is in Europe and 17% is in North America. Africa, Asia, the Pacific and Latin America account for only 20%. The reason for this disparity is inadequate infrastructure and economic disequilibrium. It is not difficult for well-organised forestry companies in temperate regions to meet the FSC standards and criteria. In contrast, tropical forests often do not have the infrastructure to facilitate certification. The decision by the FSC to also certify state forests in the future is an important step to include additional areas of sensitve forests. Thus the FSC is potentially gaining influence over other sensitive woodlands, for instance in Russia.
In the meantime, the assessment of plantation forests is also contentious. The FSC drew up rules for their management after long, controversial debates. Plantations currently make up approximately 12 % of the total area certified. The credibility of many civil society organisations is on the line, since many environmentalists fundamentally criticise the plantation economy. The FSC, therefore, launched a two-year Plantations Review process in September 2004.
FSC funding is another problem-prone issue. Until now the Council has depended on the support of non-profit foundations. It does not generate enough revenue from its own work to survive. Greater profit-orientation might run counter to the fundamental idea of the FSC and thus jeopardise its credibility.
An additional challenge is the complex competition of various forestry practice regulatory systems. There are now at least 23 different national, regional and global standards competing with the FSC. In Germany, for example, there is the PEFCC (Pan-European Forest Certification Council). Forest owners and the timber industry started it in 1999 as a reaction to the FSC. Unlike the FSC, PEFCC does not rely on any independent on-the-spot inspections. Nor does the PEFCC generally out-rule the use of pesticides. It does not even demand annual inspections and only applies random checks. The timber industry and forest owners can choose which of various standards suits them best. However, consumers without detailed knowledge are in no position to assess the actual value of the various certificates.
Doubt has unfortunately arisen about the reliability of FSC certification. A report by the Rainforest Foundation alleged certain breaches of FSC rules and agreements, which, it explained, stemmed form the collusion of certification bodies and forest managers as well as from the FSC’s fast growth strategy. After this report, the FSC resolved to separate the procedures for accreditation and standard setting. The Council also started to check on certifiers without warning. The critically-minded environmental NGOs associations welcomed these steps.
Despite its various weaknesses, the FSC is a success on the whole. One indication of this is the cooperation of the various environmental organisations and the endorsement by various state stakeholders. There are three possible scenarios for the future. Firstly, if public attention for sustainability and justice continues or grows, the demand for certified products should increase or at least remain constant. The FSC could then develop into a globally accepted industry standard, given its high level of credibility. However, the further fragmentation of private forest regulation systems depending on diverse consumer demands would also be feasible, at least in the medium-term. Probably, the FSC would then have to increase its environmental and socio-political profile at the expense of profit considerations in order to fulfil its own claims and satisfy civil-society supporters. A third scenario is also conceivable. If the long-awaited consensus on an effective forest protection policy should be reached at an international level in the foreseeable future, the FSC would, to a large extent, lose its autonomy and be integrated into the international efforts along with the other regulatory systems.
Website
Forest Stewardship Council FSC:
http//www.fsc.org
Philipp Pattberg
is a political scientist. He is working on his doctorate on international forest policy at the Freie Universität Berlin.
pattberg@glogov.org
|
