Jay Rastogi
The issue of ecolabeling, and certification in particular, is receiving great attention in the forest products industry. In British Columbia, Western Forest Products has announced its intentions of pursuing certification under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) label, as well as International Standards Organization (ISO) 14001 registration under the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) sustainable forest management system.
And MacMillan Bloedel has announced that it will phase out clearcutting over the next five years, a decision which chief executive officer Tom Stephens says was prompted by consumer demand. (It is interesting to note, however, that 10 years ago, an official in the company projected that all harvestable old-growth forests In B.C. would be cut in the next 15 years.)
The issue of certification brings up many questions for concerned consumers and many of those questions are not yet adequately answered:
Is certification just a public relations ploy for industrial forest companies? Or are these two giants in the Canadian lumber industry ready to acknowledge that their practices are unsustainable and that they are ready to change the ways in which they are managing forests and their lumber operations? Will the perception that "certification is essential to gain markets" prod these and other forest companies to move to sustainable forest management? Or is certification a guise to continue optimistically believing that sustainability in forest management means planting one sapling for every tree of harvestable age and volume?
How large a role can certification play to ensure that forestry practices are environmentally responsible, socially beneficial and economically viable? If this varies from one certifier to another, which ones have real meaning?
Interest in forest certification is primarily driven by European market demand for sustainably harvested wood. North American demand is less but growing. Campaigns in Europe and the U.S.1 to boycott producers of unsustainable forest products, especially from clearcutting old-growth forests, has forced the industry to respond to this demand.
It is widely recognized that forest exploitation and degradation is encouraged and subsidized by many governments, even as they continue to support larger companies while giving lip service to saving jobs.2
All of this is happening while the industry continues to increase mechanized efficiency, continues to cut more trees, and faster, while employing fewer people. The present climate of globalization also leads to the lowering of international trade barriers and this allows multinational corporations to seek profits by liquidating forests the world over. Indications are that nations are currently not truly interested in pursuing the path of sustainability. And to consumers, industrial self-regulation programs and standards of sustainability are not seen to be credible either.
Certification by an independent third party is seen by concerned consumer groups as an avenue to reward present practitioners of sustainable forestry as well as to encourage the adoption and spread of sustainable forestry. This seems the logical way to go. Certification then becomes a market-based approach to promote the conservation and management of forests in such a manner as to promote whole healthy forests; forests which are valued for more than just the timber they can produce; forests which sustain the functions of their ecosystems such as watershed protection, wildlife habitat, climate and water regulation and a multitude of other functions, some of which we don't yet comprehend.
We continue to need and to use forest products; therefore, timber production in managed forests is important. Proponents of certification envision it as a bridge between the economic interests of industry and the social and environmental concerns some consumers and the population at large have with many of today's forest management practices and theories.
Several certification systems now exist. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is the main organization promoting and providing certification of forest products globally. The role of the FSC is to certify certifiers such as the Rainforest Alliance Smartwood Program. Another approach is that of the International Standards Organization (ISO) 14000 Series. Various other local independent certification organizations have also formed, such as the Silva Forest Foundation and the Rogue Institute for Ecology and Economy. However, the focus is on the FSC because of its global scope.
The FSC is a global non-governmental organization comprised of representatives from environmental organizations, timber traders, foresters, indigenous peoples' organizations, community forestry groups and forest products certification organizations3. The FSC's objective is to promote forestry which is environmentally and socially responsible as well as economically viable. An important requirement for FSC certification is verifiable "chain-of-custody" documentation. This means that products bearing the FSC stamp must be traceable to the forest of origin. Regular monitoring of chain of custody should help to uncover unsupported claims of certified forest products.
Key to FSC certification is compliance with its "Principles and Criteria" which certification agencies must accept in order to be accredited. The Principles and Criteria are necessarily general since they are globally applicable. This has raised concerns that due to their vagueness the criteria will be interpreted and applied inconsistently by certifying agencies. However, the global Principles and Criteria are meant to be complimented with national or regional standards which set actual performance requirements and provide a greater level of detail to the FSC certification process. At present, only Sweden has formally endorsed National Standards, though the process is nearing completion in the UK and is at various stages in a number of other countries.
Yet FSC-accredited certifiers are continuing to certify forestry operations where no regional standards have yet been developed. For many people this raises the question: How do we know if the certified forest operations meet our personal expectations and the spirit under which the FSC was formed? Conforming to the 10 Principles and Criteria alone will not ensure sustainable forest management.
Some in the forest industry have noted that even these requirements will be difficult to meet. But there is some flexibility built into the FSC system. The introduction to the Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship (document 1.2) states: "FSC and FSC-accredited certification organizations will not insist on perfection in satisfying the Principles and Criteria."
At present (1998), the FSC has accredited five certifying agencies: SKAL, SGS Forestry Qualifor Program, Soil Association Woodmark Scheme, Rainforest Alliance Smartwood Program, Scientific Certification Systems (SCS). Of these, five, SGS and SCS are for-profit. Although the FSC criteria are meant to apply equally to all certifiers, having certifiers who are for-profit may raise some concerns of reliability since it will be economically beneficial for the certifiers to serve their customers. Individual managers may also be certified under FSC - meaning the products emerging from lands they manage for other tenure holders would be certified.
The International Standards Organization's 14000 series of Environmental Management Systems standards, is an approach favored by some in the forest products industry. The Canadian Standards Association received funding from the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association to develop standards for sustainable forest management in Canada. But there are several glaring problems in the approach the CSA has pursued. The biggest is a lack of credibility in a producer-driven certification (as opposed to a consumer-driven). There is no third-party auditing. The industry has the greatest control of the process and individual companies have extensive room to define "continual improvement," an important part of ISO standards. As such, there really is no standard at all, just promises of continual improvement.
This means current unsustainable industrial forestry practices would be certifiable! Rather than setting high standards, this would at best promote mediocrity. The distinction between ISO/CSA certification and true ecolabeling will not be readily apparent to the consumer. This confusion (could it be mischievous?) benefits companies allied with the CSA process.
Internationally, it is feared that the ISO will take precedence over other international agreements, since it is only required that companies conform to national laws, not to multilateral environmental agreements or to any other international codes of conduct. This means international commitments to environmental standards would be rolled back. This makes the ISO look more like the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) in disguise, than an initiative to promote sustainability.
Third-party auditing and chain-of-custody are the minimum requirements which discerning consumers will need if their purchasing decisions involve sustainable/ethical forest products.
So what is sustainable forestry? If forestry economics is not based upon the wise and sustainable use of our natural environment, it will eventually collapse. This should be abundantly clear to anyone involved in forestry, and painfully so to those individuals, families and communities now suffering because of current and past unsustainable forestry practices. Schumacher noted we rarely make the distinction between income and capital where it really matters - in the irreplaceable capital represented by natural resources. If we use too much (over cut) or all (clear cut) of the natural capital, then future income is jeopardized.
There is evidence that consumers are willing to pay more for sustainably grown wood products. According to papers published by Lucie K. Ozanne of Lincoln University in New Zealand and Richard Vlosky of Louisiana State University, consumers are willing to pay 4 to 19 percent more for certified wood products.
We are in desperate need of adopting an ethic which views us as part of nature and acknowledges that our well being and that of the environment are inexorably linked. Then perhaps we will be ready to demonstrate sustainability by living within the means of nature's "interests." Certification of forest products may be but one small step in this direction.
Jay Rastogi practises ecoforestry with Merve Wilkinson near Nanaimo on Vancouver Island, BC. He can be reached at rastogi@ecoforestry.ca
© 1998 Ecoforestry Institute
Originally published in Ecoforestry 13(2):38-41
References Cited:
Soltani, A. and L. Lau. 1995. Don’t Buy Their Pulp Fiction. Boycott Quarterly, 3(1): 22-25.
Abramovitz, J. Taking A Stand: Cultivating A New Relationship With The World’s Forests. WorldWatch Institute Paper 140, April 1998.
Lamport, L. The Cast of Certifiers: Who Are They? International Journal of Ecoforestry, 11(4): 118-122.
Forest Stewardship Council. Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship. Document 1.2 . http://www.fscoax.org
von Mirbach, M. Demanding Good Wood. Alternatives, 23(3): 10-17.
Ibid
Ibid
Schumacher, E.F. 1974. Small Is Beautiful. London: Abacus.
McQuillen, D., Seeing the Forest for the Trees, March-April 1998., Environmental Design and Construction, pages 16 -27.