Forest Stewardship Council Credibility on Thin Ice
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal included coverage of “growing pains” at the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Jim Carleton quotes me saying “It’s a question of how do we improve the system, not whether we can keep the system… Because if you look at the alternative systems run by industry, those are even weaker.”
The quote’s accurate, but incomplete. It’s important to fend off half-baked industry schemes like the SFI, but the more crucial point is that the FSC must improve to remain a credible tool for conserving forests.
The worth of any market standard (think Organic, Fair Trade, Made in the USA), boils down to whether its value to buyers can ultimately reward good guys for doing good and punish bad guys for not getting on board.
Storm clouds are gathering above the FSC because that formula is breaking down. Demand for FSC is through the roof, but the big buyers won’t offer a premium–only a preference. Even so, loggers from Borneo to the Boreal are clamoring for the thin market advantage. Unfortunately, there’s too few good guys to fill the shelves with FSC product. The recent certification and subsequent de-certification of Indonesia’s Asia Pulp and Paper signals severe instability in a system struggling to meet rising demand without sacrificing credibility.
Some say these signals are death knells. Last year, several prominent forest activists including one founding member of the FSC launched FSC-Watch.org as a clearing house for complaints about the program. Two weeks ago, Glenn Barry’s Ecological Internet supporters filled RAN’s inboxes with more than 3000 emails critical of our support of the FSC.
To remain credible, FSC needs to rebuild its value promise–and fast. Today, FSC’s US affiliate faces an opportunity to begin doing just that. Recent evaluations led by the Pinchot Institute for Conservation concluded that FSC certification might be a viable option for National Forests. Existing rules at FSC make that option out of the question until it can build consensus around how to go about it.
While the findings themselves are interesting, more important will be how effectively FSC responds to the spectrum of advocates pulling the system from opposite ends. Multinational retailers and loggers eager to green their image want access to more wood with a green stamp. Vocal critics inside and out don’t want any logging in National Forests, much less the legitimacy of an FSC stamp. While not a formal policy per se, RAN has consistently pushed the FSC toward conservation of all intact forest landscapes, biologically appropriate restoration and respect for the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities wherever it certifies.
If it’s to remain relevant, FSC needs to seize opportunities offered by challenges like the current debate over National Forests as an opportunity to raise public awareness, strengthen its governance, rebuild flagging consensus among its members and reestablish itself as a credible tool for conserving forests. Alternatively, the FSC will be to forestry what betamax was to video recording—better in quality, but virtually irrelevant.
9 Responses to “Forest Stewardship Council Credibility on Thin Ice”
Leave a Reply
All comments offered in the spirit of civil conversation are welcome! Commercial spam, obscenity and other rude behavior are not, and will be removed. Valid email addresses are required. (RAN respects your privacy; we will not use, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.)
November 1st, 2007 at 1:06 am
Brant
As you know, I would very much agree with the basic sentiments you have set out here. But the question is, how exactly do we rebuild the credibility of FSC? How do we make sure that the ‘pull’ from the other side of the argument (the loggers and their apologists) does not totally outweigh our own efforts, as it clearly seems to be at the moment? Is it in fact possible, within the way that the FSC is presently structured, for us to have at least an equal say in how the FSC is run? Should the timber industry be involved in FSC decision-making at all?
In terms of dealing with some of the central problems - such as the fact that FSC’s supposedly ‘independent’ certification bodies get paid directly by the loggers they are certifying, and therefore have a vested financial interest in issuing certificates - the FSC has been aware of them for many years but has done precisely nothing to address them. The efforts to ‘reform’ the FSC from the inside (such as having a person from Greenpeace chairing the organistion) have actually seen the organistion slide into the chaos and instability described in the Wall Street Journal article.
So do we have to accept that the FSC will never take any notice of the ‘environment chamber’ as long as we continue to play along with this ridiculous game? Is it now time for groups such as RAN and Greenepace to set some clear deadlines for clear reforms, failing which key groups such as RAN will stop lending their name to prop up FSC’s credibility, and will quit?
All the best
Simon Counsell
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:38 am
It is now time for groups such as RAN and Greenepace to set some clear deadlines for clear reforms, failing which key groups such as RAN will stop lending their name to prop up FSC’s credibility, and will quit.
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I’m more sympathetic to your initial questions than your conclusion. My point is that unless and until there are better alternatives, working to improve the System is more productive than working against it. Specifically, leaving the FSC would strengthen competing systems like SFI, PEFC and other half-baked imitations.
I’m proposing some specific ways to improve the system’s governance problems. Namely through drawing public attention to its handling of the controversy around logging in National Forests. Those advocating leaving the FSC share an obligation to show how the system would benefit from doing so.
November 4th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Brant
Leaving the FSC *might* not be necessary - but then this requires that groups such as RAN and Greenpeace have to get seriously active within the organisation. However, that having been said, and as I suggested above, the results so far from ‘internal activism’ is not very encouraging at all.
You should also be aware that the decision-making structures and balances of power have been gerimandered so much in the last few years that a/ it is almost impossible for the ‘environmental chamber’ to actually make much of a difference and b/ it is almost now impossible for the organisation as a whole to make any major decisions at all. Those that have tried to get involved in FSC’s decision-making, have discovered this to their cost: and the fact is that, even on major policy issues such as the existence of a credible and functioning ‘complaints process’, and even where the membership of the FSC has issued the Board and Secretariat wiht a clear mandate to improve matters, the Board and Secretariat have simply ignored them.
The organisation is not credible, it’s misleading the public, and it’s undermining the valuable work of grass-roots activists worldwide - and it evidently can’t be changed from the inside. So, unless you want to be party to deception of the public, it would seem that there might be *no other choice* but to leave.
I also don’t buy into the idea that ‘there’s no alternative to the FSC’ or that ‘the alternatives are even worse’. The FSC was, you will recall, *our* (that is, the environment movement’s) own creation. If necesary, we should create something in its place. As it is, the Fairtrade Foundation is seriously considering whether it could develop a Fairtrade ‘FSC+’ system for timber. I believe that if genuine environmentalists have enough imagination and determination, we could work with someone like Fairtrade to establish a system that does what FSC was originally set up to do, but is clearly failing to achieve.
All the best
Simon Counsell
November 4th, 2007 at 10:35 am
If FSC as a creation of environmental organizations has failed, might another alternative be to rightfully conclude that first time industrial logging of ancient forests in an environmentally acceptable manner is not possible? If this is concluded, then another alternative is to work to end ancient forest logging. Would RAN’s board even consider this? Ecological Internet is still waiting for a substantive public response to our “Open Letter of Concern Regarding RAN’s Support for Ancient Forest Logging, and Notification of Impending Campaign” of October 4th at http://www.rainforestportal.org/issues/2007/10/open_letter_of_concern_regardi.asp#more . We will expect a greater level of analysis and self-examination than has been present here.
Dr. Glen Barry
November 5th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Simon–I don’t understand why you “don’t buy” that industry-backed would gain ground if ENGO’s walked from the FSC. Industry is spending millions a year to be sure that SFI’s half-standard can muscle its way into the market. Why pave the way by dismantling FSC? Better would be what you describe–developing a better alternative that continues to pull the market toward a higher bar.
I’m interested in hearing more about the Fairtrade Foundaiton efforts to develop a standard. Aside from its value as a stand alone high ecological standard for forestry, it could ‘pull’ the FSC toward stronger standards just as the FSC standard has done with the industry-backed systems.
Glen–I’ve requested that we make our e-mailed exchanges on this topic public for many weeks. Still happy to do so on your mark. We’re with you.
Meantime, what’s your view on the National Forest evaluation done by Pinchot? My read indicates that certification might be an incentive for the Forest Service to finally protect Old Growth on the west side of the Cascades that would otherwise be open to logging under Northwest Forest Plan Matrix system that both Ecological Internet and RAN have fought to end for years (see the Mt. Hood National Forest evaluation).
November 6th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Brant
The reason I don’t buy the ‘no alternatives’ argument is that, if we decide to create or support alternatives, then they will come into existence.
I think that whatever happens to the FSC will have no bearing whatsoever on the likes of the SFI, which will continue to greenwash the timber industry regardless. The important point is whether groups like RAN intend to continue endorsing FSC’s similar greenwashing.
I would be interested to know your responses to the many other issues that I flagged up in my comment above.
All the best
Simon
November 6th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Simon, I think you’ve misunderstood my point. I’m supportive of stronger alternatives to the FSC and eager to lend a hand in creating one. My point is that until a stronger alternative exists, dismantling the FSC would promote less desireable alternatives like SFI. Yes, SFI will greenwash with our without FSC in the picture. Without the FSC, however, SFI becomes the defacto standard for certification, thereby lowering the bar for everybody–LEED green building standards, municipal and county wood and paper procurement policies and buyers of all stripes.
I think we can do both. We can work to build a better system that sets a higher bar *and* we can work to strengthen the one we’ve got.
I’m sympathetic to your points about the governance problems at FSC, but don’t feel that they warrant leaving (yet). They *do* warrant setting specific goals for the system, participating actively, and evaluating it’s responsiveness over time. We’re doing that now with FSC US and playing an active role in working to shape a how the standard should address Federal Lands. Internationally, we’re watching controversies like those you’ve highlighted on FSC-Watch.org–notably APP in Indonesia and Forestal Venao in Peru.
The APP case indicates that FSC recognizes the need to evaluate companies as well as forests. In Peru, we’re looking for FSC to demonstrate that it can keep its certifiers transparent and accountable. Both cases are opportunities for FSC to prove that its governance is strengthening its responsiveness to complaints.
Bottom line, the conclusion we maintain is that a world with FSC is better than the world without it–at least for now. Should this conclusion change as we monitor these cases, we’ll join you on the outside.
November 13th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
[...] to learn more about forest certification (from critics and advocates) and let us hear from you on the debate about RAN’s support for the FSC. [...]