Stewart Goodall, UK Forestry Commission, Edinburgh
Introduction
The aim of my presentation is:
· to explain what UKWAS
is - there is sometimes misunderstanding;
· to explain what we have tried to
achieve and how that may be of relevance to our discussion here;
· and to
review where we hope to go next with UKWAS.
UKWAS is not an example of mutual recognition as set out by the speakers this morning. We do not 'recognise' other schemes. Instead UKWAS is an example of how co-operation and constructive dialogue can succeed if participants keep an open mind and focus on common objectives. Mutual recognition may be the way forward internationally, but what that means in detail should be left open just now - it should not become a barrier to dialogue.
Having said that, what exactly is UKWAS?
The core of UKWAS is the Standard for forest management. It was developed through an open and consensus driven process. The result is a Standard that has the support of all interested parties in the UK. Our shared aim is for the UKWAS Standard to be the Standard for forest audit in the UK.
So far the FSC have recognised the Standard as being equivalent to their own UK Standard, and this means that if an owner uses an FSC accredited certifier then they can get an FSC certificate. As new labelling schemes are developed an assessment will be made to determine whether they should also be able to use the Standard. The key to the test will be if the applicant scheme can satisfy us that the Standard will be used credibly, ie it will ensure SFM in the UK. We will not comment on whether their label is credible.
The UKWAS Standard is owned by a Steering Group which is made up of representatives from all sectors. Decisions are made by consensus, and while this might slow decision making it does provide everyone with the confidence that their concerns will not be ignored or overruled.
The UK Government, through the Forestry Commission, facilitated the development of UKWAS, and we are members of the Steering Group, but we have no more power in the Group than the smallest member.
In the UK we now have over 1 million hectares of woodland certified, out of a total woodland area of 2.6 million hectares. We hope this will continue to increase in the next few years.
So what were we trying to achieve and how may the work in the UK be of relevance to us here?
Our aims were (and are) very simple. We want to promote SFM through certification, and we believe the best way of doing that is to involve everyone in defining what SFM means and how it should be achieved.
We focussed on developing a credible Standard for SFIVI, because we saw that as being the most important element of any certification process. We were not interested in promoting labels, or different chains of custody - we saw these as being minor issues compared to getting the Standard right. And we decided to work by consensus, because we saw it as the only way to give everyone a feeling of security in the process.
For a consensus process to work there must be willingness on all sides to be open minded - to be willing to talk to and listen to others, rather than just adopt hard and fast positions. And most importantly participants must be willing to compromise. Every party in the UK came to the table with a clear view of what they wanted to achieve, and everyone would admit now that they did not get all that they wanted. However, everyone in the Steering Group will also tell you that the UKWAS Standard has unique credibility in the UK. Everyone was involved in its development and it has the support of everyone now that it is complete. We would not have achieved that without full participation, dialogue, and above all compromise.
If I compare our experiences in the UK with what is happening now internationally with these discussions on mutual recognition, I can see a lot of similarities.
When we first started in the UK, the forest sector and the environmental NG0s were both developing their own schemes, and trying to persuade customers that their scheme was the best. Both sides used the media to criticise the other, and it was clear we were making little or no progress.
That situation would have continued, if all the sides had not been persuaded to simply sit down together and talk about their aims and their concerns. They needed to overcome their mutual suspicion, and understand that the large majority of forestry and ENGO groups all share the same objectives, and are willing to talk if they believe that compromise is possible.
Once all the parties sat down together, it soon became clear that foresters were happy to protect the environment, and that environmentalists did not expect woodland owners to stop extracting trees - ENG0s understood that it was the income from forest operations which provided the money to pay for environmental and social benefits.
The Government, acting as facilitator, then paid for an independent comparison of the emerging FSC UK Standard with the existing Government's forestry Standard, which the forestry sector supported. The conclusion was that these two documents were very similar, ie both sides detailed understanding of SFM was in fact very similar. This was a surprise to many, especially in light of all the claims and counter-claims which had been made in the media about how far apart the sides were supposed to be in their understanding of SFIVI.
In a similar way, it would not surprise me that if all sides in the debate about mutual recognition actually sat down together and discussed the key components of a credible scheme, they would probably come up with very similar answers.
In reaching agreement on the UKWAS Standard we were helped by the fact that the UK has no old growth forests - this is often an issue of contention in other countries. However, we did have problems over issues such as the use of chemicals (or pesticides) in forestry, and the protection and enhancement of our remaining ancient semi-natural woodland - the closest thing we have to old growth forest.
We helped to overcome the differences on these issues by asking for independent advice and research. This helped to get to the detail of the problem in a non-confrontational way. Also having the Forestry Commission act as an objective facilitator meant that there was someone neutral trying to come up with compromise solutions rather than each party themselves. Internationally it would be helpful if there was some neutral organisation or group, which could facilitate discussions here, and also it would be helpful if we could rely on independent research to inform our discussions.
I have made many presentations about UKWAS, and I have stated many times that I see it as a success story for the UK. In many ways it is, but we have not completed our journey.
Everyone in the UK has confidence in the certification process, and recently the UKWAS Steering Group made a commitment to strongly promote certification in the UK as a way of promoting SFIVI, and also of promoting the UK forestry sector in general. We have an unprecedented level of dialogue between the environmental and forestry sectors, and most importantly my life was recently becoming a lot easier. I am confident that if we can hold the group together we can make a real difference in the UK - there is now a feeling that we can really do something for forestry - together.
However, we now face new challenges. We have had a request to use the UKWAS Standard from a new group that wishes to link up with PEFC. On initial examination the group are offering credible forest auditing in the UK they will use the UKWAS Standard in a credible way. Unfortunately some people are viewing this as a request for UKWAS to recognise or endorse PEFC. This is not the case. As I have said already, UKWAS is not interested in labels, we don't endorse other schemes, all we ask is that they use our Standard credibly. It is for the market to decide the credibility of individual labels and for the schemes themselves to promote their labels - not UKWAS.
I believe that it is possible for us to reach a solution in the UK which will satisfy all UK parties. Unfortunately, some people are concerned about what such an agreement may mean when it is viewed from abroad.
At this point I would like to make two personal appeals:
Firstly, I would ask anyone who has concerns about developments in the UK to speak to me. The members of the UKWAS Steering Group, myself included, have struggled to come to terms with what this latest request means in practice, and it is only recently that things have become clearer. I am confident that a solution can be reached, and I hope that international colleagues can be assured that we wish to seek a solution which will promote SFM not harm it Secondly, I would appeal to anyone who is developing a mutual recognition framework to focus on outcomes not systems. UKWAS may not fit the &classic' example of a certification scheme - but it works! It delivers SFIVI. I would be disappointed if what we had was lost because of overly rigid discussions.
Some of you may know that I have two jobs. As well as working with UKWAS I represent the UK on forestry matters in the EU. In the EU there are many examples of how a good idea can be lost by developing a rigid system which loses sight of the original objective. However, there are also plenty of good examples of how co-operation between parties has produced benefits for all. I hope we can achieve the latter.
Thank you for your attention today.