Observations on Equity After Ten Years of SmartWood Certification
By Richard Z. Donovan, Director, SmartWood'
SmartWood Program, Rainforest Alliance
61 Millet Street, Richmond, Vermont USA 05477 www.smartwood.org
telephone 802-434-5491 and FAX 802-434-3116
Provided as input into the Second Annual FSC Conference, November 2000, Oaxaca, Mexico
Table of Contents
Introduction :"*
1. History and Trends in the SmartWood Forest
Portfolio....
1. 1. The First SmartWood Certifications
1.2. Resource
Manager Certifications ...
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.
1.6. Non-Timber Forest
Products (NTFP) Certification 8
Suggestions for Improving Equity in
Forest Management Certification
2.1. What Systems Improvements Are
Needed9
2. 1. 1. More FSC Flexibility on FMO and COC Group &
Resource Manager Certification Policies 9
2.1.2. New Models that
Aggregate Resource Manager Certifications 10
2.1.4. Focus on Forest
and Community Impact - Minimize Paperwork 10
2.1.5. More Effective and
Efficient Stakeholder Consultation
2.2. The Market Linkage Problem
for Certified Operations
2.3. Assessing Progress In Terms of Equity
2.4. The Cost of Ensuring Equity
2.5. The Influence of Forest Politics on Equity ....
Group Forest Management Operation (FMO) Certification
Group Chain of Custody (COC) Certification Indigenous Forestland Certification
...............
2.1.3. Consistency in FSC Policy Deliberation ................................................................
Conclusion ..............
1 . The author has been the Director of SmartWood since April 1992. This short review provides perspectives on equity in certification based on the author's experience. The Rainforest Alliance and the other non-profit organizations in the SmartWood Network, many different foundations, many FSC stakeholders, people outside the FSC, and the staff of SmartWood have all contributed to this experience. The author has also been able to capitalize on the experience of his predecessor at SmartWood, Ivan Ussach, who founded the Timber Project and SmartWood Program in 1989, along with Daniel Katz, former Executive Director and current Chair of the Board of Directors of Rainforest Alliance. Mr. Ussach directed SmartWood from 1989 to 1992. Rainforest Alliance is a 501c3 non-profit organization registered in the state of New York, USA. The Executive Director of Rainforest Alliance is Ms. Tensie Whelan.
Introduction
Ten years ago the Rainforest Alliance's SmartWood Program certified Perurn Perhutani in Indonesia. This was the first forest management certification in the world based on international standards incorporating environmental, silvicultural and social elements. SmartWood's certified forestry portfolio has now grown to approximately 113 forest management operations (FM0s). Approximately half of the SmartWood forest management certificates are for small operations, group certifications, indigenous groups, resource managers and community forestry operations.
Following are observations that might be useful for the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) membership and other parties to consider in terms of equity and social issues, small enterprises, indigenous forest operations and small landowers.
1. History and Trends in the SmartWood Forest Portfolio
As of October 2000, SmartWood has certified approximately 113 different FM0s. These certifications are the result of ten years of mvestmen~ in different certification models, different forest types, countries and regions, and different social and economic environments.
1. 1. The First SmartWood Certifications
The first SmartWood certifications occurred in the period from 1990 to 1992. The first certification was Perum Perhutani in Indonesia in November 1990. In April 1992, 1 became the second director of SmartWood. At that time, SmartWood had the following five certifications.
Broadleaf Forest Management Project, Honduras - This project in the Atlantic lowland rainforest of Honduras organized small farmers in various communities into a certifiable group. Various local and international institutions developed a common natural forest management planning and implementation approach. This was the first "group" certification in SmartWood and the certification continues today. Not only has the Broadleaf Project continued, but another group in the same region has also gained "group" certification: La Cooperativa Regional Agroforestal Colon, Atlantida, Honduras, Ltda. (COATLAHL) Each entity has multiple communities and landowners involved; all managing natural lowland tropical forest. Perum Perhutani, Indonesia - This parastatal plantation forestry operation was certified largely because of its involvement in an innovative Social Forestry Program that works with rural fanners in the highly conflictive land tenure and political milieu in rural areas on the island of Java. Ultimately this certification has continued, but through inputs by the FSC and other stakeholders, has been drastically reduced in scope and has also now moved to a forest district by forest district basis. It is not a group certification, though many of systems in place for each district are identical. Individual certificates are granted to each district that qualifies for certification. Today only four Perum Perhutani districts are certified (Cepu, Lawii, Kebonharjo and Kendal), out of a total of over 50 forest districts. SmartWood recently suspended the Mantingan district certification. More district-specific assessments have taken place and continue to occur. SmartWood is also working with several local NG0s (LATIN, Arupa and others) on the assessment and monitoring of certified and candidate districts. Based on our most recent communication with both stakeholders and Perurn Perhutani, it is clear that meeting FSC certification standards remains very challenging for Perurn Perhutani. New River Enterprises, Belize - This was a small natural forest management operation that, plagued by administrative management and quality control issues, had its certificate rescinded by SmartWood in 1995. SmartWood auditors and stakeholders found too many instances where forest management was not consistently implemented at a certifiable level (e.g. poor tree selection techniques, too much wet weather harvesting, etc.). In some ways, this certification did have a positive contribution because various parties
2 Numerous organizations and individuals have made these investments. Supporters have included the Rainforest Alliance staff, board and members, various foundations, various individual donors, and numerous other governmental and nongovernmental organizations. For further information, please consult Rainforest Alliance Annual Reports. SmartWood FSC Conference II Input.doc
involved in the New River Enterprises ultimately have played at least somewhat of a role in the Programme for Belize, which was jointly certified by SmartWood and Woodmark in 1998. AMACOL, Brasil - This forest operation in the Amazon worked with its own forests, as well as rural settlers (caboclos and ribeirinhos) for sourcing raw wood material. AMACOL's certification was rescinded in 1997. AMACOL faced major challenges because illegal logging is a huge issue in its region, the forest management system that the company tried to put in place was inconsistently or incompletely applied, and personnel/managerial changes at the company made consistent certifiable management impossible. The company attempted to resolve these and other issues, but was undermined by internal management issues, national economic conditions (artificially high government-controlled currency exchange rate policies that undermined export possibilities), insufficient technical resources to implement conditions necessary to maintain certification, and absence of clear company leadership on forest management improvements. AMACOL is now in the process of getting re-certified under a new management group. Plan Estatal Forestal Ejidos - Petcacab, Caobas, and Tres Garantias, Mexico (Quintana Roo) - These ejidos in the Yucatan Peninsula had received many years of technical assistance through the Plan Estatal Forestal in Quintana Roo, supported by the Mexican government, the German governinent, GTZ and multiple other organizations. The overall management approach developed through the Plan Estatal Forestal has been adapted and used by numerous ejidos in the region. There are now many ejidos certified in the Yucatan. These ejidos have a long history of producing both timber and non-timber forest products. For example, in 1999 Noh Bec ejido received SmartWood NTFP certification for chicle production (used for chewing gum). However, as discussed later in this paper, virtually all certified ejidos have faced major challenges in being able to be successful participants in the certified forest products marketplace. The major challenge is their inconsistent ability to provide sufficient high quality sawnwood certified product or logs to national and international clients on a timely basis - a fundamental challenge for all certified community forestry operations, and many small businesses.
1.2. Resource Manager Certifications
The period from 1990-1994 can be characterized as a period focussed largely on an expansion of forest certifications and more group certifications. In 1994 and 1995, SmartWood's activities begin to increase in the USA, where small landowners play a large role in industrial wood supply and consulting foresters have a major influence on forest management for those landowners.
The pervasive presence of consulting foresters for the management of private woodlands (large and small) in the USA led to the development of a new model for certification - the resource manager model. The design of the SmartWood resource manager certification system took place in 1994 and 1995, resulting in FSC approval of the resource manager system and the first resource manager certification in the FSC system, Blencowe Managed Forestlands in California, in January 1996.
Each resource manager manages multiple forest lands are owned by other individuals or organizations. They must have a formal contractual agreement with each landowner in their "pool" of forestlands. Certified resource managers in the SmartWood system manage as little as one property, and as many as 1500 properties. To be certified each resource manager first has to demonstrate compliance with SmartWood certification standards in the forest and local community'. They also have to provide SmartWood with:
· examples of how they will consistently conduct management planning (e.g. template management plans, field examples);
· formal documentation of the relationship with each participating landowner; and,
· other resource manager system elements required by the SmartWood and FSC certification system.
As of October 2000, SmartWood has certified the following resource managers:
3 Contact SmartWood for full standards and policies for resource manager certification.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Blencowe Managed Forest Lands, USA (California)
5. Clark Forestry,
Inc., USA (Wisconsin)
6. Columbia West Virginia Corporation, USA (West
Virginia)
7. Darcle Mahoney, USA (California)
8. Ecosystem
Management Associates, USA (Oregon)
9. Ecosystem Management Company,
USA (Vermont)
10. E.J. Louie &Sons, USA (California)
11. Edward A.
Tunheim, Consulting Forester, USA (California)
12. Edward J. Kocjancic, Inc.,
USA (Pennsylvania)
13. Forest, Soil & Water, Inc. (California)
14.
Hickman Timber Management Company, USA (Pennsylvania)
15. Jacobszoon Forest
Consulting, USA (California)
16. Keith Horn, Inc., USA (Pennsylvania)
17.
Individual Tree Selection Management, Inc. (Oregon)
18. Lusignan Forestry,
USA (Washington)
19. Masconomo Forestry, USA (Minnesota)
20. Nicholas
Kent, Consulting Forester USA (California)
2 1. P.T. Xylo Indah Pratama,
Indonesia (Sumatra)
22. Redtree Properties, LP, USA (California)
23.
Restoration Forestry, Inc., USA (California)
24. Talbert & Nunamaker
Forestry Consultants, USA (California)
25. Timbergreen Forestry, USA
(Wisconsin)
26. Timfor, Ltd., Canada (British Columbia)
27. Tree Shepherd
Woods, USA (Washington)
28. Two Trees Forestry, USA (Maine)
29. Vermont
Family Forests, USA (Vermont)
30. Wylatti Timber Management Company, Ltd. USA
(California)
Able, James L., Forestry Consultants, Inc., USA (California)
Andre, Mark RP17, USA (California)
Big Creek Forestry, USA (Michigan)
PT Xylo Indah Pratama (XIP) in Sumatra, Indonesia represents perhaps the most recent and innovative resource manager certification in the SmartWood system. X1P is a vertically integrated forest products company that has three different pencil slat factories in Sumatra, producing approximately 2 1,000 cubic meters of pencil slats per year for Faber Castelle and other buyers. XIP works with over 1500 different small landowners, which have smallholder rubber plantations, forest gardens or small agroforestry plots. Each plot typically averages 2.8 hectares per parcel (6.7 acres). Currently X2 uses approximately 30,000 cubic meters from approximately 2,000 hectares of smallholder rubber plots and forest gardens (secondary forests). XIP uses three different species of the pulai tree - Alstonia scholaris, Alstonia angustiloba and Alstonia pneumatophora -that grows in the old rubber plantations and forest gardens as a secondary species and can be planted and managed in agroforestry plantations. Individual pulai trees are harvested based on a very simple, small scale management plan and forest inventory, logs are extracted manually from the forest by the landowner, and the logs are then picked up at roadside by XIP contracted transport operators. As of March 2000, X1P had begun reforestation on 4,181 hectares with approximately 1500 different landowners. XIP's ultimate goal is to reforest approximately 10,000 hectares (24,000 acres) and involve 3,500 different farmers. Over the next 10 years, X1P will continue to improve the quality of management on these plantations and forest gardens. X1P will also work with these small farmers to develop agroforestry plantations on previously cleared and/or burned lands dominated by alang alang (Imperata cylindrica).
A four-person assessment team (3 Indonesian and 1 Canadian) assessed X1P for resource manager certification in July and August 1999. Based on the assessment, certification conditions and pre-conditions were identified, and X1P began implementation of management system improvements to meet SmartWood standards. X1P staff manages the joint management approach for the smallholder plots. In collaboration with each small landowner, a "joint management agreemenf' is developed, and harvesting is followed by a continuous forest inventory system. To guide management, XIP has developed an overall strategic management plan and four different sets of "operational guidelines" for forest management:
1. Operational guidelines for rubber plantations and forest gardens; 2. Operational guidelines for agroforestry plantations; 3. Operational guidelines for environmental protection; and, 4. Operational guidelines for staff and contract employee relations.
1.3. Group Forest Management Operation (FMO) Certification
As noted above, SmartWood group FMO certifications occurred as early as 1991 through the Broadleaf Forest Management Project in Honduras. Since then, a number of innovative certifications have occurred within the SmartWood system, and new models are being developed. However, these new models tend to be variations on the theme of group certification, and not radically new in concept or design. Ten (10) indigenous forest certifications are also group certifications (see Indigenous Forestland Certification below). The non-indigenous SmartWood group certifications are as follows:
1) Asociacion de Productores de San Miguel (APROSAM),
Guatemala
2) Asociacion de Productores Agroforestales de La Pasadita
(APROLAPA), Guatemala
3) Asociacion San Miguelena de Conservacion y
Desarrollo (ASACODE), Costa Rica
4) Comunidades Copen y Paya, Honduras
5)
Cooperativa Regional Agroforestal, Colon, Atlantida, Honduras Ltda. (COATLAHL),
Honduras
6) Fundacion Tuva: Reservas Extractivas de Madera Caida de Osa,
Costa Rica (includes some indigenous land,
but most lands in the group are
non-indigenous)
7) Proyecto Desarollo del Bosque Latifoliado (PDBL), Honduras
A particularly interesting FMO Group certification has recently been approved for certification at the Yusahara Forestry Cooperative in Japan. In this particular case, various public and private landowners have joined together as a group to seek certification on a watershed perspective, i.e. the various forests within the watershed where the cooperative operates. More lessons from this experience should be forthcoming in the near future.
1.4. Group Chain of Custody (COC) Certification
SmartWood has recently taken the first step in making group COC a reality through work in the Pacific Northwest of the USA. We are also exploring use of a similar system working with a woodworker's group in Boa Vista de Ramos in Brasil, various small sawmills in Latvia and elsewhere.
Woodworkers Northwest (WN) is a non-profit organization in the state of Washington that is dedicated to assisting small to medium size value-added wood product firms in Northwest Washington. WN members produce a variety of high quality wood products from "one-of-a-kind" gallery pieces to production items available to the national and international market place. WN includes as members a number of individual woodworkers that had previously been certified by SmartWood on an individual basis. These woodworkers have now reorganized to form a group for the purposes of having a more cost effective and efficient instrument for COC certification. Through initial assessments as well as follow-up audits that took place previously, the core members of WN group have already demonstrated their ability to accurately track and label certified material. Thus, the new WN group COC certification builds on the core experience of already certified WN members. WN embers operate in small shops, and their record keeping, inventory and handling system for certified wood is fairly straightforward. WN has now developed a group COC management system that includes:
Collecting certified records in one central location, Providing consistent information from each member to WN about maintaining Chain of Custody control systems,
· Internal WN inspections and keeping track of member facilities; and,
· Formal agreements with WN members to ensure that I'SC/SinartWood COC requirements are upheld.
Larry Nussbaum at the Northwest Natural Resources Group (NNRG) coordinated the certification assessment process, with support from SmartWood headquarters. Based on the WN experience, SmartWood has developed a pilot policy on Group Chain of Custody Certification. The key components in this Group Chain of Custody model are described below. It should be stressed that (as per Group forest management certification) the COC "Group analysis" was completed in addition to the normal chain COC certification requirements already stipulated under FSC-approved SmartWood procedures and guidelines. Following are some of the key elements of the SmartWood Group COC policy:
· The Group must be an established entity with some form of legal status, reasonable geographic range, defined member eligibility requirements, and the organizational capacity to implement COC certification control for member businesses.
· The Group will have a written commitment to producing
certified products.
The Group must have internal written guidelines
and a manual to guide COC procedures for member businesses.
The Group
is expected to keep all COC documents related to member businesses in a central
location, have a centralized record keeping system related to inflows and
outflows of material in member facilities, and be prepared to submit reports
summarizing member activities.
The Group should have the ability
and desire to develop a common identity for the purposes of marketing certified
product. Individual company marketing claims are made in association with the
group entity. Logo use by group members must reference their membership in the
group and utilize the specified Group COC code.
The participating
members in the group must sign a formal agreement with the group entity ensuring
their compliance with chain of custody guidelines. Additional members could be
added to the certified group after the certification is complete so long as the
requirements for the group COC are upheld.
The COC-certified Group
must maintain ultimate responsibility for paying all costs of certification and
monitoring, and maintaining the certification contract with SmartWood and will
be held responsible for upholding the chain of custody system at its members
facilities. Any violation that occurs at the member level will be the legal responsibility of the COC Group.
Other key elements of this group COC approach are:
As per normal FSC procedures, SmartWood will conduct a yearly audit, randomly selecting shops to ensure compliance with all guidelines. The internal WN monitoring system is also relied on for internal data. However, where such internal data is used for FSC COC monitoring, it must be explicitly stated in the SmartWood audit report, together with a description of the actions taken by SmartWood to independently validate the resulting data. Our proposal is that only members that actually produce certified product will be inspected during annual audits. WN has developed a procedure for sampling, evaluation and monitoring of members. Each member is audited on a yearly basis by WN to ensure adherence to the SmartWood guidelines.
WN's specific implementation of their pilot effort has had the following results at the group level:
1. The WN executive board must approve new members unanimously.
2. WN maintains a list of names and addresses of Members, together with date of entry into WN certification scheme and formal records of their consent to be members, and where applicable the date of Member leaving with an explanation of the reason why the member left the WNCG.
3. WN provides each Member with the following documentation:
· Terms and conditions of Membership,
· Description of the division of responsibilities between the WN and the Members
· SmartWood COC guidelines,
· A written explanation of the certification process,
· Explanation of SmartWood rights to access to the Members' facility for certification auditing, and,
· FSC/StnartWood requirements with respect to public information'and marketing claims. 4. WN has on record a clear demonstration how each Member complied with all of the requirements of the SmartWood COC Guidelines. WN maintains centralized storage of key documentation demonstrating the implementation of the internal control and monitoring systems, including records of internal inspections, non-compliances identified in such inspections, actions taken to correct any such non-compliance, and production and sales data. VYIN is implementing its internal COC monitoring system.
Key WN Member responsibilities include:
1 . Each member must sign a formal agreement by which the WN member consents to meet all obligations and responsibilities of Membership, participate in certification for the full period of validity of the WN certificate; and, authorizes the " to apply for certification on the member's behalf,
2. Member's must obey all guidelines outlined in the SmartWood COC Guidelines;
3. Members must help manage
4.
5.
6.
Member's must maintain all documentation necessary for COC-related monitoring purposes; Each member must commit WN systems for tracking and tracing of forest products; and, Members may not make any claims regarding FSC/SinartWood certification unless approved by the WN executive board (which is developing a standard template to facilitate this process).
1.5. Indigenous Forestland Certification
As of October 2000, SmartWood has certified the following indigenous forest operations. Note that some of these indigenous certifications are also group certifications, involving multiple communities, multiple forest properties, multiple families involved in management, and/or multiple indigenous landowners.
Table 1 Indigenous and Indigenous Group Forest Management Certifications by SmartWood, October 2000 |
Group |
Indigenous |
1) Asociacion de Productores de San Miguel, Guatemala (Peten) |
X |
X |
2) Asociacion de Productores Agroforestales de La Pasadita, Guatemala (Peten) |
X |
X |
3) CICOL Lomerio, Bolivia |
X |
X |
4) Cooperativa Bethel, R.L., Guatemala (Peten) |
X |
X |
5) Cooperativa Integral de Comercializacion Carmelita, Guatemala (Peten) |
X |
X |
|
6) Cooperativa La Tecnica Agropecuario, Guatemala (Peten) |
X |
X |
|
7) Ejido El Encinal, Mexico (Durango) |
|
X |
8) Ejido Mil Diez, Mexico (Durango) |
X | |
9) Ejido Colectivo Forestal Echeverria de la Sierra, Mexico (Durango) |
X | |
10) Ejido el Centenario, Mexico (Durango) |
X | |
11) Ejido Noh Bec, Mexico (Quintana Roo) |
X | |
12) Fundacion Tuva (incorporates Reserva Indigena Guaymi), Costa Rica |
X |
X |
13) Hoopa Valley Tribe, USA (California) |
X | |
14) Indigenous Community of Nuevo San Juan Parangaricutiro, Mexico (Michoacan) |
X | |
15) Menominee Tribal Enterprises, USA (Wisconsin) |
X | |
16) La Sociedad Civil de Impulsores Suchitecos, Guatemala (Peten) |
X |
X |
17) Pictou Landing First Nation, Canada (Nova Scotia) |
X | |
18) Sociedad de Productores Forestales Ejidales de Quintana Roo (Petcacab, Caobas and Tres Garantias ejidos), Mexico (Quintana Roo) |
X |
X |
19) Stockbridge Muncle Tribe, USA (Wisconsin) |
X | |
0) Union de Productores Forestales Zapotecas-Chinantecas - UZACHI, Mexico (Oaxaca) |
X |
X |
The Penobscot Nation in the USA (Maine) has also recently had a SmartWood scoping visit.
Another fourteen (14) indigenous operations are currently under full assessment by SmartWood:
1 . Ejido El Largo, Mexico (Chihuahua)
2. Ejido Pueblo Nuevo, Mexico (Durango)
3. Ejido La Victoria, Mexico
(Durango)
4. Ejido San Esteban, Mexico (Durango)
5. Ejido
San Diego, Mexico (Durango)
6. Ejido Topia, Mexico (Durango)
7. Ejido Salto de Canellones, Mexico (Durango)
8. Ejido IxtIan, Mexico
(Oaxaca)
9. Ejido San Pedro, Mexico (Oaxaca)
10. Iisaaq Forest
Resources Ltd. in British Columbia, Canada (this joint venture between various
"First Nations" groups and Weyerhauser in Clayoquot Sound, Vancouver
Island, Canada)
11. Sayaxche community forestry operation, Guatemala
(Peten)
12. Uaxactun community forestry operation, Guatemala (Peten)
13.
Union Maya Itza community forestry operation, Guatemala (Peten)
14. Xikrins
indigenous forest lands in Brazil (Para)
1.6.Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP) Certification
Many community and indigenous forest managers place a
high degree of importance on the production of
NTI7Ps from natural forest
areas. Recognition of the value in NTFPs in certification and sustainable
forest
management has lagged behind timber certification. NTI7Ps of major
commercial importance include rattan
brazil nuts, palm hearts, maple syrup,
mushrooms, pine resin and numerous ingredients for pharmaceutical
and
cosmetic purposes. To date, SmartWood has been involved in numerous NTFP
certification initiatives.
Following are a few examples.
1. NTFP Certirication Research and Manual Development - Over the past year and a half, SmartWood has implemented a concentrated NTI7P project with support from various government and private organizations. The first phase of the project involved drafting generic guidelines and indicators for NTFP certification, drawing upon the work of various FSC and SmartWood Working Groups and other individual scientists and researchers. Guidelines, indicators and verifiers were developed by plant class or part and then field-tested by SmartWood teams in three sites - Brazil (palm hearts), Bolivia (Brazil nuts), and Mexico (chicle). Additional NTFP field tests were undertaken at the same time by the WWF Mediterranean Program Office in Greece (for chestnut production) and Spain (cork). As a result of this work, the SmartWood Guidelines Addendum on NTI7Ps were modified and information on the strengths and limitations to NTFP certification were recorded. NTFP species profiles from around the world were collected in order to expand our understanding of the social, ecological, marketing, and technical aspects of NTFP management and potential certification. In early 2001, along with the WWF People and Plants initiative, we will release an NTFP manual that includes the final draft certification guidelines, indicators and verifiers, species profiles, along with insights and practical guidance resulting from this process. The book is intended the basis for further research and development on the concept and practice of NTFP certification by certifiers, producer groups, NG0s, research institutions, and others.
2. Chicle through Noli Bee Ejido, Mexico (Yucatan) and Wild Things, Inc., USA (Florida)- This operation was previously certified for timber-oriented, sustainable forest management. In 1998, at the request of ejido authorities and the private company Wild Things, Inc., SmartWood conducted an NTFP certification assessment under the leadership of the Consejo Civil Mexicano para Silvicultura Sostenible (CCMSS). As a result, Noli Bec was certified for chicle production in 1999. Organic and fairtrade assessments occurred in parallel fashion so that the chewing gum product ultimately produced by Wild Things, Inc. included joint FSC/SmartWood, organic and fairtrade certifications.
There have been numerous discussions within FSC about the need to tailor the intensity of certification requirements to the scale of the enviromnental, social and silvicultural impacts. However, current FSC policies do not sufficiently address this question in either explicit or implicit statements. This can be a barrier for group and resource manager certification of small FM0s, and group COC certification of small sawmills and processing centers.
2.1.2.New Models that Aggregate Resource Manager Certifications
SmartWood has a relatively large number of certified
Resource Managers. However, we are increasingly
concerned about the costs
that they face. SmartWood often is forced to absorb monitoring costs in order
to
maintain a credible process. Our experience is that auditing costs often
represent a very significant recurrent
cost to consulting foresters who have
gotten a less than ideal response from the certified market. Organization
of
statewide, provincial or regional associations of resource managers cou ' ld
offer a viable certification
alternative, and we are currently exploring this
option. Ultimately, this will require significant institution
building
investments to establish statewide or regional group managers for multiple
resource managers. It will
also probably pose some challenges in terms of the flexibility of FSC policy.
2.1.3. Consistency in FSC Policy Deliberation
From the pesticides policy to logo and labeling procedures, SmartWood receives very consistent negative feedback from our certified and candidate operations (small, indigenous and large) on the FSC policy development process. The FSC process for developing polici es is not deliberate or consistent enough. Though the FSC has made a clear commitment to improvement, the implications of policies on small businesses and small forest operations need even more focus. A more robust and equitable policy development mechanism should be of the highest priority - it affects all FSC stakeholders. This process must consistently assess the impact of each and every proposed policy change on equity in the FSC system. This must be part of the internal FSC process, since there are many small operations that do not have the resources to effectively plead their case.
2.1.4.Focus on Forest and Community Impact - Minimize Paperwork
As FSC certification has grown, there has been an increase in systems requirements for the FSC itself, certifiers and even certified operations. To some extent this is logical and to be expected. However, over the past couple of years, it often appears that systems are sometimes developed and added without respect to the costs of these additions to the FSC, certifiers and certified forest operations.
From certification standards to certification system requirements, the FSC should adopt an emphasis on reducing, not increasing, administrative and paperwork requirements. There are numerous other certification systems (e.g. ISO, Sustainable Forestry Initiative or SFI, etc.) that have high documentation requirements, irrespective of the size of forest operation, impact on the forest and community, or resources available to the parties involved. The FSC could serve as a model for reducing such bureaucracy.
Many times it appears as if the FSC's increasing reliance on documentation is serving as a "proxy" to avoid more careful and detailed analysis, through the certifier auditing process, of actual field performance. Recently, SmartWood has reacted very strongly to increased FSC reporting requirements on specific certified operations that have been audited. This is not to say that systems improvement on the part of the FSC or certifiers isn't needed. However, 1 am very concerned that the real quality of forest operations (in the forest and local community) on the ground often appears to be secondary to FSC or other stakeholder concerns about procedural elements in the FSC system. In part this appears attributable to the paranoia about the participation of large companies in the FSC system - that we need to have in place very detailed procedures and processes that will ensure a high quality and rigorous certification process. While 1 understand these concerns, 1 would suggest that the ultimate final product of the FSC system is a forest operation that has positive social and environmental impacts. Our product is not the documentation! Too often it appears that this is lost sight of. The FSC system, more than any other forest management certification system, is tuned to recognize real enviromnental, silvicultural and social performance in the field. I would strongly advocate that FSC stakeholders and the FSC continue to remember this as the system continues to grow.
2.1.5.More Effective and Efficient Stakeholder Consultation
This is one area where the standard operating procedures of FSC-accredited certifiers, and FSC requirements, could be improved. A more efficient, proactive and streamlined stakeholder consultation process that involves national initiatives, certifiers and FSC members would assist in reducing the costs of certification, particularly for medium and small operations. These same parties should also collaborate to develop methods that are the most effective from a social and cultural perspective. For example, as much as we can use the worldwide web for communication, in actuality for most regions of the world the web is of only very limited value. The key elements of such a process should include:
Improved use of the worldwide web ' with an analysis of where and how the web is useful, and not useful;
· continuous region specific reference site for certifications underway;
· centralized region-specific (national, regional, state or provincial) stakeholder database; Development of a toolkit for culturally appropriate stakeholder techniques (with references); and, Commonly agreed upon and improved procedures between F8C, FSC-approved certifiers, FSC members and supportive non-member stakeholders, particularly for forest operations that are in high conservation value forests (HCVFs, covered by Principle 9 in the FSC Principles and Criteria) and indigenous forest management operations.
2.2. The Market Linkage Problem for Certified Operations
However difficult the process of getting certified may be for some operations, actually getting certified may not be largest hurdle these operations face. Once certified, how do they take advantage of this certification in the marketplace? How do they get a return on investment from the expenditures they have made in getting certified?
Early in the history of FSC certification, many of the first certifications were small operations, indigenous groups, etc. In the early 1990's certified operations became infamous in the marketplace for delivering poor quality forest products (i.e. poorly sawn, poorly dried, wrong species), untimely delivery of product, and being notoriously difficult to work with because of different languages, poor business practices, etc. Many of these problems still plague community forestry groups, indigenous operations and small businesses. Certified operations of all kinds sell far too little of their certified resource as certified. And far too many certified operations are almost completely incapable of meeting the product quality and client servicing demands of the marketplace, particularly clients such as the Home Depot, Lowe's, IKEA, etc. As a result, despite very positive internal results from certification (i.e. it may have helped them improve their forest management systems, they gained credibility, etc.), today many of these groups are questioning their continued involvement in certification. In Central America and the USA, many operations clearly are not able to take economic advantage of their certification.
What can be done to change this situation?
1) As much as we need to focus on continually developing new systems that ease the administrative burden of getting certified, this work is useless unless we help certified operations develop the systems to capitalize financially on their certification. This problem must be formally recognized by the FSC.
2) There needs to be a concerted effort by the FSC membership and supporters to emphasize to the global forest products marketplace why they should buy certified products, with special attention on indigenous,community, group and resource management certifications. This could also emphasize some of the creative linkages that have been established between community operations and large forest industry companies.
3) The FSC should work with its stakeholders to design and fund strategic market linkage initiatives specifically focussed on indigenous, small landowner and small business operations. Major demand centers like B&Q, Home Depot, IKEA and Lowe's all would appear to be supportive of such an effort. Success in such an initiative will take very carefully facilitated interaction between all the parties involved and particularly sensitive work with the certified operations.
4) Certified operations should look to develop partnerships with forest industry companies or individuals that have the skills and experience necessary to deliver product to the marketplace. Intermediaries can help to develop mechanisms (legal agreements, operational systems) that will ensure that equitable partnerships take place. Again, this will take very careful facilitation during both the start-up and implementation phases. This will not be easy because, for good historical and cultural reasons, indigenous groups and small landowners often resist developing such linkages.
5) Systems for aggregating certified product from small operations, e.g. certified "concentration yards", need to be more aggressively developed. Groups like the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy (IATP) and the Sustainable Woods Cooperative in Wisconsin have already started such initiatives, as have private companies (e.g. Besse Forest Products, USA). But more of this experience and these models need to be considered for broader application.
2.3. Assessing Progress In Terms of Equity
SmartWood has managed to certify many small, community, indigenous and landowner association type operations. The FSC system includes an increasing number of small-scale, community, small business, and indigenous certified operations. Perhaps more than any other forest management certification system, the FSC has promoted the certification of community, indigenous and small enterprise operations. FSC and accredited certifiers have developed a rigorous but attainable forest certification system. This is not by accident. This commitment came from the founders of the FSC. It was further substantiated when, as part of FSC accreditation agreements, every FSC-approved certifier was given the mandate and responsibility to work on mechanisms that improve access to certification (by lowering costs, developing new systems, etc.). Though SmartWood's commitment to equity pre-dates the FSC, SrnartWood is not alone in the FSC system. Groups such as the Forest Stewards Guild (USA), Woodmark, SGS, IMO, SCS and others are now focussing on certification for small landowners, indigenous groups, consulting foresters and other similar groups.
Definitive assessments of the benefits of certification to community forestry, indigenous or small enterprise operations throughout the FSC system or SmartWood have not yet occurred, though there are some initiatives. Informal observations indicate that the FSC emphasis on equity has benefited certified operations and other participants/stakeholders in the FSC system. These benefits range from increased credibility to premiums received for the sale of certified products. But there is such a broad range of potential benefits, so many unsubstantiated claims of benefits (or costs), and so many different situations, that more detailed impact assessment research by objective observers would be useful.
2.4. The Cost of Ensuring Equity
There are many ways to look at the costs of equity. The intent here is to clarify what those costs have been by discussing in practical terms the implications of this emphasis at SmartWood. This is not a definitive assessment, just a starting point for discussion.
As a certifier, the emphasis on equity has made financial viability of the SmartWood Program a major challenge. SmartWood staff have worked extremely hard to find financial support for work with community forestry, indigenous and small operations over the past 10 years. Since inception, SmartWood has made the following commitment: we would not deny any application on a purely financial basis. Today, despite very positive market developments in regions of historical focus (e.g. Americas, Southeast Asia), SmartWood still has to go out and raise funds to cover approximately 30% of our certification budget. Approximately half of our forest management certification portfolio is small landowner, indigenous and resource manager certifications.
Covering the costs of certification for disadvantaged forest operations requires special skills and resources. For example, foundations and individual donors have often subsidized the certification assessments for a large number of the small, indigenous and community forestry certifications throughout the Americas. Often times we have received requests for certification from small operations and worked for years to get the resources to cover their certification assessment costs, e.g. the costs of scopings, desk reviews or other initial phase work. In almost every case, a detailed proposal had to be developed to obtain support, multiple contacts with supporters had to occur prior to even submitting a proposal, and constant communication between the financial supporter, the certifier and the candidate operation was necessary, sometime over years, not just months.
In some cases, downstream wood processing companies have subsidized the costs of forest assessments for their wood suppliers. This type of arrangement was crucial in the first resource manager certification in the FSC system (Blencowe Managed Forestlands) and the ejldo community forestry certification initiative in Durango state in Mexico (involving various ejidos and NORAM, a certified charcoal producer). Even in these cases, painstaking coordination was necessary. However positive the process of subsidization has been (there are numerous certified operations to show as a result), it has been very time consuming for all the parties involved. In one case in Honduras, at least five different funding sources were coordinated in order to cover the assessment and/or auditing costs of community forestry initiatives there, with the planning occurring over a two year period.
By historically focussing on disadvantaged operations, SmartWood has not made it any easier for the large certified wood demand centers (like B&Q, Home Depot, IKEA, etc.) to access certified product. Though we have recently restructured SmartWood in order to more aggressively attack the "large demand" problem, we have also continued to maintain a focus on access to certification for disadvantaged operations and are constantly developing new systems for it. Equity remains a long-term program commitment.
Though we might question the efficiency of many of our efforts to certify disadvantaged forestry operations, these investments have had impact. As shown in preceding sections and according to the most recent FSC lists of certified operations, SmartWood has certified a very large number of the group, small enterprise, indigenous or community forestry operations certified in the FSC system. We expect this will change. But at least this work has provided an important base of experience for the global FSC system and forest certification in general.
2.5. The Influence of Forest Politics on Equity
Working with indigenous groups and landowner associations in some regions has not proven easy for the FSC movement. In some parts of the USA and northern Europe (e.g. Sweden and Finland), there are numerous forest landowner organizations that are quite sophisticated and, from a management systems perspective, so welldesigned that, with relatively few (but important) changes, they could be FSC-certiflable group or resource manager certifications. Examples of this include Sodra in Sweden, various small landowner associations in Finland, and various Master Tree Fanner and small landowner organizations in the USA. Unfortunately, many of these organizations have resisted or moved very slowly in terms of their involvement with the FSC.
Some observers have suggested that the problem is overly complicated FSC certification requirements. Clearly improvements in the FSC system are needed. But in point of fact, 1 would suggest that the mechanics of how certification is done in the FSC is not the main factor in this resistance. Rather, much of this resistance is based on the FSC's fundamental commitments to key stakeholder groups such as indigenous peoples, and the very strong position of the environmental stakeholder groups in the FSC. In other words, I would suggest that in some cases, a large part of the resistance represents a political statement; not a strict certification systems or certification model issue.
Why has this happened and what can be done about it? In some cases it appears this is happening because the large forest products industries that do business with, or support, these forest landowner groups oppose the FSC system. In other cases, the groups themselves have internal body politics that are contrary to the philosophical directions of the FSC. For example, the FSC system is con-unitted to the notion that the conflict between indigenous land claims and private or public landowners must be resolved. This has created problems for some landowner associations in Sweden. It is also clear that in some cases, forest industry does not want to share power equally with social, indigenous or environmental groups, as required under the FSC's three chamber (economic, social and environmental) voting system.
Ultimately the resolution of these issues will play out in the certification marketplace. If there is a political and/or economic will to resolve such issues, they can be resolved. From a global and local forest and local community perspective, they need to be resolved.
What roles can the FSC and FSC stakeholders play? The FSC and its supporters need to continue to try communicating consistently and effectively their desire to resolve these issues in the interests of forests and communities. There are numerous locations and examples where the FSC has already demonstrated that FSC certification can be a pathway for resolving conflict; that the FSC system can break down the traditional barriers and animosities between these sectors. FSC stakeholders should identify and carefully demonstrate to the public these examples.
To state the obvious, it is also important to recognize that politics is part of forestry and forests; that some FSC challenges are not with the mechanics of how we are working. The very same groups that face a major equity challenge (e.g. small landowners, indigenous groups) have to be active in political terms for them to be able to change current conditions. This political reality affects certification, but it shouldn't consume it. The value of certification may be that, by focussing directly on the quality of forest management and the quality of relationships between forest operations and local communities, we can more directly focus on actual field level problems and challenges.
3. Conclusion
As discussed above, addressing equity in the FSC system requires everything from new systems improvements to more flexible policies and greater emphasis on getting economic benefits to certified operations of all sizes. It also requires the FSC to proactively "get the message out" about the FSC approach to certification and its successes.
Ultimately the FSC's success in addressing equity will be the result of a constant and strong emphasis on resolving issues of equity. By specifically developing targeted initiatives that focus on key sectors, e.g. indigenous groups, small enterprises, etc., and by being open to the development of innovative certification systems that respond to the needs of those sectors, the FSC system can continue to improve on the success we have had so far. Successfully addressing equity requires:
· a substantial long-term commitment of time, staff and other resources;
· an organizational mandate that is clear in maintaining equity in the certification system; and,
· continuous follow-up and monitoring of performance in meeting this mandate.
The FSC already has a lot to show, and through its membership, certifiers, staff and other supporters, it can do even more.