0984-A5
Jane Stewart, Dawn Robinson and Larianna Brown 2
Increasingly, community and small-scale forest management are being recognized for their economic, ecological and social importance, both to local communities and global markets. In Mexico and Papua New Guinea, indigenous and local communities own 80 and 90% of the forests, respectively. Of the seven million non-industrial private forest landowners in the United States of America, 6.4 million have holdings of less than 40ha.
Forest certification is increasingly recognized as an important tool to help preserve the world's remaining forests and to guarantee responsible forest management. However, while certification has been adopted rapidly in some regions, it is proving more difficult for small-scale forest operations and low-intensity forest operations, such as some community forestry initiatives and non-timber forest product collectors, to obtain formal recognition for their stewardship in the form of forest certification. The cost of certification per hectare, and the challenges of interpreting forest management standards to their reality, have created barriers for some forest managers and communities.
In response, a multinational committee has been established to develop policy recommendations for the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) on how to improve access to certification for small and low-intensity managed forests. This initiative began in April 2002, and is expected to increase the number of certified small and low-intensity forest operations, especially in developing countries. Results to date include methods to reduce certification costs by streamlining the certification procedure, draft guidelines for the production of more appropriate, user-friendly standards, and modifications to group schemes for small-scale forest management units. Field trials in developed and developing countries will begin in early 2003.
Stakeholder consultation via a review committee has been a cornerstone of this initiative. The authors are seeking further input on this work.
Third-party forest certification - whereby forest management is independently assessed against social, environmental and economic criteria - has emerged as "one of the most significant advances in forestry in recent years" (Bass et al. 2001). Within a decade it has grown from "just an idea, to become routine practice in some parts of the world" (Markopoulos 2002).
At the same time, it has been suggested that there is currently a trend to move away from industrial forestry towards landholder-based forest management and community forestry (Harrison et al. 2002). There are significant numbers of small-scale forest holdings worldwide. Of the seven million non-industrial private forest landowners in the USA, 6.4 million have holdings less than 40 hectares. In Europe there is a huge diversity of small-scale forestry, and current political change in central and eastern Europe is likely to greatly increase private forest ownerships of less than five hectares in size (Harrison et al. 2002). Community forestry is dominant in some countries: in Mexico and Papua New Guinea, indigenous and local communities own 80 and 90 percent of the forests, respectively (White and Martin 2002).
Certification has brought considerable benefits both to certified forest operations and to the world's forests. However, to date, certification has not been equally available to all types of forest operations. Research conducted by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) in early 20023 identifies several groups of forest users that face particular challenges in obtaining FSC certification. These groups can be classified into two broad categories of forest users: small forest operations, and low intensity managed forest operations (Table 1).
Table 1: Types of forest users facing challenges in obtaining FSC certification.
Small |
|
Low Intensity Management |
|
This paper describes the efforts of the Forest Stewardship Council to tailor their certification systems to small and low intensity forest operations. In particular, it identifies the major challenges faced by these operations in achieving forest certification, and introduces the policies under development to address these issues.
Forest certification was conceived as a market-based system that identifies forest products coming from responsibly managed forests. It is a relatively new concept that started with the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) in 1993, and has grown quickly. Greenpeace and WWF have declared that "rigorous certification is an important tool to help preserve the world's remaining forests and to guarantee responsible forest management" (WWF 2001a).
FSC is an international body which aims to make forest certification equally accessible to forest operations in both developing and developed countries. It is a membership organization, with equal representation of social, economic and environmental interests. There are four core elements of FSC: standardization, accreditation, certification, and product labelling (Box 1).
Forest operations have benefited from FSC certification in a number of ways, including:
Box 1: Core elements of the Forest Stewardship Council certification system. Standardization: FSC's forest management standards are based on ten principles of forest stewardship. These are used to create standards that are applicable to the country. Each national standard is developed by a multi-stakeholder group, representing the social, environmental, and economic interests of the particular country. This ensures that the resulting standard is acceptable to all interest groups. Standards are coordinated by FSC National Initiatives (a contact person, working group or permanent office promoting FSC in a country). Accreditation: FSC does not directly certify forest or processing operations. FSC accredits certification bodies ("certifying" the certifiers) that meet FSC's accreditation requirements. This process guarantees that certification bodies are competent to carry out forest certification. Certification: Operations seeking certification apply to independent, third-party FSC accredited certification bodies. The certification body will evaluate a forest operation against the national FSC-endorsed standard where one exists, or against the certification bodies' FSC forest management standard. Chain of custody certification for processing operations verifies the tracking of products from a certified forest throughout the stages of production. FSC certificates are generally valid for five years and audits are carried out annually. Labelling: Products from FSC certified forests and covered with a chain of custody certificate can be labelled with the "tick and tree" logo. This label identifies to consumers that the product comes from a well-managed forest. For more information about FSC, refer to the website (www.fscoax.org). |
Currently there are 486 FSC-endorsed forest management certificates in 55 countries, covering over 34 million hectares (FSC 2003). Forest certification has been adopted rapidly in many forest regions, and by a wide variety of forest operations. However, recent studies, such as those carried out by ProForest and within FSC, suggest that larger operations - whether private landowners, concessionaires or public bodies - are often better equipped to gain access to information about certification, to implement the requirements of certification, and to respond quickly to market demands (Higman and Nussbaum 2002; Nussbaum et al. 2000).
In comparison to large forest operations, small forest and low intensity operations and users (such as those identified in Table 1) find that the cost of certification per hectare is prohibitively high. Certification of four Guatemalan community concessions was estimated to cost US$3000 per unit, with annual audits and membership fees costing approximately $US1550 per year (Robinson 2000). WWF calculated that the annual cost of certification per hectare is ten times higher for a forest under 500 hectares than for a forest larger than 20 000 hectares (2001b). This is of concern to FSC, given the significant and growing number of small and low intensity forest operations worldwide.
The FSC system was designed with the idea that forest management standards and certification processes should be flexible -`according to size and scale'- while maintaining the rigor of evaluation. In order to ensure equitable access to certification for forests of different types and sizes, two strategies have been developed by FSC. One strategy was group forest certification, introduced in 1998, and considered a success by recent reviews (Lindahl and Garforth 2001). The second is a new initiative started in 2002 to propose policy and procedural changes that directly targets small and low intensity managed forests.
Group forest certification was developed as a means to support the certification of small forest operations. It offers forest managers the opportunity to be certified as part of an organized group. Administrative and reporting requirements are for the whole group, not individual members, making certification more cost-effective and less time-consuming for group members (Figure 1). More responsibility is placed on the group manager for monitoring the group members; the certification body audits a sample of group members annually.
While only 16 percent of FSC's 486 certificates are for forest operations smaller than 1000 hectares, thousands of small forest operations have obtained certification as part of a group. Currently there are 105 group FSC forest management certificates which cover 3,098,000 hectares and include over 8000 individual forest operations.
An analysis of 58 group certificates revealed that the average land-holding per group member was 42 hectares. Approximately 30 percent of all group members had forest holdings of less than 100 hectares. This is a positive indication that, even though there is no fixed limit on the size of landholding a group member can have, the scheme is benefiting the smaller operations for whom it was conceived.
However, group certification is not a viable option for all forest owners. Where there is no existing organization (e.g. association, cooperative, NGO) it can prove too challenging to create one solely for certification purposes. Setting up and managing a group incurs additional costs, precisely for those operations who are most cost-sensitive.
Therefore, while the group certification model has allowed more small operations to obtain certification, FSC recognises that more should be done to address the needs of small and low intensity operations. In response, an initiative has been developed to specifically address certification issues for small and low intensity forest operations.
Identifying the challenges
The operations listed in Table 1 include many traditionally marginalized groups that face considerable forest management barriers. An evaluation of the challenges for these operations in terms of obtaining and retaining FSC certification was conducted. Four concerns were identified on which efforts would be focused:
a. Cost of certification: The cost of FSC certification is influenced by the certification evaluation system (evaluation, auditing, reporting), and by the extent of changes an operation must make to meet the requirements specified in the forest management standard.
b. Lack of information about forest certification: General information about FSC and specific information about certification requirements and process, and finding a certification organization can be difficult to obtain, hard to understand, or not available in an appropriate language or format. This is especially important in areas with poor communication infrastructure and low literacy levels.
c. Difficulty in interpreting forest management standards: Current FSC standards can be difficult to interpret or contain requirements that are inapplicable or inappropriate for small or low intensity operations. Many FSC national standards are designed to account for the major negative impacts which might arise if a large-scale operation carries out poor forest management. As a result these standards often incorporate indicators that can be inappropriate for smaller enterprises. Examples of these include the level of stakeholder consultation required by the applicant or the need for assessment of environmental impact at a landscape level.
d. The need for a more flexible evaluation system: The current systems are not responsive to the scale of forest management operations. Report writing, annual audits, forest monitoring requirements are currently the same for high and low risk operations.
These four issues became the focus of a new initiative to improve access to FSC certification for small and low intensity operations. Other issues were identified as posing significant challenges for communities, Indigenous Peoples, low intensity operations and small forests, particularly in the developing world:
FSC recognizes that these particular challenges also limit these groups' ability to achieve forest certification. However, these are issues that fall outside the scope of this present initiative. FSC welcomes initiatives by partner organizations in addressing these.
Developing solutions
In April 2002, a multi-national technical committee was established to develop recommendations for FSC policy and procedural changes that address the four challenges identified above. Nine highly experienced individuals from eight different countries make up this committee, which is coordinated by FSC staff members. The committee works closely with an international review committee of over 100 people from 33 different countries who review proposals and recommendations and maintain their own networks informed of advances. Among the stakeholders represented in the review committee are small and low intensity forest owners, certification organizations, NGOs and researchers.
Table 2 outlines the actions proposed by the technical committee.
Table 2: Challenges for small and low intensity operations, and proposed solutions.
Certification challenges |
Solutions proposed by FSC |
a. Cost of certification |
A flexible, streamlined system for certification bodies to reduce evaluation costs for low risk operations. Forest management standards which contain indicators appropriate to size and scale of the operation, so that certification requirements are realistic for smaller and low intensity operations. |
b. Lack of information about certification |
Information about FSC certification, standards and new certification systems for small owners produced and made available for use worldwide. Guidelines on how to produce a version of the national standard for small and low intensity users, that clearly explains the requirements for certification in simple language. Support to FSC National Initiatives to disseminate locally-appropriate information via appropriate means. |
c. Difficulty in interpreting forest management standards |
New guidance to standards setting groups on writing standards for small/low intensity forest operations, especially in the development of realistic, appropriate indicators. New guidelines for how to include these forest stakeholders in standards development processes. |
d. The need for a more flexible certification system |
A flexible certification system to allow certification bodies to give a more appropriate service. e.g. Tailor the assessment process to the level of risk involved. This will also reduce the cost of certification. |
In collaboration with this committee, FSC has determined a number of changes to its policies and procedures which can most effectively address the identified challenges for small and low intensity operations. With the assistance of certification bodies, FSC will be coordinating field testing of these changes in both developing and developed countries.
a. Reducing costs by streamlining the certification procedure: FSC requires certification organizations apply a number of procedures in the process of certifying forest operations. The actual practice of certification can be broken down into eight steps:
To make FSC certification more cost effective for the target groups, FSC will be testing a streamlined procedure for some of the requirements within these steps. Eligibility criteria will serve as a filter, identifying those forest operations that are considered "lower risk" forest operations (small and low intensity in nature) and will thus qualify to be evaluated against a streamlined certification process.
Care is being taken to take account of group certification of such operations, where the impact of the group (in terms of number of members or area covered) may mean that the group is not low risk, and should be treated as if it were a single large operation.
The emphasis of the field trials will be to determine if costs can be reduced without reducing the rigor of FSC procedures in guaranteeing the operation's compliance with the FSC Principles and Criteria of forest stewardship.
b. Defining the eligibility criteria: For a streamlined certification procedure to work there must be a system to determine and define the forest operations that will be eligible. This system of `eligibility criteria' has been designed to be as simple as possible, so as not to further complicate and increase the costs of the certification process. Table 1 presents the draft general eligibility criteria.
Table 1: Draft eligibility criteria for individual small and low intensity forests operations (Values not yet defined).
Small forest operation |
Low intensity forest operation |
Size of forest |
Frequency of harvesting |
Type of harvesting intervention | |
Magnitude of harvest | |
Presence of plantations |
While this system is defined centrally, it is designed to be modified to national or regional situations. The general criteria for each category of small and low intensity forests will stay the same, and each country will specify values that are appropriate to their forests. In the short-term it will probably be necessary for FSC to establish some interim values, until national values are defined.
c. Developing more appropriate, user-friendly standards: As part of this initiative, FSC proposes to support the development of forest standards which better address the reality of small and low intensity forests. This will involve new guidelines on how to interpret forest management requirements so they are appropriate to the scale and intensity of the operation. Additionally, FSC will be field-testing a generic forest management standard interpreted for the target groups.
FSC is developing guidance for the national and regional standards development groups on:
FSC continues to address some of the difficulties that small and low intensity operations face when applying for forest certification. This ongoing initiative is targeting those issues that can best be resolved through changes in FSC's policies and procedures. The rigor of FSC's systems guarantees to consumers and stakeholders that a forest is managed according to stringent social, environmental and economic principles. The priority for FSC is to maintain the rigor of its procedures while continuing to be innovative and responsive to the needs of a variety of forest operations.
Bass, S., K. Thornber, M. Markopoulos, S. Roberts and M. Grieg-Gran. 2001. Certification's impacts on forests, stakeholders and supply chains. A report of the IIED project: Instruments for sustainable private sector forestry. May 2001. 134 p.
FSC. 2003. Forests certified by FSC-accredited certification bodies. Forest Stewardship Council website. www.fscoax.org. Feb 28, 2003.
Harrison, S., J. Herbohn and A. Niskanen. 2002. Non-Industrial, Smallholder, Small-scale and Family Forestry: What's in a Name? Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy. 1(1): 1-11.
Higman, S. and R. Nussbaum. 2002. How standards constrain the certification of small forest enterprises. Report for UK DFID Forestry Research Programme. 21 p.
Lindahl, K. and M. Garforth. 2001. The effectiveness of group certification: a study of the accessibility of the Forest Stewardship Council group certification scheme to small forest holdings in western Europe. A report for the WWF European Policy Office. 55 p.
Markopolous, M. D. 2002 Standards-based approaches to Community Forestry Development in Asia and the Pacific. Final Draft 05 December 2002 prepared for Regional Community Forestry Training Centre for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC). 88 p.
Nussbaum, R., M. Garforth, H. Scrase, and M.J. Wenban-Smith. 2000. An analysis of current FSC accreditation, certification, and standard-setting procedures identifying elements which create constraints for small forest owners. Report for UK DFID Forestry Research Programme. 20 p.
Robinson, D. 2000. The actual and potential impacts of Forest Certification and Fair Trade on poverty and injustice; the case of Mexico. Unpublished report prepared for the Community and Resource Development Unit, Ford Foundation, New York.
Shiraishi, N. 2001. Progress of the Forest Certification Systems in the World and Japan. Policy Trend Report 2001: 95-104.
White, A. and A. Martin. 2002. Who owns the world's forests? Forest tenure and public forests in transition. Forest Trends. Center for International Environmental Law: Washington, D.C. 30 p.
WWF. 2001a. Environmental NGOs call for credible forest certification and reject IFIR mutual recognition proposal. Press release. February 19, 2001. Rome. http://www.panda.org/forests4life/news/pr_rome.cfm
WWF. 2001b. FSC - the right choice for forest owners. FSC Facts brochure. World Wide Fund for Nature. May 2001.
1 This publication is an output from a project partly funded by the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing countries. The views expressed are not necessarily those of DFID (ZF0178 Forestry Research Programme).
FSC would like to thank the following organizations for their financial support of the SLIMFs project: RNT-CR, FSC US, The Moriah Fund, Laird Norton Foundation, National Wildlife Federation, Rainforest Alliance, Richard Ivey Foundation, and FSC Canada.
2 Falls Brook Centre, 125 South Knowlesville Rd., Knowlesville, N.B. E7L 1B1 Canada. [email protected];
Website: www.fallsbrookcentre.ca
3 Derived from responses to a questionnaire circulated to FSC members and three email fora (FSC certification bodies, FSC National Initiatives and FSC social forum).