|
| The lead article this month is one long argument, criticising various government proposals to discriminate in favour of timber certified by ?FSC or equivalent? certification schemes. The article is not a critique of FSC itself but of the way the scheme has been presented by some of its supporters.
Of course Governments should take steps to improve environmental procurement practice and where possible derive timber from certified forests. But it is nonsense to argue that the FSC is a universally recognized standard applicable in all circumstances.
Certification schemes need to be judged on their own merits and, most importantly, on their contribution to improved forest management. In fact the whole certification movement suffers from its failure to have undertaken disinterested research into the real costs and benefits where it matters, in the forest. Instead it has come to resemble a shouting match that scheme with the loudest supporters is the most likely to be accepted.
The limited research on forestry impacts of FSC certification suggests that it has contributed to improved participation and management planning in forestry operations, and has raised environmental and social standards under certain conditions. However this same research highlights the extent to which FSC has had to depend on external subsidy to achieve its goals. I, for one, do not want to work in an industry which is dependent on such subsidy for its long-term survival. Ultimately certified forests have to pay their way, and to demonstrate that they are economically sustainable as well as able to satisfy particular social and environmental criteria.
Of all FSC's achievements, perhaps the most significant has been to encourage the forest sector to develop alternative schemes like PEFC and the SFI Program - that seek to integrate environmental and social criteria into economically viable forms of forest management. As these schemes draw on UN principles for sustainable forest management, and on tried and tested guidelines for third party certification drawn up by ISO, they come closer to the ideal of an internationally recognized standard. Their rapid growth in the last two years indicates that such schemes are more widely accepted than FSC in the forest sector. As such they may well be more effective in spreading the sustainability message.
FSC has a key role to play, but as a model forestry network rather than a universally applicable standard.
Rupert Oliver
Managing Editor, hardwoodmarkets.com
Director, Forest Industries Intelligence Ltd.
The full document can be downloaded below.
|
|
|
Editor Notes
Hardwoodmarkets.com is an independent subscription-only journal distributed in 30 countries world-wide. Subscribers include UN organizations, trade associations, environmental groups, consultancies, and timber traders in over 30 countries world-wide. Hardwoodmarkets.com provides high quality unbiased information on international hardwood markets and hardwood forest resource and policy issues. It does not support any particular brand of forest certification and seeks to provide objective and independent information on this crucial issue. For details of subscriptions contact admin@hardwoodmarkets.com or tel +44 (0) 1756 796992, or view the website at www.hardwoodmarkets.com
|
|
