Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
MR NICHOLAS
CLIFFE AND
MR RICHARD
ROBERTSON
25 OCTOBER 2005
Q1 Chairman: Welcome to the first public
session of our Committee. I should like to say how important we
believe it is that we encourage all aspects of sustainable timber.
Your evidence will hopefully be really important to us. By way
of introduction, is there any background information you would
like to give us about your organisation; or perhaps each of you
could say more about how it was created and the way in which the
organisation works?
Mr Cliffe: We both represent the
Forestry Stewardship Council UK Working Group, which means we
have responsibility for overseeing all aspects of the FSC system
within the UK. The FSC itself is an international membership organisation,
currently consisting of approximately 630 members distributed
world-wide. It is divided into three chambers: an environmental
chamber, an economic chamber and a social chamber. The membership
is responsible for setting policy and making decisions, and these
are then implemented by an international secretariat based in
Bonn; and we pick up the boundaries of the UK. The ultimate aim
of the FSC is to promote responsible forest management world-wide,
and we do that by operating two basic standards. The first is
that we have a core forest management standard, effectively a
standard that says what constitutes a well-managed forest; and
then we have a chain-of-custody standard that allows timber from
those well-managed forests to be tracked throughout the supply
chain and identified as end products, using a system of product
labelling. Furthermore, we operate on the basis that a well-managed
forest, although it shares common characteristics, is quite different
depending on the region or zone; and therefore we have a system
whereby a national standard tailored to that particular environment
is developed and submitted for accreditation to the international
secretariat. For example, we have a UK national standard that
is set through the UK woodland assurance standard process.
Mr Robertson: That is the basis
of my work, interpreting the international principles and criteria
of FSC, which is an umbrella of ten principles for the UK situation.
So in the UK we are very lucky to have a national initiative accredited
by FSC, which is FSC UK. There are 32 national initiatives around
the world, of which we are one. There is the opportunity to bring
in a very broad consultation process and to develop principles
and technical interpretation of the principles and criteria at
a national level. Shall I run through the principles quickly?
Q2 Chairman: I think perhaps we have
got that in the evidence that has been submitted. If anything
is bought in, say, a B&Q shop or anywhere else, can you give
guarantees about the sustainable management of the forests that
that timber comes from?
Mr Cliffe: The FSC system is designed
so that if the label appears on products—correctly applied,
obviously—it does provide an assurance that the timber is
traceable back to a well-managed forest. Obviously there is non-certified
content for products that carry our mixed-sources label, but timber
from there has come from a variety of known sources, for example
verified post-consumer reclaimed material, or material covered
by our controlled wood standard.
Q3 Chairman: Can you give the bigger
perspective in terms of why your organisation was necessary in
the first place, and a very brief summary of the changes since
it was set up? Is the situation in respect of loss of forests
getting better or worse? Have you had any impact, as an organisation,
on all of this, by way of the wider perspective?
Mr Cliffe: The idea for the FSC
first came about in 1990 in the backdrop of an international timber
trade having an enormous degree of difficulty. The timber trade
did not quite know in which direction to go. Lots of them were
doing good work on their own, but there was no one system that
everyone could fall behind. In the face of mounting pressure from
environmental and social groups it was decided that there needed
to be one international definition for what constitutes well-managed
forests. Over the course of a few years various meetings were
held, and a consensus was built. Back in 1994 the FSC, as a legal
entity, was first founded in Oaxaca, in Mexico, which in part
is due to the fact that that is one of the frontlines of the forest-in-crisis
areas of Amazon and South America. Over the last 10 years we have
developed a variety of standards, as well as the aforementioned
principles and criteria for a well-managed forest. The chain-of-custody
system is continuously evolving, and the goal is to have a workable
system. As at the beginning of October we have approximately 65.5
million hectares of forest under management, which is split between
natural forest, mixed forest and plantation as well as boreal
temperate, tropical and sub-tropical areas; and we have a total
of 4,154 chain-of-custody certificates. A chain-of-custody certificate
is held by a company or organisation involved in processing timber
in some form. We have gone, in ten years, to 65.5 million hectares
of forest under management. We have gone in ten years to over
4,000 companies using our system to demonstrate that they are
supplying sustainable timber, and we also like to think that we
have provided a strong goal for a lot of organisations to campaign
for forest-owners and companies to strive towards.
Q4 Chairman: While all that has been
happening what has been the effect on forests?
Mr Robertson: In terms of forests
in the developed world and northern hemisphere, it has been quite
easy. A lot of systems are in place already. If you have the laws
and systems in place it can really help to get forests certified.
It has been a much more difficult process in the tropics and in
the global south to get forests through to full FSC certification
to demonstrate that they are forests that are well managed. Where
forests have come through and have been certified, it is really
starting to influence forestry policy and laws in those countries
as well, so it is having a much wider influence. To add to what
Nick said, FSC is about giving people social and environmental
licence to operate. That is the key thing that we want to deliver.
Q5 Mrs Villiers: What proportion
of timber certified by you comes from temperate forests and how
much comes from tropical forests?
Mr Cliffe: I can tell you that
presently the breakdown on forest type certified—we have
41% that is boreal; 45% is temperate, and only 14% at present
is tropical and sub-tropical. However, of course, the working
groups in those areas find that they often have the largest distance
to go from no form of management to a form of forest management
that would be eligible to be FSC certified.
Q6 Mrs Villiers: The Trade Federation
has suggested that your standards are too stringent for developing
countries and that that is why at the moment you have a low uptake
for tropical forests. Is that a good analysis of the situation;
that developing countries find your standards very difficult to
cope with?
Mr Robertson: They definitely
do, but in order to put incentives in place we have developed
the controlled wood standard. As Nick mentioned, FSC products
in the shops are not necessarily 100% certified timber; but what
we want for the rest of the proportion of that product is for
it to exclude the worst, to exclude illegally-harvested timber,
GMOs, to ensure that high conservation values are preserved; that
it does not come from areas where forests are converted, or civil
or human rights are threatened. These, we see as the major "no-no"s.
This is a kind of step on the ladder towards FSC. This is a fairly
recent announcement, but in June the board of directors approved
a modular approach to FSC. We are looking now to work with people
like TTF to build this approach.
Q7 Mrs Villiers: Do you interact
with people running aid programmes and those whose priorities
are poverty alleviation, to try and co-ordinate their work with
your work? Obviously, there is a potential conflict between people
wanting to release the economic value of their forestry and those
that wish to preserve it.
Mr Robertson: Those kinds of organisations
are members of FSC. People have to engage with the system in order
to bring things on. It is about encouragement—environmental,
social and economic, the three legs of the stool—which brings
about sustainability. They have to engage and put across their
views. We also have a system of consensus voting as well within
FSC, so no one chamber can outweigh another: the economic chamber
could not outvote all of the environmental or social members.
Q8 Mrs Villiers: There are obviously
a large number of organisations involved in the process of securing
sustainable timber. How does the work of the Tropical Forest Trust
tie in with what you are doing?
Mr Cliffe: TFT are members of
FSC. Membership is open to any organisation demonstrating an interest
in forest. As such, they have a vote on defining and shaping FSC
policy. We do not have much direct relationship with TFT in the
UK, but we know that TFT often use the FSC forest management standard
as a desired end goal in their work in trying to help forest managers
and owners in the developing world improve their own forest management.
Mr Robertson: The goal of our
modular approach is to build an auditable modular system that
can bring people towards that end goal of FSC and therefore of
well-managed forests.
Q9 Mr Ainsworth: There is a confusing
bunch of acronyms in this whole area, and many of them belong
to different and competing accreditation schemes. We have had
evidence from a timber company called Brewer & Co that the
whole process of taking forward sustainable forestry has been
set back by squabbling between the various different schemes.
Are you aware of squabbling?
Mr Cliffe: No. I am aware that
there tends to be an incredible amount of squabbling between advocates
of the various systems, but the systems themselves, the personnel
and staff—I am certainly not aware of any squabbling directly
between ourselves and other certification schemes.
Mr Robertson: In the recent press
other schemes have talked about us as being colleagues and working
alongside our systems.
Q10 Mr Ainsworth: So how come Brewers
think there has been squabbling and that it has held the process
back—in fact worse than that, because they say while this
squabbling was going on it effectively devalued the whole issue
and allowed timber with far lower credentials to pass through
the system?
Mr Cliffe: As I said, I am not
aware of direct squabbling, although I am aware—and you
cannot help but see, that there are certainly people within the
timber trade who are fierce advocates of one or other form of
system.
Q11 Mr Ainsworth: Presumably, you
accept that that does not actually help people in a trade to know
what they are supposed to be doing.
Mr Cliffe: No, absolutely.
Mr Robertson: As we found with
FSC, the market demand for certification is there, because we
have environmental and social support as well as economic. That
market driver is what we really look to. That is the most important
thing. If people in the trade look at our system, they see that
we do have that economic driver.
Q12 Mr Ainsworth: Is there a common
minimum standard agreed between the various schemes?
Mr Cliffe: No.
Q13 Mr Ainsworth: Should there not
be? Would that not be something to work towards?
Mr Cliffe: There could be. The
phrase that is often used is "mutual recognition"—why
can the different systems not mutually recognise one another?
The FSC in principle has no problems with mutual recognition,
although we would have to insist, to use the ISO term, on "technical
equivalence". To the best of my knowledge, no other certification
system has submitted their standard to FSC to ask for us to accredit
it against our principles and criteria; but, equally, FSC has
not submitted its standard to any other body to ask them. That
is a step that could be taken. Should any system submit their
standard to FSC, it would be accredited and reported on.
Q14 Mr Ainsworth: Are you not all
competing financially, because you are funded by the industry?
Mr Cliffe: No.
Q15 Mr Ainsworth: Are you all funded
in different ways?
Mr Cliffe: FSC International and
ourselves, FSC UK, are charitable organisations. FSC UK relies
on a mix of traditional and corporate fund-raising. FSC International
does levy a membership fee on those 628 members, and during the
process of certification—someone applying to be certified
pays their certification body. We operate a process of independent
third-party certification, and they pay the fees set by their
certification body. Part of the overall fee is something that
is termed the "accreditation administration fee" (AAF).
That is paid through the certification body to a unit of FSC called
the Accreditation Business Unit.
Q16 Mr Ainsworth: It is not getting
any simpler!
Mr Cliffe: No.
Q17 Mr Ainsworth: Let us cut back.
What are the main barriers to achieving a basic, agreed international
minimum standard?
Mr Robertson: What we have done
in the UK—and we are ahead of the game—is to form
an independent body that actually sets the forest standard in
the UK. It is not FSC; it is not PFC and none of the others; it
is independent from those, and that is UKWAS, which is the UK
Woodland Assurance Standard. That standard then has to look to
the international systems to see what it has to meet in order
to get accredited by these international systems. I have been
working very closely with UKWAS and ensuring that it meets the
international principles and criteria of FSC. We have broad stakeholder
support in the UK for that.
Q18 Mr Ainsworth: I do not want to
be awkward, but I asked what are the main barriers.
Mr Robertson: The barriers are
that different standards, as you seem to be implying, could be
developed in different countries; but if people around the world
followed the kind of line we have taken in the UK, you would have
the one standard—which is also recognised by the PEFC, so
FSC have recognised UKWAS. That standard is open to anyone to
recognise. The other thing is that the certification bodies that
are accredited to FSC, to assess against FSC system and standards,
often say to us: "We are also looking to PEFC or others to
see if we could also take on and assess for those at the same
time." I think the actual cost overall of becoming dual certified,
if that is what someone wanted to do, is not much more than just
going for the one system.
Q19 Mr Ainsworth: Is one of the possible
barriers the fact that you, for example, place heavier emphasis
on social aspects associated with logging than some of the other
accreditation schemes?
Mr Cliffe: To provide the short
answer that maybe you are looking for, the barriers are probably
unknown because no-one has yet carried out an assessment of the
different standards. With a view to recognising each other, obviously
many organisations have carried out comparative studies that have
found inconsistencies between the systems and standards, and they
have drawn their own conclusions; but from an FSC point of view
the barrier would be the other organisations submitting their
standard to us for recognition, which is as yet to happen.
| 
