Annex I
A QUICK COMPARISON OF THE FIVE FOREST CERTIFICATION
SCHEMES ENDORSED BY THE UK GOVERNMENT AS PROOF OF LEGALITY (MTCC)
OR LEGALITY AND SUSTAINABILITY (PEFC, SFI, CSA AND FSC)
CANADIAN STANDARD'S
ASSOCIATION (CSA)
Main positive points
— The CSA standard does include (some)
minimum performance requirements.
— CSA has developed a well-described
participation process; each certification includes broad stakeholder
participation and consultation.
— The CSA has a very well developed
chain of custody system.
Main negative points
— Companies can develop their own certification
standard on a case by case basis, thereby not presenting a consistent
minimum standard.
— Although local stakeholder processes
are well defined they are nevertheless under the control of the
company and their scope is so broad that they may or may not be
effective in truly improving forest management.
— Insufficient procedures for addressing
the rights and interests of indigenous peoples.
Conclusion
The CSA standard can provide an effective tool
to improve relations between the company and local people. However,
the fact that there is no meaningful minimum performance threshold
and that companies can influence the local certification standard
(ie the indicators and targets against which performance is measured)
used for their audit are problematic for a scheme that wants to
deliver a product label. Broad stakeholder consultation is a good
thing, but allowing companies to set their own standards on a
case-by-case basis is not. A standard that does not result in
standardised levels of performance is not a true performance standard.
Therefore, until the CSA has developed a clear minimum threshold
a product label is not really suitable.
FOREST STEWARDSHIP
COUNCIL (FSC)
Main positive points
— Balanced participation of economic,
social and environmental interests in decision making at all levels,
including in the development of the standards.
— Thorough and well formulated procedures.
— A credible performance based standards
that qualifies for a consumer label: FSC certified forests prohibit
the clearing of natural forests for replacement by plantations,
exclude the use of GMO trees, includes the protection of High
Conservation Value Forests and afford the clear recognition of
indigenous peoples' rights.
Main negative points
— Certification in absence of national
standards is problematic. Phasing out of certifiers standards
as soon as possible is required.
— Consultation processes are not always
implemented as required on paper. Clear improvement is needed
to ensure adequate consultation processes are carried out.
— Current certification of large-scale
industrial tree plantations has led to undermining of local and
national campaigns in a number of countries.
Conclusion
FSC remains by far the most independent, rigorous
and credible certification system. Its national standards are
performance-based and their development requires full participation
of all interest groups. The FSC's baseline prohibits the conversion
of forests to plantations. GMO trees are explicitly excluded and
the standard includes forest protection measures. FSC is also
most advanced in recognition of forest peoples' rights. It rightfully
uses a consumer label. For the FSC to retain the confidence of
the environmental and social movement, however, it needs for the
future, it needs to enforce stricter implementation of its procedures
and seriously address the problems associated with the certification
of plantations.
PROGRAMME FOR
THE ENDORSEMENT
OF FOREST
CERTIFICATION (PEFC), FORMERLY
THE PAN
EUROPEAN FOREST
CERTIFICATION SCHEME
Main positive points
— Inclusion of core ILO standards as
a requirement for all certification schemes under the PEFC umbrella.
— Increased transparency in some member
countries, notably Sweden and Germany.
— Requirement of a revision of the
national standards every five years.
Main negative points
— The variability of PEFC's standards
leads to a serious lack of consistency in what PEFC delivers and
stands for, making it inappropriate for a consumer label.
— The scheme is governed by forest
owners and forestry industry; the independence of the schemes
is, therefore, questionable.
— The programme does not require certification
at FMU level; most PEFC endorsed schemes certify at regional level.
Conclusion
Given the variability in the national programmes
admitted, the PEFC does not represent a consistent and credible
performance based standard for forest certification. It is, therefore,
not suitable for a product label. Lack of participation of other
stakeholder groups in standard setting procedures and lack of
transparency are also problematic. Although PEFC seems to be trying
to improve its procedures and, hopefully, over time its standards,
it remains to be seen if this process will continue if it starts
endorsing many of the less credible schemes outside Europe.
SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
INITIATIVE (SFI)
Main positive points
— Quality of the standard has improved,
including some recognition that some critical forests need conservation.
— An attempt has been made to increase
the independence of the SFI and its board from the AF&PA and
to widen participation on the SFI's board to include some environmental
NGOs.
— If the SFI's standards are improved,
the SFI framework could potentially improve the practices of many
US and Canadian forestry companies.
Main negative points
— Certification of near status quo:
there is no meaningful minimum performance based standard including
preventing conversion of natural forests to plantations, adequately
protecting rare and endangered species, limiting clear cutting
and addressing social issues, including indigenous' peoples rights
and workers' right.
— Companies can customise the standard
used to assess them; certification is therefore not "independent".
Furthermore the scheme is run by the industry (AF&PA) and
although there is an "independent board", this board
is not balanced or independent and still dominated by forestry
industry interests.
— There is no formal chain of custody
certification requirement for product labelling. As much as 100%
of products carrying the SFI label can originate from forests
not even managed to the SFI's standards, without any indication
on the labels.
Conclusion
Because the SFI requires broad participation
by AF&PA member companies, it has considerable potential to
influence their forest management practices. However, SFI has
no clear performance requirements and allows for misleading labelling
of products that do not originate in SFI certified forests. The
SFI also gives vested interests considerable influence over the
programme and the certification process. SFI is therefore not
suitable for a product label.
MALAYSIAN TIMBER
CERTIFICATION COUNCIL
(MTCC)
Main positive points
— Demonstrates a potential legal framework
in accordance with various laws, policies and regulations of the
three regions in Malaysia: Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia.
— MTCC has made an attempt to work
towards compatibility with FSC principles, criteria and indicators.
— Procedures, standards and guidelines
are clearly documented and freely available.
Main negative points
— There is no clear minimum performance
based threshold.
— There is no full recognition of land
rights of local and indigenous peoples and no requirement for
full participation of these groups.
— There has been no acceptable participation
of environmental, social NGOs and representatives of indigenous
peoples in the development of the certification standard.
Conclusion
Although the MTCC has positive aspects in comparison
with some of the other schemes, the standard used for certification
is not sufficiently performance based to allow for a credible
consumer label. Furthermore, there is no clear recognition of
land rights and user rights in the standard, which is a serious
omission in Malaysian context and has, as a consequence, seriously
undermined support for the standard in Malaysia.
|
