zemeunvalsts.lv commentary

In the open letter from non-governmental organisations to the FSC Board, one can feel a desire for increased control, which in reality means higher costs for the end consumer and greater bureaucracy for forest managers and the timber industry. We read about concerns that are justified in many parts of the world, but we do not read about a concrete plan or a clear position on what to do. The call to action is understandable, but – how, when, with whom...

It is clear that attitudes towards forest management, logging, and environmental and climate issues vary in different countries and regions of the world. For example, when talking about the European Green Deal, we increasingly hear questions – if the Green Deal increases control and bureaucracy in Europe, where will the wood "come" from? There are no clear answers yet.

The view of environmental organisations, strangely enough, is directed not towards everyday trifles, which, taken together, both pollute and cause harm, but towards sectors that are significant on a local scale, such as timber processing and agriculture, generalising many issues. It would not be an exaggeration to say that even in Latvia someone might consider that a spruce forest affected by rot has been harvested to grow soy and palms for oil instead, forgetting Latvia's latitude. Environmental activists have not been seen participating in or resolving issues of waste, say, discarded tyres or littered forests. The obvious problem is not solving everyday issues but targeting industries, explaining drop by drop that protecting (read – doing nothing) is good, and working – bad. This can be afforded by people who live off project (read – earned by others) money, whose everyday life does not depend on their own work and its results.

To the FSC Board members:

Alan Thorne Barbara
Bramble Carla Ximena
Cardenas Ivone Satsuki
Namikawa Janne
Näräkkä Leendert van
der Vlist Linda Fienberg
Mauro Jose Capossoli
Armelin Per Larsson
Ralph Schmidt-Liermann
Rulita Wijayaningdyah
Zandra Martinez

25 October 2021

Subject:

On the urgent FSC structural reform need to properly respond to the global deforestation crisis

Dear Board members!

We are writing to you out of concern for the integrity of the FSC label and its significance in a climate-conscious future. We represent both local and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working to protect forests. Some are FSC members, all support the FSC's initial goals, driven by the best of intentions. The FSC could be a powerful tool to protect and help restore forests globally; in some regions, the FSC has had a beneficial impact. However, we share serious concerns about the organisation's inability to transform in response to the challenges facing forests in the 21st century. We believe that the FSC is increasingly undermining, rather than supporting, its own stated goals.

Some of us, as experts in the global illegal timber trade, worked hard to urge lawmakers to ban illegally harvested timber in consumer countries. Faced with failures in voluntary industry efforts to protect forests, some consumer countries are considering expanding legislation to require importers to ensure timber is also sourced from a “sustainable” source. Many of us have taken similar actions within the Forest Stewardship Council since its inception almost 30 years ago and helped to formulate and strengthen FSC policy in its early years.

Unfortunately, today's FSC is significantly different from the FSC of the early years. In circumstances where the environmental crisis has intensified and the FSC-certified forest area worldwide has increased, key supporters of the environmental chamber increasingly find that their voices are ignored or drowned out by those the FSC represents in the timber and wood products industry, typically resulting in the weakening of environmental standards or actions that promote logging and the profitability of timber companies. As a result, early defenders of the FSC, such as Greenpeace International, which is one of the world's largest environmental organisations, Fern and other groups, have withdrawn from FSC membership.

Many others of us are not FSC members but have observed the FSC's failure to provide clients with responsible sourcing of its certified products or even their legality. We have written joint reports over three decades demonstrating how FSC systems have not been effective in all major forest regions on Earth, at every stage of the supply chain from tropical to temperate climates and in plantations. We have heard reports from activists, whistleblowers, government officials, and logging industry workers about how the FSC fails to identify and prevent corruption, logging in protected areas, large-scale deforestation, violations of indigenous rights, and human rights abuses. Our focus on the FSC is not a choice but a natural consequence of our work. Increasingly, if we find wood of suspicious origin for sale in major markets – Europe and the USA – it is FSC certified or sold by FSC-certified companies.

FSC members and stakeholders have repeatedly called for structural changes to prevent bad practices that hinder effective FSC operation. These efforts have often been met with denial and defensiveness, as well as reluctant, fragmented changes made by the FSC, or the deliberate stalling of such changes for personal interests. Individual scandals are addressed in isolation, while root causes and recommendations on how to address them are ignored. Many of the most significant FSC actions, such as disassociating from companies, have typically only occurred as a result of independent civil society investigations, media coverage, and serious scrutiny. The FSC today is losing its relevance and is not fit for purpose. This is because:

### standards and procedures are now lower than those set in legislation for timber harvesting and import in major markets, such as the USA, the EU, and the UK. Legislation requires timber importers to perform “due diligence”, and in the EU, this must be controlled strictly enough to reduce the risk of products having an illegal origin to a “negligible” level. However, to do so requires a level of traceability, knowledge of supplier involvement in illegal acts, and transparency that FSC systems simply do not provide;

### it has failed to keep up with the latest technologies, such as easily accessible satellite imagery and methods for timber tracking and ensuring system integrity;

### a culture of defensiveness and avoidance of accountability exists within the FSC, which over the years has been reflected in its reaction to scandals and NGO calls, as well as a lack of transparency in decision-making; it has failed to confront the increasingly urgent climate and deforestation crisis and its impact on forest management and protection.

We are running out of time. Deforestation is the leading cause of climate change after the burning of fossil fuels. The timber industry remains a key driver of deforestation and forest degradation, and its operations are often linked to other main drivers, such as agriculture or mining. If the FSC wants to continue operating in countries with climate-essential forest cover, many of which are countries with low levels of governance, it must ensure that it protects its processes and policies from relevant risks. There is no system that is completely free of problems. However, given the scale of the failures, it is clear that the FSC's shortcomings are systemic.

We have outlined five particularly important issues and how the FSC must address them below:

1. A shift in philosophy. Forests are a finite resource. They are currently rapidly declining due to over-harvesting and associated infrastructure, which often facilitates the transition to agriculture and other land-use types. Here, the FSC can take a number of actions. It must accept and publicly acknowledge that timber harvesting (internationally) at current levels is fundamentally unsustainable. The FSC must concentrate efforts to restore and manage the vast majority of the world's forests that are already degraded, rather than facilitating logging in some of the remaining primary forests. The FSC must distance itself from the false and outdated argument that logging is the best way to protect them, regardless of circumstances.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has stated that primary forests, including intact forest landscapes, are irreplaceable for combating climate and biodiversity crises, and their protection must be a top priority. Yet, efforts to limit FSC-certified logging in intact forest landscapes, widely supported by FSC members, are repeatedly weakened and then effectively eliminated due to constant lobbying by logging interests. The FSC has also failed to implement recommendations to restrict certification activities in high-risk zones with poor governance, human rights abuses, and conflict zones. The FSC must also take a clear stance against intensification and the use of FSC-certified material as biomass for fuel or energy. It is possible that one of the most obvious examples of FSC greenwashing is that it allows its name to be used for timber that the FSC has not even certified. Making small text changes to its label alone is not enough. It must immediately stop using “Controlled Wood” and “FSC Mix” and allow its logo to be used only on timber that is 100% sourced from FSC-certified sources.

The only way the timber industry can truly be part of the solution is if it manages forests to restore ecosystem health, resilience, and reduce their vulnerability. Even if it were true that “sustainable” logging could help protect forests in the long term (and much evidence suggests that many such claims are false), the nature of the climate emergency shows that it will not matter in the long term if we do not take the right actions in the short term. It must consistently ensure the clarity of these messages and actively promote the reduction of deforestation.

2. Prevention of conflicts of interest. Certification bodies are paid directly by the certificate holder, creating a serious conflict of interest that weakens the integrity of the FSC's core process – the audit. Recent scandals have shown the result of friendly relationships and wilful blindness and revealed the failures of existing mechanisms, including ASI audits, that should prevent this. This must be addressed urgently by implementing an alternative approach to funding such audits, for example by using escrow accounts instead of applying even more patches. The FSC must meaningfully, honestly, and openly consider alternative funding activities that would address the root cause. Another significant conflict of interest is that certification bodies, which are paid for managing standards, have voting rights over the content of those standards.

3. Significantly increased audit transparency. Currently, the essential lack of important data on FSC audits in the public sphere allows bad actors to easily bypass FSC requirements or lobby for their softening. Forest concession maps and all protected areas within them must be made public along with key data on logging permits. The FSC must require the publication of summaries of Chain of Custody (CoC) audits and “head office” audits of accredited certification bodies, not just Forest Management (FM)/CoC audits, as is currently the case.

4. Prevention of serious violations. Currently, the FSC allows a company to remain associated with its label even when “preponderant evidence” indicates it is guilty of the most serious violations. The FSC must amend its Policy for Association (PfA) to change the burden of proof regarding serious illegalities, applying a precautionary approach to such risks also in broader systems and procedures in line with legislation such as the EU Timber Regulation [EUTR]. It must actively engage in PfA implementation, rather than waiting for civil society to provide evidence of violations. Deficiencies in corporate structures, including the 51% minimum ownership requirement contained in the PfA, fail to cover the way many conglomerates operate and must be reviewed. The FSC must require all certificate holders to document their ultimate beneficial owners by presenting official company registry documents. It must require the fulfilment of stricter criteria and in-depth due diligence both as a reliability check to be performed by every member entering the system and as part of standard periodic audits.

5. Mandatory traceability. Currently, there is no mandatory requirement to track all FSC-certified products to their origin source. If this is not implemented, fraudulent use of the label will continue. A transaction verification system must be applied to all products. Mandatory traceability from origin to shelf should be introduced using a publicly available database to avoid large-scale illegal legalisation. Forensic methods must also be systematically included in the FSC system.

FSC members and stakeholders have already put forward detailed recommendations and guidelines over the years on how to make a number of changes that have not materialised. As a result, FSC problems continue. The FSC must recognise that it is responsible not only to itself and its members but also to the wider public – to the consumers of its products and governments, indigenous peoples, ordinary citizens, and future generations in the forest-rich countries where it certifies companies and concessions. Unfortunately, its actions do not reflect this. Twenty-seven years after the organisation's founding, consumer awareness of climate change and deforestation has grown rapidly. Bureaucratic systems that respond by defending themselves and do not recognise the need for fundamental changes to protect the environment will always have trouble gaining public favour.

We do not claim that the FSC alone can solve problems related to corruption or poor forest management. We also do not propose that the FSC should play the role of the state. However, the flawed FSC system should not continue to operate in these regions. Nor should it seek to grant certification a greater role under US, UK, and EU legislation if this would only diminish the potential positive impact of these acts. By taking the aforementioned actions, it can ensure that its systems are more robust and better protected against major problems. It is also in the long-term interest of those FSC industry members who use its label to market their products at premium rates to ensure that it retains its legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

Being better than competitors is no excuse. We recognise that similar or greater shortcomings exist in other timber labelling schemes, such as PEFC. Our NGOs also criticise these schemes. However, the FSC's goal is not to be the least-bad timber label. If ensuring it is not outcompeted does not fulfil its broader goals of protecting forests, then its future value is questionable.

When the FSC was created, its goal was to promote responsible forest management, the trade of legal timber, and the protection of biodiversity and the lives and livelihoods of people dependent on forest resources. It has received significant criticism for failing in all these aspects and becoming a mere “timber extraction tool”. The FSC is at a crossroads again today, but this time it may reach a point of no return. We are writing this letter because we believe the FSC still has a chance to maintain credibility among its consumers and stakeholders if it is willing to make these fundamental changes to its operations and current philosophy. We hope this belief is not wrong.

We ask FSC Board members to address our concerns and urgently call for the changes outlined above. We believe these reforms will play a significant role in fighting the deforestation crisis and ensuring the legitimacy and relevance of the FSC label worldwide. We trust that you will treat the concerns expressed in this letter with the urgency they deserve.

Sincerely,

1. Advocates for Public Interest Law (APIL), Shin Young Chung, Director, South Korea
2. Alarm dla Klimatu Piaseczno (Alarm for the Climate Piaseczno), Anna Kolińska, Group Leader, Poland
3. Auriga Nusantara, Timur Manurung, Chairperson, Indonesia
4. Bruno Manser Fonds, Lukas Straumann, Executive Director, Switzerland
5. Canopée, Sylvain Angerand, Campaign Coordinator, France
6. Earthsight, Sam Lawson, Director, UK
7. EcoNexus, Ricarda Steinbrecher, PhD, UK
8. Environmental Investigations Agency US, Alexander von Bismarck, Executive Director, USA
9. Environment People Law, Olena Kravchenko, Executive Director, Ukraine
10. Fern, Marie-Ange Kalenga, Forests, Governance & Development Policy Advisor, Belgium
11. Fundacja Las Naturalny (Natural Forest Foundation), Adrian Grzegorz, Executive Director, Poland
12. Fundacja Lasy i Obywatele (Forests and Citizens Foundation), Marta Jagusztyn, Founder and Executive Director, Poland
13. Global Justice Ecology Project, Anne Petermann, Executive Director, USA
14. Global Witness, Jo Blackman, Forest Advocacy Director, UK
15. Greenpeace Indonesia, Kiki Taufik, Global Head Indonesia Forest Campaign, Indonesia
16. Greenpeace Russia, Alexey Yaroshenko, Head of Forestry Department, Russia
17. HAkA, Farwiza Farhan, founder and Chairperson, Indonesia
18. Nashi Groshi, Lviv, Oleksandra Hubycka, Chairman and Editor, Ukraine
19. Pro REGENWALD, Germany
20. Quercus – ANCN, Alexandra Azevedo, President, Portugal
21. RAINFOREST ACTION NETWORK, Gemma Tillack, Forest Policy Director, USA
22. Rainforest Foundation Norway, Solveig Firing Lunde, Senior Advisor, Norway
23. Ratujmy Kleszczowskie Wąwozy (Save Kleszczow's Canyons), Anna Treit, Group Leader, Poland
24. Ratujmy Las Mokrzański (Save the Mokrzański Forest), Robert Suligowski, Group Co-Chair, Poland
25. ROBIN WOOD, Jana Ballenthien, Forest Campaigner, Germany
26. Solutions for Our Climate (SFOC), Soojin Kim, Senior Researcher, South Korea
27. Stowarzyszenie Most (MOST Association), Łukasz Misiuna, Vice President, Poland
28. Stowarzyszenie Nasza Ziemia Mysłowice (Our Land Mysłowice Association), Natalia Głombek, President, Polan
29. Stowarzyszenie O'Rety Team (O'Rety Team Association), Aneta Esnekier, Vice-President, Poland
30. Stowarzyszenie Wolne Miasto Giżycko (Giżycko Free City Association), Chair:Stanisław Puciłowski, Vice-Chair Piotr Kwiatkowski, Board Members Regina Ludwiszewska, Ludwika Rychlik, Jerzy Iżycki-Herman, Poland
31. TuK Indonesia, Edi Sutrisno, Director, Indonesia
32. Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group, Environment – People – Law, Yehor Hrynyk, Forestry Expert, Ukraine
33. Wspólny Las, Forest in Common, Anna Treit, Founder, Poland