Latvijas valsts meži (LVM) will stop the dual forest certification process and, from 2024, will continue to certify LVM forests in accordance with the latest and most widely used PEFC forest management standard in Europe.

The validity of the FSC certificate will be restored as soon as Latvia reaches an agreement with FSC on a National FSC Forest Management Standard for Latvia, similar to the arrangements in Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and other countries.

Why?

• FSC International has not yet developed a new national standard for Latvia, even though such standards exist in all EU forestry countries.

• From 2024, FSC International has cancelled all currently valid bespoke FSC certification standards developed by certification organisations; in 2014, FSC International suspended the operations of its national FSC initiative (office) in Latvia, although national representations exist in almost all EU countries. Currently, Latvia’s interests in International FSC are represented by the Baltic project manager Aidas Pivoriūnas (a Lithuanian citizen and employee of International FSC);

• FSC International has not had the temporary standard it proposed accepted by all involved interest groups. No open standard development and adoption process was organised, as is standard practice in other countries. Instead, FSC representatives have unilaterally made significant and, for Latvia, unacceptable changes to the temporary national standard compared to the version previously tested by auditors in Latvian forests;

• The proposed temporary standard includes previously undiscussed and variably interpretable indicators that could significantly affect socially responsible forest management, including by limiting the ability of local governments to implement socially necessary initiatives in their territories;

• We observe that the requirements of FSC national standards and those of the temporary standards developed by FSC can differ significantly between countries, fostering unequal competition; for example:

FSC states that in FSC-certified areas in Latvia, “it is impossible to allow the transformation of forest land, even if it is carried out to ensure municipal functions”. However, a review of Sweden's national forest management standard shows that in Sweden, land transformation is permitted to ensure municipal functions (for example, for the establishment of cemeteries, communication transmission poles, etc.).

Which countries/regions do not have an FSC national standard?

There is no FSC national standard in Europe for Austria (total forest area 3,899,000 ha, but only 587 ha FSC-certified, 0.02%), Belgium (total forest area 689,000 ha, but 41,348 ha FSC-certified), Croatia, Latvia, Slovakia (total forest area 1,926,000 ha, but 585,176 ha FSC-certified), and Slovenia (total forest area 1,238,000 ha, but 263,581 ha FSC-certified).

Other developed forestry nations have their own national FSC standards, which are essential for high-quality forest management based on scientific recommendations and are crucial for maintaining forestry competitiveness.

Are there alternatives to FSC certification?

PEFC – The Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification is the world's largest green forest certification system, established in 1999 with the aim of promoting sustainable forest management. The PEFC system is much more popular in European countries than FSC (81,866,439 ha are certified under the PEFC system in Europe, compared to only 56,625,841 ha under FSC). Many different certification systems are used in the forest industry in Europe and elsewhere in the world – PEFC, FSC, ISO, SBP, SURE, etc. It is a business decision for each company which system to use. LVM will also continue to work with other international certification systems – PEFC and ISO.

Will LVM continue to work with FSC?

Yes, it will, but it will work towards ensuring the FSC system in Latvia is similar to those in other developed European Union forestry nations. This is precisely why FSC certification is being suspended until such time as FSC International ensures the development of a Latvian National FSC Standard through an understandable and open process that involves representatives of all interest groups.

LVM and other organisations have invited the FSC leadership to a face-to-face meeting so that a transparent FSC standard development process can be restored in Latvia as soon as possible, with the goal of arriving at a National Standard like those found in every other European forestry nation. However, the international FSC leadership has not responded to this invitation.

LVM will participate in the development of the Latvian FSC National Standard as soon as FSC International regains interest in the Latvian market and restores its representation in Latvia.