From 2024, the state forest manager, JSC "Latvijas valsts meži" (LVM), will discontinue dual forest management certification and will operate under only one voluntary certification system: PEFC.
For the past 12 years, the manager of Latvia's state forests has maintained dual forest management and chain-of-custody certification under both FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) and PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification). Approximately 1.75 million hectares of forest land in the country are certified under the PEFC system, while only 1.2 million hectares have been certified under the FSC system to date. Certification is a voluntary process carried out in accordance with a standard approved by the certification system. Latvian regulations require the implementation of sustainable forestry.
The result of several factors
"The decision is based on several aspects; namely, FSC International, through its decisions, has suspended the currently valid forest management standard, offering instead an interim forest management standard developed outside Latvia's borders. This standard was not even drafted in accordance with the fundamental operating principles established by FSC itself, as the development of a national standard must involve representatives from all three sectors — environmental, economic, and social — from Latvia," explains Andris Balodis, Forestry Director at JSC Latvijas valsts meži. He recalls that the development of an FSC national standard for Latvia has been stalled for several years. "It is strange to offer a certification standard that is not appropriately adapted to Latvia's climatic conditions, forest growth patterns, and forestry traditions, but rather aligns more with the situation in a geographically and climatically different territory," states A. Balodis. He justifies his position by noting that the interim standard offered by FSC includes international indicators that are not adapted to Latvia's situation, nor to scientific research, findings, and traditions. "Indicators have been included that were never even discussed during the FSC national standard development process in Latvia, and there are several indicators that are not clearly interpretable, which in turn creates risks at the point of application of this standard," says A. Balodis, addressing the question of the primary objections to the proposed certification standard. He stresses that LVM cannot allow such a high level of risk in its commercial operations, especially since, through supply chains, this also affects timber processors, their product traders, and ultimately consumers – buyers around the world.
"It would be a strange situation, to put it mildly, if 'Latvijas valsts meži' were to implement forestry according to FSC forest management standards that are not adapted to Latvia, while competitors from other countries in the same market worked according to their own national FSC standards, which are adapted to the situation in their respective countries," A. Balodis says in response to a question about the potential impact on competition. He points out that certification systems are private business organizations whose goal is to provide consumers with a simple way to be confident that forest management is sustainable and carried out responsibly towards the environment, local residents, and is economically viable. "In Latvia, national legislation is among the strictest in Europe and mandates sustainable — environmentally friendly, socially fair, and economically viable — forestry, and this is also confirmed by PEFC certification," says A. Balodis regarding forest sustainability without an FSC certificate. He points out another interesting detail: in the PEFC certification system, a certification body wishing to conduct PEFC forest management certification in Latvia must be accredited by the state agency "Latvian National Accreditation Bureau" (LATAK), or by one of the member organizations of the European co-operation for Accreditation (EA) or the International Accreditation Forum (IAF). However, in the FSC system, accreditation can only be obtained from one company - Assurance Services International, whose sole shareholder is FSC.
Poland — two years ago already
Information available online indicates that the Polish State Forests began moving away from FSC certification as early as 2021. Currently, FSC forest management certification has already been terminated in six of Poland's 16 regions, and as soon as the certificates expire, FSC certification will be discontinued in the remaining Polish regions as well. The reasons cited for this situation include the closure of the FSC national representative office, the terms of the FSC license agreement, and the termination of the national standard development process. Information can be found online suggesting that the direction of certification requirements within the FSC system is aimed at restricting forest management without particular justification, which could ultimately significantly affect the volume of raw materials available to buyers.
Potential to return to FSC
"If a forest management standard is developed that is appropriate for Latvia's climatic and forest growth conditions, is acceptable to all interest groups, and complies with FSC's own fundamental operating principles, then LVM will resume FSC certification," A. Balodis says in response to a question about whether LVM might renew FSC certification in the future. He recalls that the development of the FSC national forest management standard began around 2000 — 23 years ago. "It is interesting that in 2013, an FSC national forest management standard was accepted at the national level, agreed upon by all interest groups in Latvia — environmental, social, and economic — but FSC International decided not to approve this standard because they had started work on international generic indicators," points out A. Balodis.
Significantly, in 2014, FSC International closed the FSC Latvian national office. According to A. Balodis, the next phase in the development of the FSC national forest management standard began from 2016 to 2019, but ended unsuccessfully. "The environmental sector withdrew from this process in 2019, thereby torpedoing the development of the FSC national forest management standard for Latvia as such," concludes A. Balodis. He notes that since 2016, LVM has regularly informed its customers and their customers about the situation regarding the progress of the FSC national forest management standard, potential solutions, and risks.
"We have shown interested entrepreneurs — the buyers of our customers' (timber processors') products and consumers abroad — as well as members of non-governmental organizations from Europe, America, and Asia how LVM implements its forestry practices," A. Balodis says in response to a question about whether foreign buyers of timber products sourced in Latvia have inquired about LVM's forestry practices. He acknowledges that of the more than 300 LVM roundwood buyers, the majority use the PEFC system, though there are several who specifically required the FSC brand. "LVM has been informing its customers – timber buyers – about the situation with the FSC national standard for nearly 10 years, and buyers have had the opportunity to diversify their risks; as far as I know, there are many timber processors who have already successfully implemented this," says A. Balodis.
Supporting LVM's decision
Uldis Biķis, Chairman of the Council of JSC "Latvijas Finieris"
We support the decision of JSC “Latvijas valsts meži” not to renew forest certification at this time in accordance with the FSC interim national forest management standard for Latvia adopted by FSC International this summer. In our view, the process of drafting and approving the document has not been transparent, lacked proper regional involvement, and failed to take into account the views of all interest groups. This raises suspicions of a brutal redistribution of the timber resource market between global regions, using one of the voluntary forest certification systems as an instrument. We can only urge Latvian legislators to view this as an absolutely negative example of document drafting and decision-making, and to avoid similar mistakes on issues of land use that are relevant to the entire society and economy. FSC is not the only voluntary certification system in the world that confirms sustainable forestry. Of course, this certificate is important in the timber products market, which is why, upon seeing the flaws in the interim standard development process, we have long warned our clients about potential changes in the availability of FSC-certified products. Until an FSC national standard that balances environmental, social, and economic interests is developed, “Latvijas Finieris” will continue to base the certification of both company-owned forest lands and birch plywood products on the PEFC voluntary certification system, which is much more widely used in Europe. We very much hope that FSC International will understand the situation and return to a rational, constructive dialogue among the involved parties, taking into account local Latvian specifics and the recommendations of local forest scientists to ensure true sustainability in Latvian land management.