In the timber industry, which produces high value-added goods, a label certifying the origin of the wood is very important on export markets, as it has to confirm that the timber comes from a sustainable source. One of the two main quality marks for timber origin in Estonia may soon be suspended. This could happen if FSC does not drop the additional requirements in its forest management standard. These are requirements that Estonia's largest forest manager, RMK, on principle does not intend to accept.
Most Estonian timber industry companies that make furniture and other high value-added goods use the FSC certificate on export markets, as it confirms that the timber has been obtained from ethically and sustainably managed forests. This certificate has the largest market share both in Estonia and worldwide.
“A significant number of Estonian timber industry companies are certified under the FSC system,– and, just like all state forests, which make up half of the country's forest land, privately owned forest areas of more than 200,000 hectares are also FSC certified. The FSC standard is very strong in Europe. One of FSC's main partners, for example, is IKEA. That group has confirmed that it will always use the FSC standard,” said the executive director of FSC Estonia, Kristians Māsalu.
Estonia is using an interim FSC standard, because since 2016 no agreement has been reached on the wording of a local National standard. Estonia is now close to agreeing on the wording of the local standard, while the State Forest Management Centre (RMK) has deemed the proposed solution unacceptable. The standard includes a clause on indigenous peoples in Estonia, because members of the Estonian ethnic groups in southern Estonia – the Seto and the Võro – have declared themselves indigenous.
“The official position of the Republic of Estonia, which has also been stated by Estonia's minister of culture, is that under the UN “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” there are no indigenous peoples in Estonia*. For this reason we cannot in any way support the inclusion of the concept of indigenous peoples in Estonia's FSC standard. We have said clearly that if such a requirement is included in the standard and if it is nevertheless approved, RMK will give up FSC certification. We have also informed our partners of this,” said RMK board member Kristians Tenisons. RMK says it is impossible to say what the inclusion of such an indigenous peoples clause in the standard would mean in substance. “I think there is currently no debate about what it means. It is a very fundamental discussion,” K. Tenisons acknowledged.
RMK does not consider that losing the FSC certificate in Estonia would be a major problem. A transition period of about a year would be introduced. Instead, producers could start using the PEFC certificate, which competes with FSC. RMK has been using it alongside the FSC certificate since 2010.
“Both are international certificates that are valid worldwide. For market participants it means that at some point they will need to review which certificate's products they will continue to sell, and on which markets”, said the head of RMK, K. Tenisons.
The furniture manufacturer Barrus in Virumaa uses both the FSC and the PEFC certificate, although 70% of its output carries the FSC certificate, which has stricter requirements.
“Our main markets, which are mainly the Scandinavian markets, use the FSC certificate. In my view, FSC has slightly stricter requirements than PEFC, but for us there is no significant difference,” said Barrus executive director Martti Korks.
The final version of Estonia's FSC standard is expected to be adopted in May.
* In the UN's understanding: Indigenous peoples are the inheritors and practitioners of unique cultures that maintain a distinctive relationship with people and the environment. They (these cultures) have retained social, cultural, economic and political characteristics that differ from those of the dominant societies in which they live. Despite their cultural differences, indigenous peoples around the world share common problems relating to the protection of their rights as distinct peoples.