European Tropical Forest Research Network

Organisations - Institutions - Programmes

Table of contents

V CERTIFICATION AND TROPICAL FORESTRY

While the certification phenomenon is still quite new, with the FSC created in 1993 (some certification preceded FSC) the progress has been astounding. Over 30 million hectares of forest in over 30 countries have been certified. Over 600 'chain of custody' certifications have been awarded to suppliers of FSC products and the FSC logo can now be seen on more than 10 000 product lines worldwide. The abundance of newly developed certification schemes including the Pan-European Forest Certification (PERC) in Europe, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) in the US, the Canadian Standards Association's (CSA) Sustainable Forest Management Standard, and certification schemes in Indonesia and Malaysia is a sign that certification is here to stay.

Certification has had many affects that cannot be measured in hectares or premiums. It has given a greater voice to indigenous groups historically left out of the forest debate. Certification has made a tremendous contribution to creating a space for broad participation and continuous adaptation in forest management and conservation efforts. Regional standards-setting groups have brought together industry, the environmental community and local communities in an unprecedented way. Hundreds of companies, communities and forest landowners have reinvented their businesses, enhanced their products and established new partnerships, responding to the new opportunities opened by the certification movement.

Several strategic issues should be addressed in the future development of this new tool. Originally designed in response to unsustainable logging in the tropics, certification has been much more successful in temperate forest areas. A core question addressed in the following articles is therefore how certification can be made more useful in those forest areas where it is most needed.

FOREST CERTIFICATION AND ITS PRESENT AND POTENTIAL INFLUENCE ON REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND FOREST POLICIES

By Gerardo Segura

The increasing demands for more social and environmental benefits from forestry are putting pressure on governments in many countries. In the past, governments traditionally sought to exert control over forestry activities and they have been the major player in the forest sector in many countries. However, recent external pressures and the self recognition of governments regarding the limitations of public institutions to take on these responsibilities have tended to shift the role of governments to regulation, technical assistance and mediation of conflict resolutions, leaving other roles (e.g. ownership, management, commercialisation, conservation) to stakeholders and the civil society.

It is in this context that forest certification has emerged during the last decade as an international process to promote sustainable forest management. Although the original purpose of certification schemes was to provide market-based incentives to improve the quality of forest management by producers, such schemes have also been applied by different groups to influence government policies and actions (e.g. regulation-oriented verification to complement or strengthen forest law enforcement) and to verify that specific project-based forestry outcomes have been achieved.

This review evaluates the role that forest certification has had on influencing public forest policies and legislation during the last decade and identifies the possible role that this independent process could have on governments during coming years. Detailed analysis has been carried out in indicative cases of developed and developing countries in both tropical and temperate regions (e.g. Cameroon, Finland, Bolivia, Malaysia, Mexico and USA) where certification has had both positive and negative outcomes, looking at relevant national (e.g. Malaysia and UK), regional (e.g. PEFC) and international (e.g. FSC and ISO) certification systems and programmes.

Dilemmas
Although the role of forest certification in influencing sound policy processes has been recognised, the available evidence is limited. Documented changes in policy instruments are only beginning to emerge, mainly as an indirect result of independent local certification actions. Some governments are beginning to recognise the indirect value of certification schemes with regard to:

• stimulating compliance or encouraging implementation and enforcement of local regulations and policies;
• improving national definitions, standards, criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management (SFM) based on a multi-stakeholder participatory approach;
• improving forest and environmental legislations;
• gaining credibility by certifying public forests; and
• advancing international policy dialogues involving multilateral institutions and processes (e.g. FAO, ITTO, UNFF, UNCBD).

Governments, however, have also expressed concerns regarding the possible conflicts related to the acceptance and spread of independent certification schemes that may be in conflict with local policy instruments or may not respond to local biophysical and social conditions and needs, that may challenge government rights over publicly owned forest lands, or that could lead to trade barriers that discriminate against small land owners and poor rural communities.

Barriers

• Governments as absent actors in independent third-party certification processes. Threats of certification schemes as an independent environmental market-based instrument that may be in conflict with local conditions and policies and challenge government rights over publicly owned forest lands.
• Direct and indirect influences of certification processes on policy reforms. The limitations and opportunities of certification as a true policy instrument.
• The use of independent certification by governments as a 'soft policy' instrument for SFM. The role and impacts of national certification programmes. Promoting certification in private and communal forest lands as a law enforcement strategy. Failure to ensure consistency with national policy objectives and programmes leading to increased costs imposed on producers for the bureaucratic requirements to comply with different regulatory approaches and the risk of overregulation as a burden to local small producers and poor communities.
• The role of governments in promoting access of local producers to certification markets. Development of technical assistance and investment programmes to improve access of local small-scale producers to certified markets. Programmes to stimulate the local demand of consumers of certified products in developing countries.

Adjustments
A number of governments have incorporated aspects of forest certification into their regulatory frameworks, such as those in Bolivia, Brazil, Finland, Malaysia, Mexico and the United Kingdom. Those with the longest experience have made interesting adjustments in the national initiatives to address country-specific political economic, social and ecological conditions within the overall agreed principles of certification. Specific regions, such as northern Europe, have developed criteria and processes relevant to smallholders and cooperative forest managers.

Recommendations

• Agreements in international forums regarding issues such as cooperation need to ensure that the different emerging certification schemes achieve consistency and international comparability to avoid confusion among stakeholders (e.g. consumers and producers)
• Governments need to address problems of certification related to equity, mainly to protect local forest producers against possible trade barriers created by the higher costs of certification and resulting discrimination against small land owners and poor rural communities.

Further information:
Gerardo Segura Warnholtz
National Coordinator PROCYMAF, National Forest Commission (CONAFOR)
Progreso No. 5, Coyoacan, Mexico, Mexico
E-mail: gsegura@conafor.gob.mx
http://www.conafor.gob.mx/snif

Top of page