main > home > spring03

The Big Timber Debate
From Building for a Future Spring 2003

Timber has a vital role to play in environment-conscious building, yet it is clear that the timber industry is having a devastating effect on the environment. From the well publicised destruction of swathes of Amazonian rainforest, to clearance of some of the last remaining areas of old-growth forest in Scandinavia, the building industry continues to contribute to this destruction. This is an important issue for all concerned with sustainable building. In fact it is the issue which galvanised our founder, Keith Hall, to establish Building for a Future magazine and launch the organisation AECB (Association for Environment Conscious Building). So, how can we ensure that we build with and specify timber as sustainably as possible?

The information available can be confusing and contradictory, making it difficult to take an informed stance. There is a range of certification schemes, including the Forestry Stewardship Council, which is widely regarded as the bench mark for independence and good practice. Yet even the FSC has recently come in for strong criticism, so can we trust any scheme? Use of home-grown timber is also seen as part of the solution, yet the vast majority of all timber used in construction is currently imported, while home-grown timber quality is often poor. So, does this really offer any solution?

What is actually going wrong?
Forest certification can be an important tool to improve forest management. It is neither a panacea to solve the world’s forest crisis, nor can it replace regulations and legislation. However, it can and should complement these tools.

Fern (Forests and the European Resource Network) recently published a document entitled ‘Behind the Logo’ which, based on case studies from a diverse range of sources, examined the four largest eco-timber certification schemes and compared them against a range of basic expectations.

The role forest certification can play depends on the strength of the chosen certification system. Certification systems currently in operation are significantly different from each other in terms of procedural and performance requirements. The four largest are: the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and the Pan European Forest Certification Scheme (PEFC). The FSC is a global program, the CSA is only applicable in Canada, the SF1 is mainly applicable in the US and Canada, and the PEFC provides a framework for national certification schemes in up to 14 European countries.

The CSA, PEFC and SFI are certification systems initiated and, in most cases, governed primarily by the forestry industry and forest owners. Although attempts by the forestry industry and forest owners to improve forest management are to be encouraged, Fern believes that the CSA, the SFI and the PEFC do not fulfil the basic requirements for credible forest certification systems and should not be preferred or promoted by consumers or corporate purchasers.

The basic expectations for a credible forest certification system
Certification is a process by which an independent third party gives written assurances that a product, process or service conforms to specified requirements. To be effective, forest certification must:
?? be based on objective, comprehensive, independent and measurable performance-based standards - both environmental and social
?? be based on equal and balanced participation of a broad range of stakeholders
?? be based on a labelling system that includes a credible chain of custody
?? be based on reliable and independent third party assessments and include annual field audits
?? be fully transparent to the parties involved and the public
?? take place at the forest management unit level (and not at country or regional level)
?? be cost effective and voluntary
?? positively demonstrate commitment from the forest owner/manager towards improving forest management
?? be applicable globally and to all sorts of tenure systems, to avoid discrimination and distortion in the market place

While the PEFC, CSA and SFI incorporate some of the above features, Fern concludes that only the FSC delivers on every important component of a credible forest management certification system. Consequently, Fern consider the FSC to be the only available framework that meets the basic expectations outlined above. The FSC is therefore the only credible forest certification system that can be recommended to consumers or promoted among forest managers, policy makers and the public.
Not all is well however even with the FSC. Readers of BFF may recall the article ‘Saving the trees from the Wood’ in Vol 11, No 2 where NGO representatives gave a damning report on a number of FSC certified schemes in the Amazon. Other organisations are now questioning the FSC.

Refs.
Some of the above information is extracted from‘Behind the Logo’. The full report is availabe at www.fern.org (follow links from campaigns/FSC)