If you’ve never had a discussion about certification systems and mutual recognition that included the question “Why can’t they just stop the bickering and recognise each other?” then you’re likely to be in a minority. In my role as director of FSC UK I have been asked it more times than I can remember.
FSC was established in 1993 in response to the demands of a market place that was confused by many different claims of “sustainable forestry”. The problem was that, even though some claims may have been true, the majority weren’t – and what was “sustainable forestry” anyway? Specifiers of timber were confused; whose claims could they trust? Even when there was second party certification of claims it wasn’t clear what the standards were that were being used to make the judgement. Some timber traders knew the forests they sourced from really well and felt they had an environmentally and socially sound product, but how could they compete fairly when everyone was claiming “sustainability”?
FSC was established by a group of organisations from the environmental, social and economic sectors (and, contrary to popular belief, the latter was best represented). The new body set about defining standards to provide a global benchmark for second party certifiers, covering the way they audited and the performance level required to achieve well-managed forestry. FSC took International Standards Organisation (ISO) norms and created new standards to cover the areas that ISO did not – for example, stakeholder consultation, peer review and forest management performance standards. Certifiers that, on inspection, met the FSC standards received FSC accreditation (third party certification). In turn the forests that they inspected that met FSC’s Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship (P&C) gained access to FSC trademarks for use on their products.
Recognition among certifiers
There are now 15 FSC-accredited certification bodies. When these certifiers become accredited they sign a contract with FSC’s legally separate Accreditation Business Unit (shortly to become ASI-Accreditation Services International). In signing the contract they agree to mutually recognise all other FSC-accredited certifiers. This means that material that originates from places certified by different FSC certifiers is treated as one and the same, regardless of the FSC certifier carrying out the inspection.
Similarly, when groups around the world define local standards that meet FSC’s P&C and gain FSC accreditation for their standards they are, in effect, mutually recognising the FSC-accredited standards that cover other countries and regions. Thus the FSC Germany Working Group recognises that its accredited standard is equivalent to the Bolivian group’s FSC-accredited standard.
Some might argue that FSC missed a marketing trick by not selling itself as a mutual recognition system, when that’s exactly what it was. It is an umbrella system that covers several certification schemes and local forest management standards. And its doors are open to more at any time. FSC’s standard requirements on the procedures for the development of forest stewardship standards states that standards set by groups from outside FSC’s structure can legitimately be submitted to FSC’s Accreditation Business Unit for approval via an FSC National Initiative. To this end the UK Woodland Assurance Standard (UKWAS) was submitted for FSC accreditation by the FSC UK team in December.
Indonesian scheme
FSC has worked with other certification systems in different ways; for example, it developed a joint audit protocol with the Indonesian LEI scheme that is used by joint auditing teams for every Indonesian inspection. FSC is certainly open to novel ways of working with other groups operating in the same arena, provided that its baseline standards are not compromised. These standards represent delicate negotiations between economic, environmental and social interests. To lower standards would result in the loss of one or more sectors’ support which would considerably diminish the value of the FSC mark.
And so to the big question: if FSC is a mutual recognition system can it mutually recognise another mutual recognition system? The answer is yes, provided the standards underpinning both systems are equivalent. To be equivalent to FSC, a system would require, amongst other elements, an inclusive approach to standards setting, encompassing both the social and environmental outcomes of good forest management developed through an extensive consultative process and regularly reviewed.
FSC, as a mutual recognition system, can and will consider the certifiers and forest management standards from other systems for accreditation. In terms of forest management standard setting processes, more groups that have no label affiliation can be established (such as UKWAS), perhaps taking some of the political sting out of label choice and making questions about mutual recognition a thing of the past.
