If I were writing a report on the quality and performance of British beer, I would attempt to approach the task with all the objectivity at my disposal. I would, however, feel obliged in the finished document to flag up the fact that I’d had a weakness for Adnams Ale since the age of 12. Stating my preference upfront would only be fair to the reader and prevent it leaking out later and undermining the report’s credibility.
Likewise, when green group FERN penned its 78-page report evaluating, comparing and contrasting the performance of eight of the leading forestry certification schemes, it should have declared right at the top that it is a member of one of them; the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
In concluding that the FSC’s is currently the only credible certification scheme, FERN stresses that its judgements were objective and based on factual comparisons. That may be true, although at least two of the schemes it criticises say that not all the facts were up to date or that some they provided were left out. But that argument aside, it still behoved FERN to highlight its FSC ties, especially as it states in the report that transparency, or the lack of it, is absolutely central to the credibility and effectiveness of the certification schemes.
Whether FERN likes it or not, the fact that its FSC links were not mentioned at the outset does raise question marks over its impartiality, both with the other schemes and the timber industry.
Certification and relations between the schemes are fraught with difficulty as it is. Any report weighing up their merits and faults has to be seen to be above reproach itself or the situation will be exacerbated.
Some NGOs might accuse TTJ of favouring industry-initiated certification schemes. But we have always acknowledged the value of the FSC and the fact that, unlike some of its supporters, it does not itself knock other schemes. And in virtually every edition we publish details of the latest UK timber firms to gain FSC certification.
We also acknowledge, as they do themselves, that some of the other certification schemes are works in progress and not yet ‘gold standard’. What we don’t accept is the WWF‘s view, expressed in its press statement promoting the FERN report, that they are “greenwash… an alibi for forest destruction”. Such propaganda provokes certification turf wars. It doesn’t help the debate or the environment.
