Fsc Chain of Custody - Support and Criticism of FSC Certification - Criticism

Criticism

Since it was founded, FSC has been criticized for a range of different reasons.

In recent years, a number of well-known NGOs and environmental organizations have canceled their support for FSC. These include FERN (2011), Friends of the Earth UK (2008), ROBINWOOD (2009), the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC Sweden) (2011), and smaller groups such as Rainforest Rescue and the Association for the Ecological Defence of Galicia (ADEGA). In some cases, the organizations that have withdrawn their support are national branches of international organizations which have not withdrawn support.

The reasons given for withdrawal of support range from certification covering bad forestry practices (ADEGA), to FSC’s active involvement in carbon forestry practices (FERN), through the increasing number of controversial FSC certifications (FoE UK).

Other NGO members, instead of withdrawing support, have critically evaluated FSC’s performance and made recommendations to improve the credibility of the organization. These include Greenpeace International, whose 2008 report ‘Holding the line with FSC’ focused on controversial certificates and ways forward. A revised version of the report was released in 2011, which concluded that some progress had been made. But it also identified ongoing weaknesses, including lack of guidance on HCVFs and activities in controversial areas like the Congo Basin and problems with the Controlled Wood label, the Chain of Custody system and logo integrity. The report concluded with 10 immediate changes needed to “restore FSC’s credibility”. To improve its process for tracking FSC certified products and maintaining the veracity of FSC claims, FSC is currently developing an Online Claims Platform (http://claims-forum.fsc.org/) and is pursuing opportunities for fiber testing. Chamber-balanced Working Groups have been established to strengthen the Controlled Wood system and the Chain of Custody standard, and options are being pursued to address the performance of certification bodies.

FSC has been harshly criticized by Simon Counsel, one of its founding members, now the director of the Rainforest Foundation. In 2008, he described the FSC as the "Enron of Forestry". He cited case studies from six countries which suggested that in these cases FSC was not properly controlling accredited auditors or certifiers. The FSC reviewed the certificates in question, and showed that some of the initial investigations were justified. This resulted in the removal of the license to certify from the Thai company, Forest Industry Organisation.

FSC-Watch is a website critical of FSC which is run by a group of people, including Simon Counsel, who are concerned about what they perceive as the constant and serious erosion of the FSC's reliability and credibility. Its website offers a wide range of extensive and detailed criticisms of FSC. FSC-Watch commonly accuses FSC of practices that are a form of greenwashing.

In 2008, the EcoEarth/Rainforest Portal, an Internet ecological news aggregation service, publicly questioned the FSC-endorsed policy of old-growth forest logging. They asserted that research does not support the idea that this type of logging is carbon positive or sustainable, though these views are disputed.

The world's largest manager of FSC certified forests, Resolute Forest Products, has been accused of illegal logging on Barriere Lake Algonquin territory and of violating indigenous rights. In July 2012, members of the Algonquin community in southern Quebec staged a camp to observe and deter the logging of their unceded territory. In an interview Michel Thusky, an elder of the Barriere Lake Algonquin, had this to say:

"The worst thing about it is they have gotten the Forest Stewardship Council Certification for their products. That is a total shame... They cut last Tuesday and we interrupted them. We asked them to stop until we have a meaningful consultation. We extended our respect but they failed. On July 9th they sent a riot squad and many police officers, what they call Sûreté du Québec, security of Quebec. They put conditions on us. They put a blockade on us, in the Algonquin birth place. If we go past a certain line, they say they will arrest us."

The firm has a different view of related events, stating that their "right to harvest in the area been approved by the QMNRW, following appropriate consultation with the Barrière Lake Algonquin band council."

Some critics point out that FSC certification has a linked set of weaknesses: that it is not suited for small businesses, that it is anti-competitive and that therefore in a wider view it is counter-ecological:

• Only large businesses with rigid structures can afford the process of assessment and maintenance of the schemes.
• Certification schemes are anti-competitive because they favor larger firms over smaller ones.
• This bias towards large companies is counter-ecological as it promotes a model of a few massive suppliers.

Fewer local companies mean that goods have to travel farther, and the resources and skills of local communities degrade.

Partly in response to these criticisms, to make certification more accessible to small and medium sized businesses, FSC instituted the Small and Low Intensity Managed Forests (SLIMF) initiative and group certification. SLIMF adapts the FSC system to the realities and needs of small and low intensity forest operations by offering special streamlined procedures, with less rigorous requirements for a number of its forest management criteria. SLIMF are defined as forests of 100 hectares or less. Group certification allows a group of forest owners to share certification costs. In October 2012, 8.7% of FSC certificates were held by community-owned forests. SLIMF and group certification are intended to allow FSC to promote responsible forest management in small-scale forests as well as large ones.

Critics are encouraged to file complaints and disputes against FSC in case of any differences. But complainants must meet a number of conditions to be able to file complaints and it is disputed whether the FSC takes effective action even in the case of some formal complaints. Recently, FSC has implemented a series of actions to strengthen its stakeholder engagement process, including the establishment of a Quality Assurance Unit within FSC, time-bound dispute resolution procedures and a web-based portal for tracking disputes (https://ic.fsc.org/dispute-resolution.139.htm).