COMPETING REALITIES: The Boreal Forest at Risk

THE GLOBAL REALITY
RECOMMENDATION

Canada’s efforts and actions to address the ecological and economic realities of the boreal forests do not take place in a vacuum. Forests are a global resource, and play a vital role in sustaining life on this planet. When debating and implementing forestry policy in Canada, governments, industries, interest groups and individuals must all be aware of this international reality. In effect, the world is watching as never before how Canada exercises its stewardship of a significant portion of the world’s forests. The World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development, argued passionately for all countries to take a broader view of the importance of the world’s forests, and to recognize the seriousness of the problems posed by the rate at which this resource is being depleted globally. They note that:

"It is widely felt that among the natural resources or ecosystems of the planet, forests are extraordinary in their contribution to that basic human need for environmental stability and security, as well as in their contribution to the livelihoods of many. Ultimately, the implications of present rates of forest decline go far beyond individual societies: they affect all of human-kind, all other species, and the planet as a whole."(244)

In its final report, the Commission elaborated on the need for a global view of forest practices, stating:

"Forests have virtually disappeared in twenty-five countries; eighteen have lost more than 95 per cent of their forests and another eleven have lost 90 per cent. Ultimately, the implications of present rates of forest decline go far beyond individual societies; they affect all of humankind, all other species, and the planet as a whole." (245)

A number of the major conclusions and recommendations of the World Commission, if heeded, will have a profound affect on forestry in Canada. Of particular note is the Commission’s view that it is essential to preserve what is left of the world’s primary forests, since it appears to be beyond human capabilities to successfully recreate the planet’s original forest ecosystems. As stewards of no less than 25 per cent of the world’s remaining undisturbed forests(246), Canada has an obvious important role to play on the global scene. The necessity of finding mechanisms for assessing the economic value of a country’s "forest capital" and providing incentives to preserve it is also acknowledged by the Commission.

The report of the World Commission, an independent "group of well-respected individuals with backgrounds in politics, policy, science and forestry from 24 different countries,"(247) is one of the most comprehensive global reviews of forest issues ever undertaken. It is an important part of global efforts in recent years to deal with serious, international environmental issues. Forestry has been a significant item on the international agenda since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992. Since then countries have been actively working at defining international approaches to the sustainable management and/or preservation of forested areas. Canada has been deeply involved in the process from the outset.

Canada was a leader in proposing, at UNCED, that international discussions concerning sustainable forest management (SFM) needed a greater degree of focus. Canadian representatives believed that the best way to accomplish this was to negotiate an International Convention on Forests, similar to the Convention on Climate Change. The convention was expected to establish clear international norms for SFM and to provide the basis for fair international trade in forest products.(248) In the end, the idea of a legally binding forest agreement was not accepted. Instead a chapter on forests, setting out a number of basic SFM principles was added to Agenda 21.

One of the actions called for at UNCED was for countries to develop scientifically sound national criteria and indicators (C&I) of sustainable forest management.(249) The progress made on this item represents one of the major accomplishments on the international forestry scene since UNCED(250). One hundred and ten countries participated in eight parallel intergovernmental processes designed to allow countries with similar forests to discuss and agree on the basic scientific and policy measures that constitute SFM. As the Subcommittee heard from a witness representing the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade:

"This has resulted in the development of eight remarkably similar sets of criteria and indicators --- each applicable to the forests of a specific region of the world.There is, for example, the Montreal process -- which Canada has contributed to -- 12 non-European countries with boreal and temperate forests. Other processes include the Helsinki process, comprising 39 European countries; the International Tropical Timber Organization, with 27 producer countries; the Tarapoto process, eight countries in the Amazon basin; the Lepaterique process, seven Central American countries; the Sub-Sahara dry zone Africa, 28 countries; North Africa and the Near East, 20 countries; and the African Timber Organization, 13 countries, which has not yet reached agreement but is well advanced. (251)

In recent years, the desire to promote SFM by linking its practice to trade in forest products has led to a great deal of interest in the concept of forest certification. Certification, of forests and/or forest products, depends on the establishment of internationally recognized and accepted certification standards.

The Subcommittee was told of the importance of international agreement on certification standards since the whole principle behind certification is to allow the consumer to make a choice in a market economy and thereby exert their pressure. A positive note in this regard is the fact that the internationally developed criteria and indicators, such as derived via the Montreal and Helsinki processes mentioned above, are now being used as the basis of a number of certification programs. During its hearings the Subcommittee was warned of the negative consequences of a "proliferation of standards, each with their own inconsistent requirements"(252). Such a situation, the Subcommittee heard, would inevitably lead to restraint in trade.

Despite such voices of caution, a number of "competing" forest certification standards have emerged. This is becoming an increasingly difficult dilemma for the forest industry in Canada and elsewhere around the world.

For Canadian industry, there are three main certification standards from which to choose. A brief description and comparison of the three systems provides an insight into the choices that the industry faces. The Subcommittee received considerable testimony, both written and oral, concerning certification in Canada. In addition, the Subcommittee travelled to Sweden and Finland, in part, to examine how these two countries are addressing the same issue. As competitors with Canadian industry, for export markets, their approach to certification is very much a part of Canada’s "Global Reality".

The three certification standards being discussed in Canada are known primarily by the acronyms of the organizations that developed them. They are the ISO (International Standards Organization) standard, the CSA (Canadian Standards Association) standard, and the FSC (Forestry Stewardship Council) standard.

Like the concept of criteria and indicators of SFM, the principles behind the ISO 14001 environmental management standard originated with the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The ISO, which is "a worldwide federation of national bodies responsible for standardizing internationally traded goods and services,"(253) developed a standard environmental management system (EMS) that provides greater flexibility than would prescriptive performance standards.

ISO 14001 is a generic standard that can be applied to the environmental management of any industry, in any country. A "bridging document" to translate the standard into terms that would be understandable to forest managers was prepared and has been adopted by the ISO.

The Subcommittee heard the following details concerning the ISO standards from one of its witnesses [emphasis added]:

"The main elements of ISO 14001 are that the company must develop and publish a management system showing its corporate commitment. A company's environmental goals must be communicated, not only internally, but also externally to all interested stakeholders. There must be continuous improvement. They keep raising the goal, if you like, or the bar. A company must be open to a third-party audit. The certification process is actually handed out as a result of the third-party audit.

The framework is very flexible. Each applicant, each company, is allowed to identify in its plan its own culture, the forest type with which it is dealing, the ownership which prevails in the particular defined forest area, the legislation and/or the regulations that are applicable to their particular area, the wildlife situation, the hydrology, et cetera. It is a very localized situation, and it allows the company this flexibility.(254)

Critics of the ISO approach dislike its flexibility because they do not feel it will guarantee that forest companies will actually practice sustainable forestry. The ISO standard is based on management practises and is not performance-based. They similarly feel that the lack of any specific provisions to trace the chain-of-custody from forest to end product is a serious weakness in ISO 14001 certification. The ISO system, like the Canadian system, prohibits the use of logos on products to indicate the compliance of companies with its standards. This is seen by some as a weakness since it does not allow consumers to make the choice between "approved" and "non-approved" products.

Canada was one of the first nations in the world to develop its own SFM standard. In 1994 a group known as the Canadian Sustainable Forestry Coalition, approached the Canadian Standards Organization (CSA) asking that they manage the development of voluntary, domestic SFM standards. The CSA used the ISO 14001 environmental management system as the basis for this domestic forest certification scheme(255). The Subcommittee heard testimony regarding the adaptations made to the ISO standard by the CSA to take into account the particular situation in Canada and to address some of the criticisms directed at ISO 14001 [emphasis added].

"It [the ISO standard] was completely rewritten in a forest management context for Canada and four important additions were made. One was the requirement for public participation,

Also added were the criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management approved by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. That is written right into the standard, together with the 21 essential elements, which provide more detail to those criteria. There is a requirement for on-the-ground measurement of performance by the auditors, and also a requirement for forecasting.

The criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management are introduced to the public participation process. In that way, the members of the community around a particular forest can tell the forest managers what values they would like to have protected, conserved or produced, according to those criteria.

Those criteria cover biodiversity, social values, ecosystem health and productivity, soil and water conservation, society's responsibility for sustainable management, and the forest's contribution to global ecological cycles. During the public participation process, they will develop, with the provincial forest management people and the company forest management people, several management objectives -- performance objectives, if you wish -- which will be part of what the company will then put in place. The objectives are written into a management plan. … to see what the future state of the forest will be, there is a requirement for forecasting using geographic information systems, computer-based mapping and forest-level models. Finally, there is a requirement to do an audit of on-the-ground performance.

While there are no performance details laid out in the standard itself, there is a requirement within the standard to develop those performance measures. The CSA standard is a combination of management system, performance and on-the-ground auditing."(256)

The SFM system standards were drawn up by the CSA following extensive consultation with representatives of the forest industry, woodlot owners, governments, aboriginal, conservation and consumers groups, as well as academics, scientists, and technical experts. The standards were adopted as the National Standards of Canada in late 1996. (257)

The third certification scheme being promoted in Canada is that developed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). The FSC is "an international non-profit organization founded in 1993 to support environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial and economically viable management of the world’s forests."(258) The FSC scheme for certification, unlike the ISO and CSA approach, is premised on the creation of an international labelling system. The system is designed to assure consumers that the forest products they are buying come from well-managed forests.

The FSC has developed ten principles and criteria for forest stewardship (performance standards) that must be met before a product can carry its logo. Only FSC accredited certification bodies are permitted to carry out the on-the-ground forest inspections necessary to receive FSC approval and consequent permission to use the FSC logo.

The FSC describes the difference between its system and the ISO system as follows:

"FSC's scheme is based on specified performance standards, that need to be met by the forest operation before a certificate is issued. The environmental management system standard from ISO (ISO 14000-series) is a process standard. It specifies how a company's management system must be organised to address environmental aspects and impacts of its operations. ISO certification does not result in a product label."(259)

The FSC system of certification, like the others, has its supporters and its detractors. Most environmental groups favour this approach, which is not surprising given the origins of the FSC certification system. It was initiated by members of the environmental NGO community. On the other hand, the forest industries and the governments of a number of countries are not fully supportive of the FSC regime.

For example, the Subcommittee heard during its visit to Finland that there were concerns about the difficulty in applying the FSC standards to forestry in a country where private individuals own over 60 per cent of the forests. The average forest holding is small by world standards (in the 10 to 20 hectare range). The Finns are concerned that the FSC system would infringe on the individual rights of the over 400,000 private woodlot owners in that country by prescribing the way in which they must manage their holdings. There is also concern that the FSC governing body, rather than a more locally responsible institution or group, would wield all of the power to decide what constitutes sustainable forestry, who can perform inspections and so on. An approach that holds to the same SFM principles, but leaves greater control of implementation and oversight in the hands of domestic organizations seems preferable to the Finns.

To address these concerns, Finland has adopted a compromise solution and has developed its own certification scheme based on FSC principles, but more attuned to their particular national circumstances and developed through a rigorous, domestic, multi-stakeholder consultation process. The Finnish system, which reached the implementation phase in March 1999,(260) covers both forest management and chain-of-custody provisions, as does the FSC system, but does not include a product logo. (261)Members of the Finnish forest industry hope that eventually, their national certification scheme, as well as others based on similar principles, will be accepted as part of an international labelling system so that the proliferation of labels can be halted and consumer confusion can be reduced.

To this end, forest owners in Finland, Germany, France, Norway, Austria and Sweden launched a Pan-European Forest Certification (PEFC) Initiative in 1998. Since its inception, nine other European countries, including Belgium, Denmark and Great Britain have taken part in the initiative.(262) The goal of the PEFC is "to promote national certification projects, provide them with a common framework (such as minimum requirements concerning the initiative) and to achieve mutual recognition between the projects. A common product label is also under preparation."(263)

In Sweden, which the Subcommittee also visited, one large forestry company, AssiDoman, is already the holder of the largest FSC certified forest in the world. Most other large industrial forest companies in Sweden also support the FSC certification system.(264) However, as the Subcommittee heard during its visit, the family forest owners, who are responsible for the bulk of Swedish wood supply, are opposed to the FSC standard. Instead, they support the "Swedish FSC standard" that they began implementing in 1997. This standard is part of the Pan-European Certification Initiative mentioned above.

In the United States, the member companies of the American Forest and Paper Association are required to adhere to the SFM principles and guidelines set out in the organization’s Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). The SFI includes a requirement for independent third-party audits.(265)

In the end, the success of forest certification will depend on consumer acceptance. If there are too many schemes, based on divergent principles and concepts, resulting in too many logos or labels, the public will become confused as to just what they are meant to signify. Such an outcome would render all certification schemes suspect and, essentially, nullify all of the effort that has gone into the their creation and implementation. Canada must continue to be a part of international negotiations to clarify and resolve this situation.

The Subcommittee recommends that:

• At the international level, Canada should promote the integration of the various forest certification systems. Having a plethora of systems would render them all less effective.