311

Conservation Biology, Pages 311–312Volume 15, No. 2, April 2001

Forest Stewardship Council Forest Certification

HENRY A. CAULEY,*§ CHARLES M. PETERS,† RICHARD Z. DONOVAN,‡ AND JENNIFER M. O’CONNOR*

*Forest Stewardship Council United States, 1155 30th Street N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20007, U.S.A.†Institute of Economic Botany, New York Botanical Gardens, Bronx NY 10458, U.S.A.

‡SmartWood Program, Rainforest Alliance, 61 Millet Street, Goodwin Baker Building, Richmond, VT 05477, U.S.A.

In “Timber Certification: Where is the Voice of the Biol-ogist?” Bennett (2000) discusses the relationship be-tween timber certification in tropical forests and biodi-versity, with an emphasis on wildlife, and uses ForestStewardship Council (FSC) certification as an example.Bennett is concerned that problems stressed by conser-vation biologists are not being incorporated into certifi-cation criteria: “All certification bodies have produceddetailed principles, criteria, guidelines, and indicators,but few of these concern wildlife. Those that do talkmainly about protecting sites important for flora andfauna but do not take into account the wider effects oflogging on wildlife in the areas being logged.”

The FSC (www.fscus.org or www.fscoax.org) princi-ples and criteria are designed to apply to tropical, tem-perate, and boreal forests, as well as to plantations andpartially replanted forests; they thus they provide abroad prescription applicable to a wide variety of foresttypes throughout the world. The principles and criteriaare developed by a team of highly respected individuals,representing the environmental, economic, and socialchamber of the FSC. These principles and criteria repre-sent the framework from which regions develop a moredetailed and localized set of standards for certification.Once regions have developed and approved regionalstandards, independent certifiers accredited by the FSC(e.g., SmartWood Program and the Scientific Certifica-tion System) use those standards for certification assess-ments. Therefore, the FSC provides a tool in its princi-ples and criteria from which regions develop local,specific standards for use by independent, third-party,FSC–accredited certifiers. Certifiers provide teams ofprofessionals to assess a potential certified operation.This assessment team examines the operation to deter-mine to what extent it has followed the FSC standardsfor the region and may pass or fail the operation accord-ingly. As of 31 August 2000, FSC–accredited certifiershad examined and approved 18,039,626 ha worldwide.

The editorial specifically addresses FSC criteria 3.2,6.2, and 6.3, and FSC principle 7, and their deficiencies

in addressing biodiversity and wildlife concerns. Althoughthe principles and criteria do not provide specific pre-scriptions for wildlife or bushmeat in the tropics, FSC’sprinciples and criteria do address biodiversity and wildlifein a broader sense. Criterion 3.2 states that “Forest man-agement shall not threaten or diminish, either directly orindirectly, the resources or tenure rights of indigenouspeople.” Bennett acknowledges that this criterion is gen-eral, but goes further to say that “it is unlikely that ‘re-sources’ is being read to mean major loss of bushmeat.” Inthe context of this criterion, the term resources is in-tended to mean all natural resources, including bushmeat,wildlife, and biodiversity, found within a forest environ-ment, and it is not intended to exclude any resource.

Principle 6 addresses environmental impacts, and prin-ciple 7 addresses management plans. Criterion 6.2 statesthat “Safeguards shall exist which protect rare, threat-ened and endangered species and their habitats (e.g.nesting and feeding areas). Conservation zones and pro-tection areas shall be established, appropriate to thescale and intensity of forest management and the unique-ness of the affected resources. Inappropriate hunting,fishing, trapping and collecting shall be controlled.” Cri-terion 6.3 states that “Ecological functions and valuesshall be maintained intact, enhanced, or restored, including:a) forest regeneration and succession, b) genetic, species,and ecosystem diversity, and c) natural cycles that affect theproductivity of the forest ecosystem.” Finally, principle 7states that “The management plan and supporting docu-ments shall provide. . . plans for the identification and pro-tection of rare, threatened and endangered species.”

These principles and criteria broadly address speciesthat are both directly and indirectly affected by harvest-ing operations and the resulting increased access to for-est environments. In keeping with the FSC modus oper-andi, these principles do not provide specific prescriptionsbut provide a starting point for more detailed standards ofresponsible forest management prepared at the regionallevel and for specific guidelines and checklists used bycertifiers throughout the world.

Regional standards are under development in many ar-eas, and there are differences, as one would expect,from region to region. As the FSC continues to expandand develop, however, these differences are being rec-

§

email hcauley@foreststewardship.orgPaper submitted August 28, 2000; revised manuscript accepted October 19, 2000.

312

Forest Stewardship Council Certification Cauley et al.

Conservation BiologyVolume 15, No. 2, April 2001

onciled. Despite these issues, many regional standardsprovide specific prescriptions for controlling huntingand protecting biodiversity and wildlife. The draft of theGreat Lakes–St. Lawrence regional standards in Canada(GLSL Regional FSC Initiative Steering Committee 2000)is an excellent example of standards that address theseissues. Specific examples include:

Subcriterion 2.2a: Traditional, nontimber uses of the for-est by local people or the public that are well estab-lished (but not necessarily legal rights) are sustained ona permissive basis. In these situations, user fees may becharged by the forest manager or owner. In certain in-stances, these traditional uses may be constrained by theowner if they become intensive or threaten the integrityof the forest. Examples of traditional uses include hunt-ing, fishing, and trapping.

Subcriterion 6.2i: Roads are closed and/or access is con-trolled unless it can be demonstrated that there are sig-nificant economic or recreational benefits to leavingthem open. Examples of indicators of performance forthis subcriterion include road density and removablebridges used to control access to sensitive areas.

Sub-criterion 7.1a: The management goals, objectives,and strategies, including a summary of owner or man-ager objectives and strategies with respect to the follow-ing:“. . . iii) conservation of biodiversity; . . . vii) conser-vation of historical and cultural resources; viii) wildlife. . .”Examples of indicators of performance for this subcrite-rion include manager having a clear and realistic strategy forconserving rare, threatened, and endangered species, his-torical or cultural resources, and biodiversity; also goals, ob-jectives, and strategies demonstrating an understanding ofthe ecological place and value of trees, plants, and wildlife.

In addition, certifiers develop specific guidelines andchecklists for biodiversity and wildlife in areas where re-gional standards have not yet been developed. As a certi-fier, SmartWood uses the “SmartWood Generic Guide-lines for Assessing Forest Management” (Rainforest Alliance2000) to set limits aimed at controlling hunting in forestsduring harvest operations. Examples of controls are crite-rion 1.5: in-migration, settlement, hunting, and timberextraction along logging roads are controlled; criterion2.2: controlled access is given or offered to local com-munities for timber and nontimber forest products basedon either legal agreements or longstanding local agree-ments; criterion 6.2: hunting, fishing, trapping, and col-lection of nontimber forest products are controlled inthe forest; and criterion 8.2: monitoring plan is techni-cally sound and identifies and describes observed changesin conditions in terms of (1) silviculture ( growth rates, re-generation, and forest conditions, typically as part of suit-able continuous forest inventory systems); (2) environ-ment (environmental changes affecting flora, fauna, soil,and water resources); and (3) socioeconomic aspects (for-est management costs, yield of all products, and changesin community and worker relations or conditions).

As a result of these and other controls developed bythe certifiers, certified forest management operations inBolivia, for example, have successfully reduced the har-vest of bushmeat during logging and are providing alter-

native meat sources (e.g., meat purchased outside theforest areas). These examples reveal that regional stan-dards applied in each country and specific guidelinesand checklists used by certifiers seem to adequately ad-dress the issues raised by Bennett.

Although the certification guidelines set forth by theFSC do address biodiversity and wildlife, the concernsand criticisms raised by Bennett are valid. The FSCguidelines are intended to protect and provide the great-est benefit to all forest resources and not to one specificresource. The FSC does not insist on fully understandingall science before implementing management guide-lines. The FSC is striving to conserve as much forestlandas possible within the global land-use matrix and to pre-vent the conversion of forestlands to other land uses,such as agriculture. In addition, the FSC is striving to de-velop and implement responsible forestry guidelinesand to make certified management practices better thantraditional practices. This process is continually chang-ing, however, and is not without imperfections.

To improve the certification process and to addressthe concerns of Bennett and other scientists, we havetwo recommendations. First, the FSC needs to improveeducational efforts to ensure that scientists and other in-terested parties understand the certification process andknow where to find the appropriate information. To re-iterate, the principles and criteria are a starting pointand are further developed in regional standards and cer-tifiers’ guidelines and checklists. Second, scientists shoulddirectly provide the FSC or certifiers, such as SmartWood,Scientific Certification Systems, and SGS Qualifor, withspecific suggestions of indicators that will better addressbiodiversity, wildlife, or any other areas of concern. TheFSC is attempting to improve communication betweenconservation biologists, ecologists, foresters, and loggersto ensure that the best guidelines are constructed andthe scientific components of the certification processare strengthened; inputs from scientists are welcome.

The Forest Stewardship Council endorses responsibleforestry practices that are environmentally appropriate,socially acceptable, and economically viable in an effortto protect the world’s forests. As the amount of certifiedforest continues to increase throughout the world, thecertification process will continue to improve and grow,and we welcome comments such as Bennett’s to help fa-cilitate this growth.

Literature Cited

Bennett, E. L. 2000. Timber certification: where is the voice of the bi-ologist? Conservation Biology

14:

921–923.Great Lakes–St. Lawrence Regional FSC Initiative Steering Committee.

2000. Standards for well managed forests in the central and south-ern Great Lakes–St. Lawrence forests of Ontario. Forest Steward-ship Council Canada and Richard Ivey Foundation, Toronto.

Rainforest Alliance. 2000. Generic guidelines for assessing natural for-est management. SmartWood Program, Vermont.