Forest Stewardship Council®

FSC Monitoring & Evaluation Report

Context, figures, effects and impacts
Public Report 2013 (revised version March 2014)

FSC Monitoring & Evaluation Report 2013 (rev. version March ‘14)

All rights reserved FSC® International (FSC® F000100)

 Forest Stewardship Council®

Submitted to ISEAL in compliance with the Impacts Code (third year requirement).

This report points out some of the contributions FSC delivered towards its mission to “pro-
mote environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management
of the world's forests”. The scope of potential social, environmental, economic and political
contributions towards this mission is as broad as the types of forest ecosystems, forest
management types, forest users and their needs and interests in forests. FSC implemented
a monitoring and evaluation program to increase the understanding of the complex impacts
of the different FSC programs, and to provide a systematic foundation for a transparent,
impartial and consistent evaluation of the FSC’s effectiveness in delivering its mission.

***

FSC’S VISION
The world’s forests meet the social, ecological and economic rights and needs
of the present generation without compromising those of future generations.

FSC’S MISSION
FSC shall promote environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and eco-
nomically viable management of the world's forests

FSC Monitoring & Evaluation Program Manager:

Dr. Marion Karmann
[email protected],
FSC International, Charles-de-Gaulle Str. 5, 53113 Bonn, Germany

Page 2 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

FSC Monitoring and Evaluation Program

Report 2013 (revised version Feb. 2014)

Contents
FSC’s Vision and Mission is Based on a Global Crisis ..........................................................4
What is FSC’s Aim? ...............................................................................................................5
Forest Management...............................................................................................................7
Certification of forest management .....................................................................................7
Quality of forest management ...........................................................................................10
Promoting responsible forest management politically ..........................................................11
FSC’s Governance structure and stakeholder engagement .............................................11
Consultation processes .....................................................................................................16
Certificate holders’ perspective ............................................................................................20
Forest management recertification....................................................................................20
FSC Global Market survey ................................................................................................22
Call for research ..................................................................................................................24

Page 3 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

FSC’s Vision and Mission is Based on a Global Crisis

Since the 1980s, scientific researchers have pointed clearly and precisely to the dramatic
stress placed on the world’s forests. The complex relationship between the natural function-
ing of forest ecosystems, forest use, and the people involved is a challenging one. Re-
search on the forest area and the biodiversity of forest dependent flora and fauna indicates
prevalent deterioration of forest ecosystems, their functions and structures, for multiple,
complex reasons, and that the destruction of the tropical forests proceeds at a frightening
rate. In many countries political and economic basic conditions lead to a fragmenting of re-
sources instead of favouring and supporting a sustainable use of resources. Data collected
on social and socio-economic conditions demonstrate that in many cases traditionally forest
dependent people (e.g. communities, indigenous people, and marginalized populations) are
facing serious challenges to their reliance on forests for their livelihoods, often because of
the change of management of the forest areas.

Yale’s School of Forestry & Environmental Studies (B. Cashore et al. (2006)1) summarized
these alarming research findings: “In the face of this body of knowledge and the consensus
that many problems are intensifying, domestic and international governmental responses
have been strongly criticized as woefully inadequate and far too slow to address the myriad
problems facing global forest management. As a result of this frustration, some of the
world’s leading environmental groups and their allies decided to sidestep governments and
in 1993 created the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). FSC and its supporters turned to
the marketplace to generate incentives for forest businesses to conform to environmentally
and socially responsible forest practices. The solution put forward by FSC was relatively
simple: develop a set of global sustainable forestry principles and criteria, have national and
sub-national multistakeholder committees develop regionally appropriate standards, have
third [independent – the editor] parties audit forestry operations for compliance, and certify
those who pass the test - providing a badge of honour that, the hope was, would allow certi-
fied operations to gain some type of market advantage vis-à-vis their competitors (such as
market access, price premiums, and the more abstract notion of a “social license to oper-
ate”).”

Unique among other social and environmental initiatives, FSC developed a new kind of cer-
tification system that evaluates the practices by which timber and other products from the
forests are produced, rather than the environmental performance of the products them-
selves. This evaluation is based on standards developed jointly by a broad range of stake-

1
Cashore, B.; Gale, F.; Meidinger, E.; Newsom, D. (2006): Confronting Sustainability: Forest Certification in developing
and transitioning countries. In: Environment. Vol 48, Nr 9, Nov 2006, p 6 - 25. http://www.heldref.org/env.php © Benjamin
Cashore, Fred Gale, Errol Meidinger, and Deanna Newsom, 2006.
http://environment.yale.edu/publication-series /natural_resource_management /2538/confronting_ sustainability_
forest/

Page 4 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

holders that usually do not work on the basis of joint consensus. Since 1993, FSC has
evolved and grown tremendously, both in scope and in breadth. Today, twenty years later,
FSC is actively promoting responsible forest stewardship in more than 110 countries world-
wide through both forest management and chain of custody certification. Through joint ef-
forts of different FSC supporters and constituencies, today more than 190 million hectares
of forest are managed and certified according to the high standards of FSC. Around the
globe 35 FSC accredited certification bodies are working with committed forest managers
and forest product purchasers (see table 1). Consumers, often organized through powerful
environmental and social NGOs, are pushing for responsibly managed products.

What is FSC’s Aim?

FSC produced the Theory of Change, and then held a public consultation in October 2013
to gather suggestions for intended impacts and indicators to measure its impacts. The for-
est management-related indicators cover the three areas addressed in FSC’s mission (envi-
ronmental, social and economic effects of forest management) as well as overarching gen-
eral aspects of forest management. The auditors of FSC‘s accredited certification bodies
continue to monitor elements of FSC’s impacts and report on many of these indicators. This
information is publicly accessible in the FSC certification reports on our website. Some of
the suggested indicators are currently not assessed in forest management audits, but might
become reporting requirements for candidates in the modular approach program (MAP),
that is – at the time of writing this report - in development for forest management certifica-
tion. Another set of indicators focus on the tools FSC employs to “promote” responsible for-
est management politically: in engaging stakeholder groups to develop solutions for conflict-
ing interests in forest management, in contributing to meaningful forest certification (for ex-
ample through participation in standard development processes and public consultations),
and through market-linked activities. While the progress against some of these indicators
will be measured regularly, a third set of indicators might be assessed on a sample basis by
external researchers.

Page 5 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

Table 1: FSC in figures

End 2000 End 2006 Sept. 2008 End 2013

Forest area certified 24.4 82.6 105.4 190.7

(million hectares)
FSC Global South* 6.1 41.4 52.6 94.4
FSC Global North* 18.3 41.2 52.8 96.3

Number of forest management 284 860 944 1,257

certificates

FSC Global South* 94 432 483 759

FSC Global North* 190 428 461 498

Number of chain-of-custody 1’138 5’178 11’111 27’054

certificates

FSC Global South* 323 1’554 2’582 10‘198

FSC Global North* 815 3’624 8’529 16‘868
No. of countries where FSC cer- 49 73 97 118
tificates (forest management,
chain of custody) are issued

Number of accredited 5 16 19 35
certification bodies

No. of countries with approved 5 26 29 31

forest stewardship standards

Number of FSC International 357 647 811 831

(Asociación Civil) members
Number of FSC Network 19 39 53 43
Partners**

FSC Regional Offices and - 4 4 6 + central

Network managers coordination

Source: FSC Data base, FSC Literature Review 2009

* FSC Global North and Global South refer to the OECD categories: FSC Global South includes not
only all the OECD developing countries, but also the countries in transition from the former Soviet
Union, while countries like Australia and New Zealand, situated geographically in the South are
economically part of the “FSC Global North”.

** FSC Network Partners: before 2011 called National Initiatives.

Page 6 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

Forest Management

Certification of forest management

A short way to describe FSC’s concept is based on the underlying assumption that each
additional hectare certified to FSC standards brings us closer to achieving FSC’s mission:
to improve forest management worldwide. The larger the forest area certified to FSC
standards, the larger the forest area that brings evidence that it is managed socially,
economically viable and environmentally responsibly.

Since the inception of FSC, the area of forest operations managed and certified according
to FSC standards is continuing to grow at an unprecedented rate. During the five years
since 2009, forested area under FSC has grown at a relatively constant rate of 15.5 million
hectares per year, equivalent to an average annual growth rate of 11 percent (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Total FSC certified forest management area (1995-2013)

Source: FSC Certificate data base, Dec. 2013

As of 15 December 2013, 1,260 forest management units with a total of 190.8 million hec-
tares were managed and certified according to FSC standards2. These certified operations
are spread over five continents, over 81 countries, in different climate zones (see table 2).

2
“The State of Sustainability Initiatives Review 2014: Standards and the Green Economy” (page 209) estimates that in
2013 “Globally, FSC forest area accounts for approximately 4.5 per cent of forest area, while PEFC forest area accounts
for approximately 6 per cent. Conservatively, we estimate certified forest area after accounting for double certification to
be about 9 per cent of total forest area.”

Page 7 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

Because FSC is a market-linked instrument and its intention is to enable consumers to

identify and choose products from responsibly managed forests, FSC reports both certified
forest management figures as well as the number of those operations certified to buy and
sell FSC certified products in the same overviews. As of mid- December 2013, 27,246 chain
of custody (CoC) certificates have been issued, in 114 countries.

These reports and more related information are updated monthly in FSC Facts & Figures,
and are publicly available on the FSC website (https://ic.fsc.org/facts-figures.19.htm).
Table 2 shows the distribution of FSC certified area and numbers of forest management
operations and of chain of custody certificates over the regions.

Table 2: FSC certified area per continent, number of certified operations

As of 15 North Europe Asia South Africa Oceania

Dec. 2013 America America &
Caribbean
FSC certified 77,526,654 81,623,564 8,959,685 13,390,488 6,729,825 2,550,506
area hectares hectares hectares hectares hectares hectares
No. of forest 241 FM cer- 507 FM cer- 181 FM 246 FM 47 FM 38 FM
management tificates in 3 tificates in certificates certificates certificates certificates
(FM) opera- countries 32 countries in 13 coun- in 17 coun- in 11 coun- in 5 coun-
tions certified (US, CA, MX) tries tries tries tries
No. of chain 4,306 CoC 14,104 CoC 6,796 CoC 1,407 CoC 165 CoC 1,463 CoC
of custody certificates certificates certificates certificates certificates certificates
(CoC) opera- in 5 countries in 39 coun- in 27 coun- in 20 coun- in 16 coun- in 7 coun-
tions certified tries tries tries tries tries
Source: FSC certificate Database December 2013

Canada, Russia, the United States and Sweden account for 70 percent of total FSC-
certified area (133 million hectares). Canada alone represents about one-third of total FSC-
certified area, while Russia represents about one-fifth.

Table 3 shows the forested area certified under FSC by continent or region.

Table 3: Forested area certified under FSC by continents, region

While FSC has achieved particular success

in North American and European countries,
FSC coverage is significantly less in tropical
regions.

Nevertheless, FSC has succeeded in certify-

ing one percent or more of total forested area
in certain countries containing tropical forest,
including China, Brazil, Indonesia, Gabon,
South Africa and New Zealand.

Page 8 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

Table 4: Forested area certified under FSC by biomes in 2008 and in 2013

The concentration of certification in the tem-

perate and boreal forests of North America and
Europe is illustrated in Table 4 and Figure 2.

Table 4 compares the breakdowns of the FSC

certified area by biome for the years 2008 and
2013, showing very similar figures for these
years.

Figure 2: Global FSC certified area, breakdown by biomes

Source: FSC Facts and figures / certificate data base, Dec. 2013

Table 5: Forested area certified under FSC by forest type in 2008 and 2013

FSC’s total certified area is primarily supplied

by natural forests, as shown in Table 5 and
Figure 3.

Like in the breakdown by biome, the figures

for April 2008 and December 2013 are very
similar.

Page 9 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

Figure 3: Global FSC certified area, breakdown by forest types

Source: FSC Database December 2013

Quality of forest management

To evaluate FSC’s impacts and outcomes on the ground, in 2008-2009 FSC’s monitoring
and evaluation program reviewed independent research from hundreds of references, in-
cluding reports, academic journals, books and screened analyses by various NGOs. The
full report “FSC reflected in scientific and professional literature – literature study on the
outcomes and impacts of FSC certification” can be assessed here.

Like other studies referenced in the literature review, the WWF Living Forests Report (2011)
found that FSC certification has a positive impact on the overall economic, environmental,
and social impact of forest management. Furthermore, it found in tropical forests:

“…an extensive study of Corrective Action Requests (CARs)… looking at FSC certified
operations in natural tropical forests concludes that FSC certification has a positive im-
pact particularly in the fields of:
- health and safety of employees and their families;
- management plans;
- monitoring;
- use of reduced-impact logging;
- and protection of rare, threatened species.
The study found that the number of CARs given in certification assessments was de-
creasing over time, suggesting that companies have incorporated management activities
that are in line with FSC requirements as standard best practice.“
(World Wildlife Foundation, 2011)

Page 10 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

Today, FSC works with a variety of research consortia to identify FSC strengths and
weaknesses, and intended and unintended outcomes and impacts. For example,
FSC’s monitoring and evaluation manager has engaged with the Center for Interna-
tional Forest Research (CIFOR) and WWF International on steering committee level,
and as technical advisor on different studies about ecological and social impacts in
Russia, as well as countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia.
These impact evaluations are conducted by multi-disciplinary research teams and take
long-term perspectives. They include, where possible, first hand data and counterfactual
control groups. The Helmholtz Alliance conducts other research projects with other re-
search organizations focusing on earth observation tools to identify options to better evalu-
ate changes in forest cover and use. This evaluation identifies the status, dynamics and
disturbance of certified forest areas and the neighboring landscapes. It is run in parallel to
on-the-ground monitoring activities in forest management certification to increase transpar-
ency in strengthening the reliability of monitoring activities of foresters, auditors, Accredita-
tion Services International (ASI)/FSC and other stakeholders, like environmental NGOs.

An example of a summary of independent research outcomes focusing on “Biodiversity and

forest management certification” was presented at the FAO World Forestry Congress 2009
in Argentina. Research papers from a number of organizations including Greenpeace and
WWF about FSC’s impacts can be found on the FSC webpage.

Promoting responsible forest management politically

FSC’s Governance structure and stakeholder engagement

Stakeholder engagement on national and international levels, in standard development and

forest management certification processes, is important for the acceptance and the im-
provement of the FSC system. FSC chamber-balanced stakeholder systems encourage
interaction and allow solutions for forest management requirements of standards and poli-
cies acceptable for all parties to be developed.

FSC Membership at global level

FSC is governed by its members. FSC Asociación Civil (FSC A.C.) is the international
membership body. The FSC A.C. membership nominates and votes annually1 for the FSC
Board of Directors. The FSC General Assembly is FSC’s highest decision-making body.
Every three years members of the social, environmental and economic chambers, further
split into sub-chambers of global North and South, come together to discuss the political
direction of FSC. These members may be organizational – representing organizations (like
environmental NGOs, furniture companies, or labour unions) - or individuals, such as re-
searchers. Within one chamber all individual members have a total of ten percent of the

Page 11 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

voting power of the respective chamber. The number of members per chamber does not
influence the voting power of the chambers: each chamber has the same weight. Those
applying for FSC membership require supportive letters from existing FSC members, and
members pay an annual fee. Individual members pay less than organisational members,
members in the economic South less than members from the North. This could be a reason
for the relatively high number of individual members in the South Social Chamber.

The number of FSC A.C. members is growing, as the number of participants (members and
observers) in the General Assemblies does. FSC interprets this as an indication that it is
able to interest people at global level, and that members find their financial and time in-
vestment is meaningful and in a trusted system.

There is some undulating growth in the membership: It happens that for different reasons
members do not pay their membership fees for a while, thereby losing their voting rights for
that time. After three years of reminders the membership will be suspended. In preparation
for the General Assemblies many of these members pay the outstanding fees, so that they
get their full voting rights back. A deeper analysis of the FSC membership composition and
dynamic will be conducted in the coming years. Some independent researchers have re-
quested related information from FSC. In preparation for the General Assembly, we usually
see more applicant members.

At the end of 2000, FSC A.C. had 357 members, 647 members in 2006, and 811 members
at the end of the General Assembly in 2008, 780 members in 2010, (a General Assembly
was held in 2011), and 853 members by end of 2012 (see figure 4).

Figure 4: Development of FSC A.C. membership

In 2006, of the 647 members, economic and environmental chambers had roughly the
same number of members (n: 278 (43 percent) in the economic chamber vs. n: 254 (40
percent) in the environmental chamber), and 111 members (17 percent) in the social cham-
ber. Fifty-one percent of the members represented countries in the economic north, while
49 percent were from the South.

In 2010, of the total of 780 members 433 were individual members, 347 members repre-
sented organizations. Of the 780 members, economic and environmental chambers had
roughly the same number of members (329 in economic vs. 310 in the environmental
chamber), with 141 members in the social chamber. Of the 780 members, 350 came from
countries in the economic north, 430 from the South. (See table 6).

Page 12 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

In 2012, the total of 853 members were almost equally divided into individual (n: 426) and
organizational (n: 427) members. Of the 853 members, the economic chamber had the
highest number of members (n: 412), the environmental chamber had 286 members, and
the social chamber had the lowest number with 155 members. The number of members
from northern countries were slightly higher (n: 438) than those representing southern coun-
tries (n: 415). (See table 6).

Nevertheless, FSC generally strives for decision-making based on consent, and as ex-
plained above, the chamber-balanced voting system helps to avoid that in cases of voting
simple majorities within or of one single chamber can rule over other chamber interests.

Table 6: FSC A.C. Membership in 2010 and 2012, divided by type and sub-chambers
Sub- Sub- Sub- Sub-
FSC A.C. Total Total
cham cham- cham- cham-
Membership ber ber ber ber
Chamber Type North South 2010 North South 2012
Individual 32 159 191 41 127 168
Environmental Organiz. 89 30 119 90 28 118
Subtotal 121 189 310 131 155 286

Individual 56 95 151 64 94 158

Economic Organiz. 120 58 178 172 82 254
2010

2012

Subtotal 176 153 329 236 176 412

Individual 23 68 91 34 67 101
Social Organiz. 30 20 50 37 17 54
Subtotal 53 88 141 71 84 155

Total 350 430 780 438 415 853

Source: FSC database 2013

FSC provides subsidies to assist in facilitating a balance of northern and southern FSC
members, especially from the southern social and environmental sub-chambers. The subsi-
dies also help to facilitate a quorum at the General Assembly. FSC allows observers to at-
tend and to contribute to discussions at the General Assembly. Table 7 gives an overview
of the development of participation at the General Assemblies, and also shows that there is
growing interest in FSC in a growing number of countries.

Page 13 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

Table 7: FSC A.C. General Assembly participation of voting members and other
stakeholders (observers)
FSC General Participants Countries Venue
Assembly (members, observers)
1996, June Oaxaca, Mexico
1999, 24-25 June 170 32 Oaxaca, Mexico
2002, 24-26 Nov. 200 44 Oaxaca, Mexico
2005, 7-9 Dec. 282 56 Manaus, Brazil
2008, 3-7 Nov. 300 65 Cape Town, South Africa
2011, 25 - 1 July 500 80 Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
2014, 7-14 Sept Seville, Spain
Source: FSC Membership Program 2013

FSC Network and membership at national levels

Since the establishment of FSC in 1993, many individuals and organizations have been
interested in liaising with FSC in its development and this has resulted in a one of FSC’s
strongest assets: a group of FSC network partners around the world. Network partners are
defined as: “FSC partners on a national level with a cooperation agreement with FSC. This
comprises FSC national offices3, FSC national representatives4 and FSC national focal
points5.” The deep level of interdependence between FSC and its network partners contrib-
utes to FSC’s global aims because network partners, among others, agree to the national or
regional forest management standards, which contribute to position FSC as the benchmark
in forest certification. Network partners also have a crucial role in advocacy on behalf of
FSC, maintaining good relationships with local social and environmental groups and in in-
troducing companies to the FSC system at every level of the supply chain. As of December
2013 FSC had 30 national offices, seven national representatives, and six national focal
points. In addition, regional offices in Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Russia, China, and Latin
America are coordinated through FSC International in Bonn to provide services. Network
procedures have been developed to ensure that all partners adhere to the FSC require-
ments for network partners.

Table 8 provides an overview of the FSC National Offices and the number and chamber
affiliation of the national members in these countries.

3
FSC National Office: a legally established and independent FSC partner organization promoting responsible
management of the world’s forests on behalf of FSC at the national level on the basis of a formal contract
(cooperation agreement).
4
FSC National Representative: an individual working on behalf of FSC in his/her country to serve as a nation-
al point for information and to promote responsible management of the forests under a formal contract (coop-
eration and service agreement).
5
FSC National Focal Point: an individual with a specified and agreed task for his/her country accomplished on
a voluntary basis and under a formal contract (agreement). The National Focal Point does not represent FSC.

Page 14 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

Table 8: Number of members of National Offices, as of Dec. 2013

Network Partner / Region Environ- Economic Social Total

National Office mental members
Australia Asia Pacific 21 73 16 110
Belgium Europe 7 17 6 30
Bolivia Latin America 41 15 14 70
Brazil Latin America 20 90 17 127
Canada North America 15 31 14 60
Chile Latin America 11 23 17 51
Czech Rep.* Europe 5 9 3 17
Denmark Europe 5 70 2 77
Ecuador* Latin America 8 6 6 20
Estonia Europe 3 3 6 12
Finland Europe 4 4 3 12
France Europe 7 53 5 65
Germany Europe 29 116 23 168
Guatemala* Latin America 5 8 4 17
Honduras Latin America 30 26 10 76
Ireland* Europe 5 10 3 18
Japan* Asia Pacific 7 15 5 27
Latvia Europe 5 12 4 21
Luxembourg Europe 14 20 3 37
Netherlands** Europe n/a n/a. n/a 304
Nicaragua* Latin America 23 24 10 57
Peru* Latin America 10 8 6 24
Poland Europe 25 21 5 41
Portugal Europe 5 14 5 24
Russia* CIS 23 25 7 45
Spain* Europe 12 15 7 34
Sweden Europe 2 40 5 47
Switzerland Europe 5 37 6 58
United Kingdom Europe 9 18 5 32
United States North America 25 66 21 112
*: older figures than Dec. 2013
** FSC Netherland membership is not organized in chambers.
Source: FSC Network Unit, 2013

Page 15 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

Consultation processes

FSC brings people together to jointly develop solutions

FSC engages with stakeholders on different levels: in forest management certification, for
standard development and revision, for long-term strategies through General Assemblies,
and for many other issues. FSC has standards and guidelines for such stakeholder en-
gagement processes, in line with ISEAL and ISO requirements or beyond. Consultations
are processes which enable the public and relevant organisations to help develop accepta-
ble strategies and solve problems. The aim is to involve everyone who is affected by the
issue and who wants to help find the best solution, in FSC’s case for the multiple interests
in forest management and for the technical challenges of tracing certified materials. Some-
times a consultation will not address a specific problem, but will simply seek feedback and
opinions on a topic. In addition, more political documents (Statutes, Theory of Change,
Global Strategies, etc) are consulted.

At the international level, the FSC normative framework currently comprises 52 documents:
25 standards, 13 policies and 14 policy documents. A number of additional normative di-
rectives and advice notes and guidance documents are related to these documents. The
full catalogue with information about document ownership, effective and approval dates,
and so on is publicly available on the FSC website. While FSC is working to reduce the
number of documents by merging and streamlining them, the number of such documents is
not currently decreasing as each political and technical document requires updating in line
with new regulations from time to time.

FSC develops, reviews and revises its policies, standards and procedures via stakeholder
consultation on a regular basis. In view of the sheer number of consultations, it does not
come as a surprise that members and other stakeholders choose to focus on certain topical
areas related to their interests (e.g. forest management issues, trademarks aspects and
governance). Therefore some topics receive attention from a broad scope of stakeholders
(for example, the International Generic Indicators for forest management that address so-
cial, environmental and economic aspects), while other more technical standards (for ex-
ample, chain of custody) are debated by smaller groups of experts. Various FSC units run
these consultations as appropriate, and FSC is working to better coordinate the timing of
the consultations to avoid stakeholder fatigue. An example for such a consultation process
and related documents is available of the FSC International Generic Indicators website.
One of the documents is a stakeholder outreach survey report summarizing findings from
interviews conducted to determine stakeholders’ major outstanding concerns regarding the
FSC principles and criteria and how these should be addressed to their satisfaction in the
International Generic Indicators.

The large volume of work of preparing documents for consultation and reflecting the feed-
back from consultations in the revised documents is in many cases conducted by FSC in
cooperation with regional and chamber-balanced expert working groups of FSC members
and technical advisors. The members of these committees are experienced in social and
environmental standard setting processes nominated through the FSC membership.

Page 16 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

In 2013 roughly ten major consultations were conducted publicly on FSC core documents
(such as FSC statutes and FSC’s global strategic development, or the International Generic
Indicators for forest management). Approximately 25 consultations were conducted on
more technical standards, advice notes and motions (such as chain of custody evaluation
standards, group certification eligibility criteria). For most consultations, the FSC network,
certification bodies, FSC members and external expert groups are invited to comment. The
ongoing consultation processes are promoted on the FSC consultations website.

An example of a standard revision process in 2013 is the ongoing consultation on

controlled wood standards. The standards related are FSC-STD-40-005 V 3-0 re-
quirements for sourcing controlled wood and FSC-STD-30-010 V 3-0 forest man-
agement requirements for controlled wood certification. One round of public consul-
tation was conducted in 2013. Based on the FSC board of director’s guidance and
due to the consultation of the International Generic Indicators in the same time
frame, a second round of consultation is planned for early 2014. The details of the
results of the first consultation’s feedback will be presented to stakeholders with the
start of the second consultation. The first consultation was announced through the
public FSC News and uploaded on the consultation website. The stakeholders direct-
ly contacted are all those subscribed to the mailing lists of the FSC network, the cer-
tification body forum, and the FSC’s membership. In the first round of consultation
107 stakeholders provided feedback; 38 of the respondents are FSC members (13
representatives of environmental organizations, 26 representatives of economic
members (including 10 certification body representatives)); six network partners, one
FSC International employee, and 62 other stakeholders.

It is important for FSC to continue to engage stakeholders in consultations, to maintain and

enhance its transparent, democratic and inclusive standard setting processes, which result
in FSC’s authority, and to keep up its good reputation as an important and recognized fo-
rum where innovative solutions have become possible through dialogue. Equally important
is the aspect that the FSC system learns from the feedback of the stakeholders’ expertise.
The FSC monitoring and evaluation system now monitors participation in these consultation
processes in cooperation with the relevant FSC entities.

Page 17 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

National forest stewardship standards

The development of indicators for forest management on a national level within the frame-
work of the FSC principles and criteria for forest stewardship is ― politically ― a special
case of standard development, although the requirements for working group composition
and consultation processes are the same. National forest management standards are at the
heart of FSC’s philosophy of forest stewardship. These processes usually take years of ne-
gotiation within the countries. In addition, in many cases the national standards have to go
through harmonization processes with neighboring countries. One of the countries engag-
ing very early in this process was Sweden, where WWF Sweden convened a chamber-
balanced group to negotiate the standard in 1993. In 1997, Sweden was the first country to
have their national forest stewardship standard-approved by FSC.

Researchers state that these national processes facilitate participatory forest policy pro-
cesses and better policy definition, and that they have strong impacts on the ability of civil
society and stakeholders to bring issues to the table around worker rights, tenure and
health and safety standards in forest management. (see Literature Review).

Fifteen new or revised national forest management standards (of the current 31 effective
national standards) have been approved by FSC Policy and Standards Committee after
national consultations in 2012 and 2013.

As of late 2013, FSC registered national Standard Development Groups (SDG)[1] in 38

countries to develop indicators for forest management. In 31 countries [2] of these 38 one or
more generic forest stewardship standards existed already.

In the majority of cases the membership of the FSC National Offices (see table 8) approves
at their General Assemblies the indicators for forest management which have been negoti-
ated among a three chamber SDG and an open consultative forum in their respective coun-
tries.

There are a number of countries which have already “Registered Standard Development
Groups”, but so far no formal national membership system, and not yet national forest man-
agement standards: Belarus, China, India, Italy, Kenya, Malaysia, Nepal, South Africa, Tai-
wan, Tanzania, Uganda, Ukraine, Vietnam. The Congo basin countries (Cameroon, Central

[1]
Registered SDGs in 2013: Australia, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo Basin (for Came-
roon, Gabon, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic) , Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Ghana, India, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Nepal Netherlands, New Zealand, Papua New Guin-
ea, Poland, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom
Ukraine, United Stated America, Vietnam.
[2]
Countries with National Forest Stewardship standards (2013): Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Central Africa Re-
public, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Ireland, Kosovo, Latvia, Luxem-
bourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Congo, Russia, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America.

Page 18 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

African Republic, Gabon, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo) with one joint
Standard Development Group, and Ghana, New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea all have
a national (or regional) forest management standard, approved by FSC International. (See
also the FSC National Standards page).

In the second quarter of 2013, in 79 countries, 1,208 forest management operations with a
total area of 179.8 million hectares were certified by FSC standards. 45 percent of these 79
countries have endorsed national standards. 58 percent of the operations, and 77 percent
of the total FSC certified area was certified according to national FSC standards. Where
first endorsed, draft or more final versions of national forest stewardship standards exist,
these standards are then used for certification. Certification of forest management in coun-
tries without national standards is based on the generic indicators the certification bodies
add to the FSC principles and criteria.

Page 19 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

Certificate holders’ perspective

Forest management recertification

The benefits of being certified are sometimes questioned, and the direct and indirect finan-
cial investments to comply with FSC requirements and for audit costs are reported to be
challenging. Both benefits and challenges depend on many factors, including quality of for-
est management, experience of foresters, size and location of operations, market demand
and market access. It is assumed that those forest managers who decide to reinvest in
recertification at the end of the first term of certification do perceive benefits from
being certified, which are at least equal or higher than the costs for certification.

After successful main evaluation, and subject to annual audits, in most cases a forest man-
agement certificate is issued for a five year period. After these five years, the certificate
holder can apply for recertification for another five year period.

FSC forest management certification was tested before 1993, and the first forest manage-
ment certificate was issued in 1993 in Mexico, while the first chain of custody certificate was
issued in the US. Since 1996, independent certification bodies are accredited to use the
FSC standards, and the first certified and labelled FSC product (a wooden spatula, in the
United Kingdom) went on sale that year.

By the end of 2013, 1,302 certified forest management entities (forest manager, forest
manager/chain of custody and forest manager/controlled wood) held a valid FSC certificate.
Of these, at least 572 were certified a second term or longer. If the certificate had been ter-
minated for any reason, and/or the same forest management entity applied for a new term
of certification under a new name and/or if they changed certification body, the older certifi-
cates do not show up in the figures below. So in fact more than the 572 certified operations
were certified for a longer term than 5 years. Of these 572 recertified operations, more than
half (n: 367) are certified for a second term, a third (n: 171) are certified since at least 2003,
and 34 have held their certificate since the early days of FSC (see figure 5).

Figure 5: Duration / renewal of forest management certification

Page 20 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

Since the last revision of the reporting formats for forest and chain of custody certifications
auditors give reasons for termination of certificates. Figure 6 groups these reasons given
since 2009 in the four categories below, which can be further broken down:

- Business closure,
- Change in certification type (for example from individual to group certification),
- Voluntary end of certification (for example because of lack of supply or demand,
costs of certification, or without a clear reason “expiry at end of term”).
- Forced termination of certification: (for example because of non-compliance with
contractual commitments or certification requirements).

We derive more detailed information why people decide not to continue with certification
also directly from impressions of the certificate holders in the “FSC Global Market Survey”.

Figure 6: Reasons reported for termination of forest management and chain of cus-
tody certificates

Source: FSC certificate database Dec. 2013

Page 21 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

FSC Global Market survey

FSC reaches out to all certificate holders (both forest management and chain of custody)
regularly, and the question of the motivation to apply for certification is among the survey
questions. The 2012 FSC Global Market Survey was sent in 15 languages to 24,473 certifi-
cate holders, and 4,595 certificate holders (18.5 percent) completed the survey. Of the
2012 respondents, 35.2 percent had also participated in the 2011 survey. This response
rate reflects the broad scope of FSC certificate holders well, and allows us to draw conclu-
sions that support our decision making. (See more about the statistics of the FSC Global
Market Surveys 2012, 2011, 2010 .

Ninety-eight percent of all respondents in the 2012 survey saw the value that FSC certifica-
tion added to their products and businesses, and planned to keep their FSC certification.
This is a great result. We asked respondents for their reason to choose FSC certification,
and to rank these reasons according to priority. Maintaining their client base and increasing
their potential clients were the main benefits respondents saw in deciding to continue their
FSC certification. In addition, companies were increasingly including preferences for certain
systems in their procurement policies. In the 2011 Global Market Survey, this had applied to
almost half of all respondents. ‘Commitment to responsible forestry’ also remained an im-
portant reason for keeping FSC certification, reflecting the commitment of FSC certificate
holders to social, environmental and economic best practices according to the FSC certifi-
cation standards.

We also asked whether respondents agreed with general statements about certification im-
pacts. The highest-ranked statement was the transparency that certified products came
from well-managed sources; this was perceived as particularly important amongst respond-
ents from Latin and Central America. In general, impacts were evenly spread across the
three key areas of environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial and economically viable
forest management. (See more in table 9 and in the FSC Global Market Surveys.)

Page 22 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

Table 9: Agreement of respondents with general statements about impacts of certifi-

cation

Do you agree with the following statements about the general % of respondents
impacts of FSC certification? in agreement
With the certificate, it becomes transparent that products are from 93.7%
well managed forests.
Certification helps to maintain biodiversity in managed forests. 89.9%
Certification helps to increase the environmental value of forests, 89.8%
while not ignoring the economic values.
Certification helps to ensure protection of threatened species in 89.0%
the managed area.
Certification helps us to fully use the economic value of forests 83.8%
balanced with other values.
Certification supports small and community forest users to be bet- 82.9%
ter respected.
Certification has a positive impact on workers’ health, safety and 78.8%
other working conditions.
Global Market Survey 2012, completed by 4,595 forest management and chain of custody certificate holders

Ethical consumption has proven to be resilient in the face of the economic downturn, and
more companies, among them large paper and print companies, are looking to FSC certifi-
cation to add value to their products or help measure the success of their sustainability
strategies.

Recognition of FSC logo

Consumer awareness is a critical success factor for FSC. When consumers recognize and
express a preference for FSC, it is an important pull factor for companies to adopt certifica-
tion. Surveys on public recognition of the FSC logo were in carried out during 2012 in vari-
ous countries by FSC National Offices or by third parties, with several showing encouraging
findings:
 In the UK, 33 percent of those surveyed had knowingly bought FSC certified
products.
 In the Netherlands, 24 percent of respondents named FSC without prompting
when asked if they knew a trademark related to wood.
 In Hong Kong, 29 percent of respondents recognized the FSC label, com-
pared to 11 percent in 2008 and 16 percent in 2010.
 In Denmark, 35 percent of respondents recognized the FSC label, compared
to 12 percent in 2008 and 28 percent in 2009.
Source: FSC Market Info Pack 2013.

Page 23 of 24
 Forest Stewardship Council®

Call for research

A large amount of information about FSC’s impacts is generated within the FSC system
through certification assessments of forests. Each FSC certified forest management opera-
tion must have an annual assessment, resulting in a report that describes the actions the
manager or owner has taken to gain, or maintain, their FSC certification. This information of
the more than 12000 (in 2013) certified operations is publicly accessible on the FSC certifi-
cate data base in summary reports.

FSC both promotes and follows independent research and case studies carried out by uni-
versities, research institutions and other organizations. These studies include a wide variety
of information types: analyses of certification reports and corrective action requests; ecolog-
ical field studies; socio-political case studies; and economic analyses of timber markets.

There are a number of specific areas on which FSC would welcome external research in-
puts and collaboration. Together with the Social Policy Program, the Monitoring and Evalua-
tion Program has identified the following priority areas for research:

 direct and indirect cost-savings experienced by operations that switch from normal to
SLIMF (small and low-intensity management forests) certification
 potential synergies between FSC certification for smallholders and REDD+ (Reduc-
ing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation)
 costs and benefits of dual-certification schemes (eg. FSC and Fair Trade) and their
success in the marketplace
 costs and benefits of contractor certification and its potential impact on the certifica-
tion system

We also encourage case studies on:

 impacts of certification on the safety of forest workers

 impacts of certification on Indigenous land rights
 impacts of certification on economic diversification (e.g. incorporating other revenue
streams from forests e.g. non-timber forest products)
 social, financial, environmental and institutional impacts of certification on SLIMFs
and communities.

FSC’s Monitoring and Evaluation Manager welcomes the submission of any research pa-
pers related to FSC certification an processes. Please contact [email protected].

Page 24 of 24