1000-A1
Russell Collier[1]
Around the world, indigenous peoples have often been the first to bear the brunt of poor forestry practices and the last to see tangible economic benefits. Whether it’s the Russian Taiga, the Amazonian jungle, or New Zealand’s temperate rainforests, the stories follow familiar lines. Companies secure rights from provincial, state or national governments to log new tracts of forests that are the traditional lands of indigenous peoples. The lands get logged - more often than not without regard for the indigenous peoples’ rights and interests - and the companies move on.
However, balanced against this powerful trend is another - a worldwide trend towards rural communities and indigenous peoples slowly gaining control over their historical forested areas. And in September 2002, the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa gave further impetus to this trend when it reaffirmed “the vital role” of indigenous peoples in “sustainable development”.
Clearly, the indigenous peoples of the world face a daunting task as they try to capitalize on this phenomenon. But their task may be made easier by yet another rapidly accelerating trend.
That trend is forest certification. However, forest certification alone will not revolutionize the way the world’s forests are managed, nor will it guarantee a more equitable share of the benefits of our forests for indigenous peoples. But if we are ever to build a forest-based economy that respects ecological limits, values, people and culture, and equitably shares the wealth of our forests, we urgently need new tools. Forest certification, particularly certification under Forest Stewardship Council standards, is just such a tool. We will explore this trend and its potential benefits to indigenous peoples in this paper.
Certification is a voluntary, market-based approach that gives interested forest companies the opportunity to demonstrate to demanding consumers that they manage their operations in a “sustainable” manner. Obviously, that word means different things to different people. And that is just one reason why the whole business of certification is so interesting: different groups in society have different expectations about what it can deliver. They also have very different ideas about what sorts of values and perspectives certification systems should consider.
Written with Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous communities and Indigenous forest managers in mind, this paper serves as a guide to what to look for when a company wishes to pursue certification on traditional lands. It features a step-by-step description of what happens when a company decides it wants to seek forest certification. It also includes a useful list of important questions Indigenous Peoples should ask key players at key points before, during and after a forest certification.
Environmental groups were among the earliest proponents of certification. They see it as an opportunity to protect environmental values while letting businesses continue to function. They also expect it will allow greater public input into and control of land- and resource-use decisions. In particular, they see the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) as their creation. They support it above all other certification programs because it requires independent auditors to verify that certain forest protections are in place, rather than leaving it to companies and governments to make those judgement calls.
Forest companies and forest industry associations, on the other hand, may not necessarily support FSC. But they still see value in some form of forest certification, mostly because it provides more certainty in their operating climate. Facing incessant demands to change the way they log, some companies want an environmental stamp of approval that will help put a shine on their tarnished image. For them, certification is a tool that provides a way to show the public that environmental values are being protected, and that they are logging in sustainable ways.
Certification is also seen by many forest products manufacturers and retailers as a way to capture greater market share in the “eco-certified wood” niche. This niche is often compared to the organic foods market.
Public opinion polls consistently report that consumers will pay a little more (often called a premium) for products that are shown to be ecologically friendly. As markets change, businesses see the need to adapt to new conditions and pursue different customers. But whether or not forest certification translates into significant price increases and profits remains to be seen. For now, the driving reason to achieve certification may simply be that it makes it easier for companies to do business in a world where more people are aware of the environmental, social and economic damages associated with poor forestry practices.
In a country such as Canada where local governments use their control of public lands to issue timber-cutting permits or licences to logging companies, certification’s appeal may be that it provides more certainty to the forest industry. If certification helps to sustain logging activity, then that means a secure stream of income to government in the form of stumpage or timber-cutting fees and corporate and personal income taxes. Certifications may also boost a province’s environmental reputation in the eyes of certain forest product buyers leading to an improved investment climate. And it may provide opportunities for local governments to attempt to manage the environmental agenda.
For labour groups who have traditionally played a strong role in social justice issues, forest certification may be seen as another tool in protecting workers’ rights to safe and meaningful employment, to long-term jobs, and to greater community stability.
Indigenous communities may see forest certification in an entirely different way from the views expressed above. For many Indigenous Peoples, certification may be an opportunity to protect all things in the forest - not just timber, but berry bushes, mushrooms, medicinal plants, cultural sites, hunting and fishing areas, among others. Some Indigenous Peoples may also see it as a new opportunity to participate more fully in the forest economy. For others still it may mean an opportunity to negotiate new relationships with businesses and local communities.
Because the kinds of values that forest certification deals with overlap considerably with Indigenous Peoples’ rights, some Indigenous communities may see it as a tool to move resolution of those outstanding issues along. There is some justification for this view.
While companies cannot be responsible for rights issues outstanding between Indigenous Peoples and their governments, they assume some responsibility for these rights when they accept forest licences from governments. How these companies will exercise that responsibility and influence the resolution of Indigenous rights issues in forest management has become a certification issue.
According to a 2002 report by the Canadian Sustainable Forestry Coalition, a group of forest industry associations, “more than 104 million hectares of forest land across the country, representing an annual allowable cut of more than 94 million m3 [cubic metres] have been certified. This represents almost 52% of Canada’s annual harvest of approximately 180 million m3 and almost 90% of Canada’s managed forest lands.”
“This strong performance,” the Coalition said, “is clear evidence of broad industry commitment to sustainable forest management, meeting customer needs and assuring Canadians that our forests are well managed.”
But there is certified and then there’s certified. This total includes forest operations that are certified under a range of systems, each with a different perspective and focus. And issues of Indigenous Peoples’ rights are a key area where certification systems differ. Let us look at a few of these different certification systems through Indigenous eyes. Let us start with a few of the questions important to Indigenous Peoples.
· Does the certification program require strong environmental protection?
· Does it require strong provisions for Indigenous Peoples’ rights?
· Does it use a precautionary principle to guide actions?
· Does it require the forest company to be accountable to local communities?
· Is its consultation process with Indigenous Peoples good, bad or indifferent?
· Is sustainability emphasized over short-term profit?
· Does the program call for capacity-building for Indigenous Peoples?
· Are the certifiers and auditors independent from industry and government control?
· Are the standards they measure against developed independently from industry and government control?
· Is there opportunity to incorporate traditional ecological knowledge in forest management plans?
· Will the certification result in improved relationships between Indigenous Peoples and industry?
· Can local people, particularly Indigenous Peoples, participate in the design of the management plan, the monitoring of its effectiveness and the adaptation of the plan to fit new knowledge?
There are many reasons an Indigenous community might wish to participate in a forest certification exercise. This is particularly so under FSC certification. Here are some of the reasons.
Forest certification may give Indigenous communities more control over forestry operations in their territory. Under the FSC’s Principles, Indigenous Peoples have the opportunity to participate in decision-making surrounding the pace of forestry, the kind of forestry, and control whether or not forestry takes place at all.
While some Indigenous Peoples and forest companies have good relationships, or are working to develop them, many do not. Under FSC, companies only gain certification after consulting with local communities, including Indigenous communities. How meaningful those consultations will be depends in large measure upon how insistent individual Indigenous communities are and upon the company’s level of commitment to the process.
Some forest certification schemes require significantly better protection for non-timber forest resources. It may be safely said that the highest value forest companies consider is the value of the standing - and soon to be felled - trees. This is their business, after all. FSC Principles allow for an objective assessment of how a forest company’s environmental claims compare to its on-the-ground performance. This is of obvious interest to Indigenous Peoples. Because of their unique role within the FSC certification process, Indigenous Peoples may be in a position to use these Principles to achieve significant environmental gains. An example would be the reclaiming of habitat for rare, threatened or endangered plants and animals.
The fact that a company wishes to get certified in an Indigenous community’s traditional territory can entail significant economic opportunity for the community. This could include encouraging a forest company to use local suppliers and hire employees locally. It could also include encouraging a forest company to work more closely with non-forestry companies to ensure that logging activities do not compromise their businesses.
Participation in a certification process can be intimidating if the community wants to do it right. There is a lot more to managing forests than deciding which tree to cut or to leave. But this is also a great way to learn and apply valuable skills such as planning, negotiating and research.
While governments do not drive the certification process, the fact that they control and allocate natural resources means that they cannot be ignored. Although some governments have expressed positive interest in certification, it is unlikely that all regions will welcome these programs equally.
The same is true for Indigenous Peoples’ governance, which varies widely from country to country. Some Indigenous communities may not wish to participate in a process that requires contact with organizations that have different agendas than their own, no matter how much good others think may come of it.
In these contexts, Indigenous communities may see it as more trouble than it is worth to either push for certification of their own operations, or to demand it of those that operate in their territory. This is especially the case if they believe that their efforts to push the government on certification take away from their ability to work with government on other pressing issues such as housing, infrastructure, or social services.
There may be local situations where participating in a certification process has possible legal ramifications with which Indigenous Peoples are uncomfortable. For example, a community may be reluctant to participate in a process if it appears that certification might give a company rights to timber that supersede their own Indigenous rights.
When outside parties interested in pursuing forest certification confront Indigenous communities, they may simply not have the time, personnel, information or money to adequately participate in the process. If the outside party is unable or unwilling to assist in building the community’s capacity to participate fully, it may make the most sense for the community not to participate at all. When resources are limited, they are best devoted to those things that will achieve immediate and lasting benefits.
Formed in Toronto in 1993 and based in both Oaxaca, Mexico and Bonn, Germany today, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC; www.fscoax.org) is an international organization whose stated aim is “to support environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial and economically viable management” of forests.
A non-profit group from the beginning, FSC has had a diversity of members including environmental and social justice groups, forestry and forest products groups, Indigenous Peoples, and community advocates.
These interests have equal power in the FSC, through the organization’s chamber system. At the international level, there are three chambers - Environmental, Economic and Social - which ensure that the interests of many groups are voiced, but that none drowns out the rest. In Canada, there is also an Indigenous Peoples’ chamber. This gives Indigenous Peoples in Canada a unique and strong position in the development and implementation of FSC Standards.
The FSC arose out of a growing recognition around the world that destruction of forests was resulting in serious social, economic and environmental problems.
The FSC recognizes that people need to use wood products, but that a growing sector of the population wants to ensure that their purchases do not contribute to these problems. FSC certification attempts to find a constructive way to meet a growing demand for products that come from well-managed forests.
From an Indigenous perspective, perhaps the most important aspect of FSC certification is its explicit recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ rights and interests. This is embodied in FSC Principle 3:
PRINCIPLE 3: THE LEGAL AND CUSTOMARY RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO OWN, USE AND MANAGE THEIR LANDS, TERRITORIES AND RESOURCES SHALL BE RECOGNIZED AND RESPECTED.
The first Criterion (3.1) of Principle 3 goes on to say that
CRITERION 3.1: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SHALL CONTROL FOREST MANAGEMENT ON THEIR LANDS AND TERRITORIES UNLESS THEY DELEGATE CONTROL WITH FREE AND INFORMED CONSENT TO OTHER AGENCIES.
This represents an interesting some might say challenging, approach to incorporating social justice in the economic world.
One general difference between the FSC and other systems is that the FSC is overtly “results-based,” in that it assesses the tangible impacts upon a given operating area; others focus more on management structures and processes. The reasoning for the latter approach is that, if the correct management approach is taken, there will be improvements in practice. The jury is still out on which approach leads to more positive benefits on the ground and in communities.
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO; www.iso.ch), formed in Amsterdam in 1947 and now based in Geneva, Switzerland, sets standards for a wide range of products and management operations. The majority of ISO standards are specific to particular products, materials, or processes. Of interest here is ISO standard 14000 on “environmental management” which states in part that it concerns:
the way an organization goes about its work, and not directly the result of this work. In other words, it concerns processes, and not products - at least, not directly. Nevertheless, the way in which the organization manages its processes is obviously going to affect its final product.
There is little in the standard that relates specifically to forestry. In fact, the major points taken from the definition don’t appear to connect to forestry at all.
1) The forest company uses generic standards to set its own environmental policy, objectives and targets.
2) The company also decides how it is going to accomplish the above. This may include generic strategies, processes and, sometimes, specific practices.
3) The company also decides how it will measure whether it has met its goals.
4) The company can perform its own audits, though to be credible they are encouraged to use an independent auditor.
For these reasons, many observers question whether the ISO approach is technically a forest certification system in same manner as FSC and others.
The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI; www.afandpa.org) is a program of the American Forest & Paper Association, which is a creation of American forest companies. Here’s what SFI says of sustainable forestry and their approach:
Sustainable forestry means managing our forests to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs by practising a land stewardship ethic which integrates the growing, nurturing and harvesting of trees for useful products with the conservation of soil, air and water quality, and wildlife and fish habitat. Sustainable forestry is the destination. The [SFI] Forest Principles and Implementation Guidelines are the path to get us there.
SFI is a commitment to practice responsible forestry, to recognize responsible wood suppliers, and to educate and inform people about sustainable forestry practices. It represents a partnership between loggers, landowners and the forest industry.
There is a noticeable lack of mention of communities in SFI’s definition. The definition goes on to say:
The Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI)TM program... is a comprehensive system of principles, objectives and performance measures, that integrates the long-term, sustained growing and harvesting of trees, with the protection of the environment in which they grow.
The SFI approach is based on a relatively limited set of forest values, the two major components being:
Long-term sustained growing and harvesting of trees, and
Protection of the environment.
The Canadian Standards Association (CSA; www.csa.ca) is best known for its standards that guide production of items such as refrigerators, hockey helmets, seat belts, baby toys, house paint and step ladders - pretty much anything that can be manufactured. It’s likely that this room contains items that are “CSA Approved.”
As a professional standards development body, the CSA’s main clients are business, industry, government and (indirectly) consumers. In response to the FSC, the CSA has devised its own set of forestry standards. This was done through a multi-stakeholder process at the request of major forest companies, adopting as its principles the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers’ Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management.
The CSA straddles the distinction between being a management system and having a prescriptive, results-based approach. CSA does not provide a direct route to forest certification, but rather a framework for a company to design its own certification system.
The important parts of the CSA Sustainable Forest Management System are:
The CSA provides a framework for a company to set its own forestry standards in conjunction with an advisory committee consisting of various community stakeholders; and
The standards or plans that a company arrives at are supposed to balance economic, social and environmental needs.
In summary, none of the certification systems deal as explicitly with Indigenous Peoples’ issues as does the FSC. This is largely because these systems are so discretionary, and are grounded in industry perspectives. They need to learn over time how to address the full range of social and environmental issues that forest certification needs to take into account.
The other systems are making efforts to better integrate such values and perspectives. At the time that this is being written, however, only the FSC has a relatively comprehensive and progressive approach to Indigenous Peoples’ issues. It is crucial to stress that even the FSC will not live up to its potential without the participation and vigilance of Indigenous Peoples.
While this paper concludes that - of all the certification programs - the Forest Stewardship Council’s offers the most that is of potential use to Indigenous Peoples, only time will tell whether participating in FSC certification processes delivers tangible benefits. The FSC basically creates opportunities for dialogue between Indigenous Peoples and industry. It takes time to build trust, and time to see the outcomes of these processes.
| [1] P.O. Box 3437, Smithers,
British Columbia, Canada, V0J 2N0. Tel: 1-250-847-5585; Fax: 1-250-847-5543;
Email: [email protected] |