From: John Hontelez, Chief Advocacy Officer, Forest Stewardship Council.
I thank FAO and its CPF partners for this opportunity to give feedback.
FSC is pleased to see that forest certification is now proposed as one of the 13 indicators.
I would like to respond to the observations made in the Explanatory note.
The problem of double accounting. We appreciate that. Two months ago, FSC and PEFC have agreed to work together to providing information about double certification, country by country, on an annual basis. Next week we will publish a list for the end of 2016 with figures for the 28 countries where this occurs. The total area of double certification in the world is 68 million ha, or 16% of the 429 million ha certified. We have estimations for 2012 to have a historical starting point. We would like to discuss with the governments in the 28 countries and FAO on how to incorporate our findings in the reporting on SFM.
Certification not an official policy instrument: on the one hand: several goverments do use forest certification as policy instrument, in particular in countries where governments own forests. On the other hand: which of the other indicators proposed are part of official policies in all/most countries?
Not all sustainably managed forests are certified: that is obviously true, and it is good that the set of indicators, includes another one that approaches the issue differently (nr. 9). But that indicator is not necessarily better: it does not guarantee a certain quality of management plans nor their systematic application in practice. Forest certification has the advantage that it is clearly defined and guarantees a certain level of performance. It is also a positive message to society, including the forest industry and consumers, to see that forest certification is recognised as a valid indicator for SFM: because the connected chain-of-custody and labelling standards can encourage SFM through creating demand.
Sr. John Hontelez