GOVERNMENT ROLE IN FOREST CERTIFICATION QUESTIONED

Diverse visions of the relationship between governments and forest certification arose at a policy forum organised by the UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) and the FAO in Geneva on 29 September. European governments, along with several other countries, shared their experiences with forest certification during the one-day discussion organised as part of the UN ECE Timber Committee Session.

Given that certification is usually defined as a "voluntary, market-based instrument to promote sustainable forest management", and in order to preserve the independence and legitimacy of the certified label, several developed countries expressed their opinion that governments should not be responsible for the certification of their private forests. Instead, their role could include stimulating discussion, creating public procurement policies requiring certified timber and supporting private certification efforts in other ways. Developing countries, on the other hand, suggested that in their experience the private sector in their countries doesn't have the scale or capacity to develop national forest certification standards adapted to regional circumstances and development needs. As well, the forests in many developing countries are entirely publicly owned. Governments are thus the only bodies with the capacity to develop and adopt certification standards that are useful to producers and suitable to national environmental and developmental conditions.

Need to address deforestation

The original drive behind forest certification in the 1990s was to address deforestation, but participants recognised that certification is only one tool to be used to this end. In response to criticisms that certification has 'failed' because deforestation has continued, a representative of the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), the largest certification body, criticised the treatment of certification as a panacea for all forestry problems. Trade in forestry products currently makes up only a small proportion of timber felled and used annually. Certification does nonetheless enhance communication between consumers and producers, educate producers and enhance the profile of sustainable forest management while working towards deforestation. As pointed out by a representative from a timber firm, however, it could also distract attention from national efforts to combat deforestation and other environmental concerns such as the energy used in timber transport. Regardless, the positive impact of certification and timber trade in general would be higher if more developing countries took part in certification schemes. Representatives of producers in both developed and developing countries pointed out that certification can be a marketing tool for forest owners to enhance their market access in environmentally concerned developed countries. A representative from Ghana said that for this to happen, standards must address the needs of small-scale producers and, as a representative from the International Tropical Timber Organisation noted, the value of certified timber must increase to give producers the incentive to undergo the long certification process.

Public procurement could increase demand

Increased exports could indeed be in the books for certified producers if the draft public procurement rules currently being considered in several developed countries are signed into law.
The proposed rules vary from a description of a broad range of sustainable forest management criteria to be used by government purchasing bodies, to demands that only 'legal' timber be purchased. Concerns have been raised in other forums that the new focus on 'illegal' logging could distract attention from the more comprehensive goal of sustainable forest management. In this context, Malaysia suggested that the only way to get small-scale developing country forests certified would be a phased approach (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 29 April 2005) that specified legality as the first phase or step towards full certification. It would also thereby give developed countries a source for legally verified timber.

Procurement policies that require legal or certified imports, however, could along with certification itself be considered discriminatory and a technical barrier to trade in the WTO. However, insofar as countries are reluctant to bring up trade discrimination based upon process and production methods (PPMs), private-sector tools or public procurement policies at the WTO, the debate about market access, forestry certification and the role of governments will likely remain on the sidelines of WTO debate for now.

Additional Resources

The background paper and presentations from the forum can be accessed at http://192.91.247.58/trade/timber/docs/tc-sessions/tc-63/Policy_Forum/2005TCPolicyForum.htm

ICTSD Reporting.