Right-to-Reply results

I'd just like to refute the land area of 24 million hectares in the
editorial. That someone can get it so wrong on FSC just shows how out of
touch the development community is on forestry issues...

The area of FSC certified forests is rapidly nearing 50 million hectares
globally, though much of this (@ 80%) is in industrialised areas. The
area certified in tropical regions (as of September 04)is 6m ha in S.
America, 2m ha in Africa and 1.7m in Asia.

It is true that we need to upscale FSC in developing countries faster
yet plans are afoot to do just that.

There is an increasing number of companies and forest areas that are
working with WWF Producer Groups and the Tropical Forest Trust in many parts of South East Asia, South America and Africa to improve forest management, to ensure legal and sustainable supply and hopefully meet FSC standards. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, we will start
to see an ever increasing number of forest concessions in other parts of
the world receive FSC certification and meet the increase in demand for
products from well-managed forests.

Andrew Parnell
PEDEC

22 April, 2005

Dear Andrew
It is a shame I have given you the impression that the development community is out of touch with the FSC. I used to work on the FSC for WWF, 10 years ago, and have followed it from afar since then, but its commitment to democratic participation has been something I've highlighted in my work since then. Whether the development academe is adequately analysing voluntary initiatives on corporate practice is a good question, and one I raise in the editorial - as it's my aim to promote more analysis.

Yes, the data I used was a few years old, as I was using a secondary source. Things continue to develop rapidly in this area. Nick Cliffe of the FSC has just sent some info to me on the latest statistics.

I will work out a new statistic on the basis of this, but a first glance at
the data shows something like a 70/30 split between
"developed"/"less-developed" countries. So there has been some improvement, but the point I was making about the limits of market mechanisms can still be illustrated by the current situation with FSC. There are many other examples, not possible to develop in the short editorial.

I've asked Nick Cliffe the following questions, and would welcome any thoughts on them from yourself:
* Is the increasing % from the global South the result of specific efforts from the FSC secretariat?
* In response to what issues?
* Or are there other factors?
* And is there any documentation on the challenges faced in increasing FSC endorsed forests in the South?
I think answers to these questions will help us in understanding how some of the limitations of market mechanisms may be addressed.
Thanks again for your input

Dr. Jem Bendell

Guest Editor, Insights #54

3 May, 2005

I read the article with great interest and it indeed does offer some useful insights. I've been helping to set up CORE Wales Network here in Wales (like CORE in England has done) and passed on the article to members of our network here in Wales (including the FSC UK Office).

I'll leave the FSC office to update you on the facts yet you're analysis that we need to do more to address what impact voluntary codes and schemes are making on the world stage holds true.

There is clearly a demand for this level of research to take place without a doubt. We just have to be certain however, that we give the Development Community the right impression and analysis. FSC was never set up to work towards the MDG goal of halving world poverty by 2015 though. That's never been it's purpose. Yet it does audit certain things to do with community empowerment and by default, does seem to address issues to do with Sustainable Livelihoods in the schemes it has set up in the developing world. More research here?

Your implicit question, is it doing enough and how can we upscale it further in developing countries is a right critique to be asking bodies like the FSC and the WWF. Yet FSC only offers an alternative for logging companies and supply chains to current practices. The real critique is whether or not campaign groups are having a big enough effect to stop deforestation and suggest ways that things can be improved. To what extent are they truly addressing the underlying causes? There are serious capacity issues. Greenpeace would like to set up an office in West Africa, yet cannot finance it yet whilst in Brazil, they ARE addressing the underlying causes quite effectively. This lack of capacity amongst NGOs is allowing deforestation to continue at alarming rates in places like Indonesia and Cameroon.

There's no substitute for legilsation, yet the court of Appeal overruled the challenge to ban mahogany imports from Brazil for example citing that WTO rules have precedence over CITES...in effect Britain has given the green light for illegally logged timber imports.

My own take on it is that there is a serious 'leaking barrel' effect going on with China being the new 'big hole' in that 'barrel'.

Each time a campaign group plugs one hole (Wyevale changing to FSC from pressure from Greenpeace for example), the market for illegal logging goes elsewhere instead. FSC responds to demand. Demand for FSC is often creating by public awareness, that public awareness is far from high in Britain. The way demand goes up each time Greenpeace applies pressure is an interesting effect that makes a good model for other schemes to follow.

That's why a shift from CSR to Corporate Accountability may be a worthwhile solution.

I hope that id21 insights in the next issue may correct the data so that the right information goes out to the international development community? I'm sure Nick Cliffe will be able to assist.

Andrew Parnell
PEDEC

3 May, 2005

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Copyright remains with the original authors but (unless stated otherwise) any article may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided both source (id21, insights) and authors are properly acknowledged and informed. Copyright © 2004 id21. All rights reserved.