Consulting for FSC ecolabel certification of natural forests

Short Description:

At the start of the 21st century, the EU required all imported wood to meet FSC sustainability standards. The FSC label, backed by NGOs like WWF and Greenpeace, ensured ecological, economic, and social responsibility. However, many countries, including Indonesia, diverted exports to less regulated markets like China and India. As a result, the EU replaced FSC with the less strict “Legal Wood” certification. The Eco Hapakat Foundation initially supported FSC adoption to encourage sustainable forestry in Indonesia.

More Details:

At the beginning of the new century, the EU issued new regulations stating that all imported wood into Europe had to be produced under the conditions of the FSC eco-label.

FSC stands for Forest Stewardship Council and is an initiative of leading environmental organizations such as WWF, Greenpeace, and others. To meet the FSC standard, timber-producing companies must demonstrate that their logging methods — and thus the entire logging operation — are sustainable in all three areas: ecology, economy, and social responsibility.

There may be debates about the usefulness or pointlessness of certifications and labels. However, it is undisputed that FSC certification is significantly better than no certification at all, and among the many labels, FSC is certainly still one of the ones that offers the highest possible guarantees. Of course, any certificate or label can, in one way or another, be forged or corrupted, but the FSC mechanisms involve truly independent NGOs, which are not easily bribed.

Even companies further down the production chain — for example, the sawmill industry or the wood-processing industries in furniture production, manufacturing of semi-finished products, or timber construction companies — also had to be certified under the same scheme. Otherwise, their products could no longer be imported into Europe either.

So far, so good — this could have been a perfect example of how market policy and global trade could have a positive impact on the environment, human rights, and the protection of the working class, etc.

Unfortunately, the EU’s plan did not work out… Sadly, there are enough countries that have no interest in social or environmental issues. As a result, the effect on Indonesian roundwood producers fizzled out, as they simply exported to China, India, and other markets instead of Europe. Consequently, Europe was no longer able to meet its demand for tropical wood. So, the FSC eco-label certification concept was reconsidered and replaced with significantly less demanding requirements.

The “Legal Wood” certification was introduced. From then on, independent certifiers had to confirm that the papers and documents proving the origin and production methods of the wood were not forged.

We at the Eco Hapakat Foundation were committed from the very beginning to encouraging as many roundwood producers in Indonesia as possible to comply with these FSC certification mechanisms, so that logging could fundamentally become better and more sustainable.

The issue of palm oil wasn’t such a prominent concern at first. Large-scale deforestation in favor of palm oil plantations only began later — and interestingly, the EU contributed negatively to this through its environmental policy decisions.

At the beginning of the new century, Thomas Brönnimann was also a freelance collaborator for IMO Control, a small Swiss FSC certifier from the early days. Together with Karl Büchel, Forest Ingenieur and FSC Certifier we conducted an assessment of the possibilities to grow the Certification Business in Kalimantan together.