Effectiveness and ffficiency of FSC and PEFC forest certifications on pilot areas in

1

• Effectiveness and ffficiency of FSC and PEFC
  forest certifications on pilot areas in
• Nordic countries

2
Effectiveness and efficiency of forest
certification

• Table of Content
• Study objectives
• Pilot areas and assessed standards
• Ownership of certified forests
• Study approach
• Effectiveness and efficiency (definitions)
• General remarks
• Performance requirements of FSC and PEFC forest
  certification on
• Envronmental values
• Social sustainability
• Economic sustainability
• Certification costs
• Effectiveness and efficiency of PEFC and FSC
  certification
• Essential elements for the participation of
  private forest owners
• FSC and PEFC certification among private forest
  owners

3
Study objectives

• Analyse the impact of certification on
  sustainable forest management taking into account
  the particular conditions prevailing in each
  pilot country
• Evaluate effectiveness and cost-efficiency of FSC
  and PEFC based certification schemes in the pilot
  countries
• Analyse factors encouraging private forest owners
  to opt for forest certification

4
Pilot areas and assessed standards

• Pirkanmaa region, Finland
• PEFC Finnish Forest Certification System (FFCS)
  SMS 1002-1 (1998)
• FSC Finnish Draft for FSC Standard (2004)
• Gävleborg County, Sweden
• PEFC Standard for PEFC Sweden (2000)
• FSC Swedish FSC standard (2000)
• Adger-Telemark, Norway
• PEFC Living Forest Standard (2000)
• SGS Qualifor Programme interim local FSC standard
  (2001)

5
Ownership of certified forests

• Pirkanmaa, Finland Gävleborg,
  Sweden Adger-Telemark, Norway

• In Pirkanmaa and Adger-Telemark practically only
  PEFC certified forests
• All forests of non-industrial private forest
  owners are exclusively PEFC certified
• Double certification (FSC and PEFC) common in
  Swedish forest industry

6
Study approach

• The assessment of effectiveness and efficiency of
  the implementation of each standard was based on
• breakdown of the forest areas certified under the
  different schemes
• analysis of performance requirements in PEFC and
  FSC certified forest management
• impact of forest certification in promoting
  sustainable forest management
• participation of private non-industrial forest
  onwers in certification

7
Effectiveness and efficiency

• Effectiveness
• quality (contribution to SFM through standard
  requirements)
• quantity (extent of certified forests)
• Efficiency
• benefits (market benefits, improved SFM, etc.)
• costs (organizational costs, auditing costs, loss
  of stumpage revenues, etc.)

8
General remarks

• Certification has levelled out differences
  between Nordic countries independent of the
  requirements imposed by national legislation
• FSC standards are more detailed and repeat
  requirements already imposed by legislation
  (predetemined standard structure)
• All standards emphasize environmental aspects and
  have made them an integral part of certified
  forest management
• All standard comparisons should take into
  consideration the statutory framework and
  national systems for forest management
• Practical differencies between PEFC and FSC
  based forestry are small
• PEFC and FSC based forest certifications enhanced
  forest management in pilot areas

9
Performance requirements of FSC and PEFC forest
certification (1)

• Environmental values
• PEFC and FSC based standards protect valuable
  habitats, water ecosystems and increase decaying
  wood in forests
• FSC requires a minimum blanket 5 share of
  set-aside areas regardless the size of a FMU or
  precense of valuable sites
• PEFC requires preservation of all sites deemed
  valuable at a national level regardless of their
  share
• The share of set-aside areas varied from 1 to 15
  between forest types and standards
• At a regional level the set-aside areas in PEFC
  and FSC certification reach a comparable level,
  whereas in a FMU the difference is larger
• In large-scale forestry the set-aside areas can
  provide higher protection values than in
  small-scale forestry, also cost implications tend
  to be higher in small FMUs than in large-scale
  forestry

10
Performance requirements of FSC and PEFC forest
certification (2)

• Social sustainability
• In Nordic countries main concern is to maintain
  forest-related employment opportunities in
• forestry and forest industry
• recreation and turism
• non-wood products and traditional livelyhoods
• On recreational use of forests neither PEFC or
  FSC standard add to the common law on free access
  to forests recognized in all Nordic countries
• Forest certification has broadened the scope of
  socially sustainable forest management

11
Performance requirements of FSC and PEFC forest
certification (3)

• Economic sustainability
• Long-term economic sustainability of forestry in
  small and larger FMUs is the baseline for
  forest certification
• Requirements are often general compared to those
  on environment
• Only few criteria promote active wood production
  (regeneration is well covered)
• Set-aside areas and other harvesting restrictions
  increase significantly the long-term losses in
  stumpage revenues compared to the normative
  level, which decreases the options reach economic
  profitability in forestry
• Through set-aside areas forest owners make a
  significant long-term environmental investment.
  FSC certification tends to require higher
  investment but PEFC certification has led to
  similar levels of set-aside areas e.g in Sweden
  and Norway
• The investment has not brought sufficient
  economic benefits to forest owners

12
Certification costs

• Reliable data on certification costs was not
  recorded by certified organisation
• In large group certification the direct audit
  costs (internal and external) become marginal
  (only 0.4-5 of total costs)
• Losses of stumpage revenues cover 50 to 99 of
  the total costs
• Indicative estimates for the cost implications of
  forest certification varied in
• PEFC certification between 1.4 2.5 13.6
  EUR/ha
• FSC certification between 2.6 13.6 19.1
  EUR/ha
• Incremental costs of double certification were
  marginal due to joint auditing procedures for the
  PEFC and FSC standards

13
Effectiveness and efficiency of PEFC and FSC
certification

• Effectiveness
• Determined by the extent of certified area
  overrules the minor differences in performance
  requirements
• PEFC certification more effective in Finland and
  Norway (private non-industrial forest owners)
• In Gävleborg, Sweden FSC certification dominated
  till 2004.
• Through double certification and harmonisation of
  the PEFC and FSC standards both schemes are
  effective in promotion of SFM in Sweden.

• Efficiency
• Benefits include (i) improved management in
  forestry organisations, (ii) integration of
  environmental and social aspects, (iii) improved
  market communication and (iv) improved public
  image
• PEFC certification has been successful in (i),
  (ii), (iii)
• FSC in (i) (iv)
• FSC is more expensive especially for private
  non-industrial forest owners

14
Essential elements for the participation of
private non-industrial forest owners

• Full commitment of forest owners organisations
  that inform and justify the benefits and
  responsibilities related to certification
• Efficient group certification arrangements
  organized by forest owners organisation
• low threshold for participation (in connection
  with timber sales or other routine activity)
• trust that the group promotes forest owners
  interests
• Market demand for certified timber increases
  forest owners participation significantly
• access to markets (traders trade only certified
  timber)
• positive price premiums higher price for
  certified timber
• negative price premiums lower price for
  uncertified timber
• Market demands justify the investments made in
  promotion and implementation of forest
  certification

15
FSC and PEFC certification among private
non-industrial forest owners

• Forest certification deemed an essential element
  in providing assurance on SFM (environmental)
• PEFC certification supported by the Nordic forest
  owners organizations has gained ground in
  private non-industrial forestry
• FSC does not have efficient group certification
  arrangements supported by forest owners
  organisations, resulting low popularity in
  non-industrial private forestry
• Forest owners are willing to make a written
  commitment in joining group certification
  (required in Sweden and Norway)
• Threshold for individual certification in FSC or
  PEFC is too high
• FSC standard with blanket 5 threshold for
  set-aside areas requires, in average, higher
  environmental investments from small-scale forest
  owners than national PEFC standards