global human technology 1 savcor indufor oy 2005 effectiveness and ffficiency of fsc and pefc...

Global Human Technology

1 Savcor Indufor Oy 2005

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

Nordic countries



Effectiveness and efficiency of forest certification

Table of Content1. Study objectives2. Pilot areas and assessed standards3. Ownership of certified forests4. Study approach5. Effectiveness and efficiency (definitions)6. General remarks7. Performance requirements of FSC and PEFC forest certification on

• Envronmental values• Social sustainability• Economic sustainability

8. Certification costs9. Effectiveness and efficiency of PEFC and FSC certification10. Essential elements for the participation of private forest owners11. FSC and PEFC certification among private forest owners



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



Pilot areas and assessed standards

Pirkanmaa region, Finland1. PEFC: Finnish Forest Certification System (FFCS): SMS 1002-1

(1998)

2. FSC: Finnish Draft for FSC Standard (2004)

Gävleborg County, Sweden1. PEFC: Standard for PEFC Sweden (2000)

2. FSC: Swedish FSC standard (2000)

Adger-Telemark, Norway1. PEFC: Living Forest Standard (2000)

2. SGS Qualifor Programme interim local FSC standard (2001)



Ownership of certified forests

Pirkanmaa, Finland Gävleborg, Sweden Adger-Telemark, Norway

Forest industry

10%

State10%

Others5%

Non-industrial

private forest

owners75%

Forest industry

50%

State0%

Munici-palities

7%

Non-industrial

private forest

owners43%

Forest industry

5%

Munici-palities

1%State2%

Non-industrial

private forest

owners93%

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



Study approach

The assessment of effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation of each standard was based on:

1. breakdown of the forest areas certified under the different schemes

2. analysis of performance requirements in PEFC and FSC certified forest management

3. impact of forest certification in promoting sustainable forest management

4. participation of private non-industrial forest onwers in certification



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.)



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



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




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




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



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



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



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

1. Full commitment of forest owners’ organisations that inform and justify the benefits and responsibilities related to certification

2. 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

3. 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

4. Market demands justify the investments made in promotion and implementation of forest certification



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

global human technology 1 savcor indufor oy 2005 effectiveness and ffficiency of fsc and pefc...

Documents