PRESS RELEASE: Five members withdrew from the FSC because the certificate does not guarantee the protection of forest values
BirdLife Estonia, Estonian Fund for Nature, Estonian Forest Aid, Estonian House of Taara and Native Religion, and Lembit Maamets, founding member of the FSC Estonia, resigned from the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) [1] this week because the certificate has failed to ensure responsible forest management in Estonia.
Long-standing and systemic shortcomings in Estonian forest management and auditing have led to a situation where timber and timber products can be certified with the FSC label even if the production methods involved consistently damage natural and cultural values.
While broadly appropriate, the FSC forest management criteria often remain on paper only because these aren't enforced and monitored. Over the years, environmental NGOs have repeatedly informed auditors of practices [2] that do not comply with the FSC standard, but the situation has not changed. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the audit is commissioned and paid for by the forest management organisation itself, which seems to make it difficult for auditors to issue prescriptions with sufficient rigour.
"Ideally, the FSC could be a good tool, but in the current situation I don't see much difference between a certified and a non-certified company managing a forest," said Liis Keerberg, bird conservation specialist at BirdLife Estonia.
"For example, although the standard stipulates that no logging should be carried out at the breeding sites of rare, endangered, or critically endangered bird species, the largest forest manager the State Forest Management Centre carries out logging that is not in accordance with directives and proudly continues to use the sustainable forest management certificate. Environmental organisations do not wish to legitimise such a system in the FSC any longer," Keerberg elaborated.
While the FSC was initially seen as a good opportunity to encourage companies to manage forests more sustainably and to offer consumers more environmentally friendly options, it has not lived up to these expectations. As a result, Estonian Fund for Nature and Lembit Maamets, who were instrumental in the founding of the FSC in Estonia, have withdrawn as members.
"The FSC would make sense if it ensured that our forests are managed responsibly, otherwise it's just a label for greenwashing. Environmental organisations do not want to support a label that allows the destruction of forests of high natural value and damage to the habitats of endangered species in the guise of responsible forest management," said Liis Kuresoo, a forestry expert at Estonian Fund for Nature.
"The continued over-logging of Estonia's forests, which is legal by law, the incompetence and financial dependency of auditing companies on the contracting party, and the obstruction of the process of developing a national standard for forest management, have destroyed the credibility of the FSC trademark," explained Lembit Maamets, a founding member of the FSC Estonia and forestry expert.
Over the years, several cultural heritage sites in Estonia, including sacred natural sites, have also been damaged under the auspices of the FSC label.
"Since 2007, native religion practitioners have repeatedly reported to auditors the damage to natural holy sites by logging, which is contrary to the FSC sustainable forestry standards. Yet this has not affected the validity of any FSC certificate. Forest material sold under the FSC label does not always meet the requirements of the certificate, which means misleading the consumer," explained Andres Heinapuu, board member of Estonian House of Taara and Native Religion.
Notes:
[1] The FSC label can be found on millions of products around the world, from toilet paper packaging to furniture. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), founded in 1993, is an international non-profit organisation that has pledged to stand up for responsible forest management worldwide. The Estonian branch of the FSC has been active since 1998.
[2] There are dozens of examples of how forest management under the FSC label does not meet the necessary criteria in Estonia.
Estonian Fund for Nature estimates 5,700 ha of unmapped woodland key habitats, which the FSC principles require to be preserved, were felled in the state forest between the years 2010-2019.
High-impact reconstruction of drainage systems has also been very problematic, and auditors have been repeatedly informed of this. For example, in Prählamäe, Hiiumaa, drainage involved more than 600 hectares of old forests that had been unmanaged for nearly 80 years and had been largely undrained. The natural value of the area was not mapped and neighbouring areas that are home to several protected species were also damaged. In the case of Prählamäe, the auditors were also reprimanded by the international monitoring organisation Assurance Services International (ASI), but to no avail.
More information:
Liis Kuresoo
Forest Expert, Estonian Fund for Nature
liis.kuresoo@elfond.ee
+372 5624 3102