14/07: 14 July 2005 - Reengaging with IFCI and the Recent IFCI Press Release
At a meeting last month, the Woodland League voted unanimously to reengage with IFCI in an effort to get the FSC process in Ireland back on track. This was following requests from Liviu Amariei (Director of FSC Europe) and Kevin Jones (Soil Association/Woodmark) that the WLL rejoin the process.
Initially, when these requests were made, the WLL were sceptical, given the history of the process in Ireland thus far. However, due to pressure from FSC International, IFCI have begun to address some of the issues that have bogged the process down so far. As an example, at their recent EGM, IFCI voted to remove the contentious fourth chamber, the “Woodland Owners/Small Growers” chamber, which had turned out to be a second economic chamber. As a result of these changes, the WLL tabled the motion to reengage with IFCI, which has been passed.
The WLL have written to IFCI to request a meeting to discuss the possibility of reengaging in the FSC Process for Ireland. Several areas that still need to be addressed by IFCI are outlined in the letter. Also, it is outlined what the WLL will not tolerate – abuse, transparency, etc. The full text of the letter is included here. We are awaiting a response.
Basically, the WLL are willing to give FSC another chance for Ireland. The benefits of well run FSC processes are great, such as the processes in Finland and Sweden, though it is also recognised that an imbalanced process will only further the damage to Irish environmental and social causes, such as has happened in Malaysia and Indonesia.
IFCI recently made a public release (text included here) about the progress to date of the FSC process in Ireland. By and large, the WLL feel that this is a fairly decent report, though it glosses over some issues, and doesn’t mention others, that have dogged the process to date.
Ray Monahan, supporter of the WLL, raised the following point about the IFCI release: “I note the highlighting of the lack of input by the environmental chamber caused by a number of factors. Thus the case for starting the FSC process from scratch has been made and is the only possible fair course. Anything less simply copper fastens the unfair influence the other chambers were able to enjoy due to the lack of input from the environmental chamber. It is stated that ‘It will be extremely difficult for any subsequent process to generate the trust required if IFCI fails to deliver.’ This would have been more credible if it had stated that it would be extremely difficult to generate the trust required if the IFCI does not start again from scratch without the burdens of previous unfair advantages enjoyed by the economic chamber due to the lack of input from the environmental chamber.”
It must be noted that the environmental chamber’s inability to participate was largely due to IFCI’s refusal to hold meetings at times that suited NGOs, i.e. weekends. Economic interests were able to attend because they were paid by their respective companies. NGOs had to take time out of their own work, at their own expense, to attend meetings and often this was impossible for them.
To start from scratch, the WLL feel that it is necessary for the IFCI Second Draft Standard to be removed and a new standard to be developed and agreed by all stakeholders. The WLL also feel that IFCI shoul be renamed to “generate the trust required”, as outlined in the letter below. The WLL also reject the notion "Time is running out - this is the last chance to achieve an agreed FSC-approved forest standard for Ireland". In FSC there are no rules on the timeline for the production of a standard for accreditation by FSC International. It is generally considered that two years is sufficient time to produce a standard and go through several stages of public consultation, though the process can take much longer if necessary. FSC is not going to abandon Ireland if a standard isn’t produced within the next few months or so.
The WLL agree that there is a fairly unique situation in Ireland in forestry, with Coillte (the State Forestry Board) owning approximately 66% of the forestry in Ireland, and the remainder owned by smaller companies and private growers. The case for a fourth chamber was a strong one - that economically forestry was imbalanced against small growers. Initially, there was little objection to the fourth chamber. In FSC (in general) it is decided on a case-by-case basis whether small growers should be in the Economic, Social or Environmental chambers. Because of this, the fourth chamber should have had equal representation by people who own small woodlands for economic, social and environmental reasons. However, the fourth chamber was dominated by economic entities, and ended up giving the economic interests a 50% share in the voting power (needing 75% to pass a motion, this gave the economic chambers a veto on any vote). Issues that genuinely concerned small growers were never addressed.
The WLL also call into question the use of the IFCI Second Draft Standard in the certification of Coillte, and IFCI’s apparent lack of knowledge of this event. The then auditors, SGS (the current auditors are Soil Association/Woodmark), used the IFCI Second Draft Standard when drawing up the Generic Standard for Coillte. When the WLL met with Liviu Amariei, we brought up this matter. Liviu Amariei agreed that SGS could not have used the IFCI Second Draft without consulting with the IFCI Steering Group. However, the WLL have been told by several people that were then members of the IFCI Steering Group that they were never consulted regarding the use of the IFCI Second Draft in the certification of Coillte.
To sum up, the WLL are willing to give FSC another go, but we do so with a wary attitude considering what has happened in the past meetings of IFCI.
- Brendan Kelly (Liaison Officer) and Andrew St. Ledger (PRO)
[The Finnish FSC Standard and Developing Forest Stewardship Standards– A Survival Guide are both available for download at www.woodlandleague.org].
The IFCI Press Release referred to above is included below.
The letter from WLL regarding reengaging with IFCI is included below.
IFCI PRESS RELEASE
FSC forest certification update – progress to-date and the future. Declan Little, Outgoing Chairman, IFCI Ltd.
The process of developing an FSC-approved forest standard for Ireland began in 1999 with the establishment of the Irish Forestry Certification Initiative (IFCI). The following describes what this process is all about, its inherent complexities and a timetable for completion.
Certification strives to ensure best practice throughout the forest sector and enshrines the principles of Sustainable Forest Management. It involves the establishment of a chain-of-custody from the producer to the consumer, which verifies that adherence to a certifiable standard has been achieved. There are numerous certification bodies and processes in the international arena today.
The Forest Stewardship Council, or FSC as it's more commonly known, is one of these and it is involved in forest certification in many countries, using ten principles covering a wide range of issues, including social, economic and environmental agendas. This process involves stakeholders from all sectors involved in forestry in these countries. National standards are formulated and agreed by consensus by participating forestry stakeholders.
The process of forest certification in Ireland has not been easy.
There are numerous reasons for this and - at the risk that all those involved to-date may not fully agree - I wish to outline what I consider the primary difficulties. Over the past two years it was important to identify these difficulties in order to address them to enable the process to be advanced. In order to do this it was also imperative that all prejudices were set aside and to reflect objectively on the failings of the process to-date.
At the outset, IFCI was established as a four chamber body comprising Economic, Environmental, Social and Woodland Owners. The majority of national initiatives have only three chambers but in some countries, especially Ireland, small woodland owners do not feel adequately represented by the other chambers, especially the Economic chamber. Hence, the establishment by a majority vote of the Woodland Owners chamber at the initial stakeholders meeting in Dublin in 1999. It is my view that the motivation and unique concerns of the Woodland Owners were not adequately communicated at the outset to other stakeholders, many of whom merely see Woodland Owners as an Economic entity.
Another problem that hindered progress was the lack of adequate resources to address the production of a national standard. A good start was made through the compilation of a draft standard from which an agreed, final standard would be developed. This was based on the UK standard, where the forest sector resembles that in Ireland much more so than any other country. However, at subsequent Technical Working group meetings in 1999, where it was envisaged that all chambers would be represented and their stakeholders views would be incorporated into the standard, it was notable that some chambers – especially the Environmental chamber - had little or no input. The reasons outlined at the time were a lack of financial resources and this is quite understandable, particularly in the case of ENGOs and community representatives. In addition, the significance of the draft standard and its implications for the certification of individual stakeholders may not have been fully understood by some stakeholders at the time. Many did not realise that certification of individual grower groups or companies could proceed in the absence of an agreed national standard. Nonetheless, the standard was drafted, sanctioned by the then Steering Committee and subsequently presented at public consultation meetings at venues nationwide. It was hoped that any gaps or deficiencies would be identified and addressed subsequently. Thereafter, written submissions from stakeholders nationwide were sent to IFCI which were supposed to be considered in a subsequent draft.
In the meantime, Coillte sought certification. IFCI were not to know the exact time frame for this and it is perfectly reasonable for any individual stakeholder or forest industry to seek individual certification. However, many stakeholders – particularaly from environmental and social groups - were unhappy that Coillte received certification, especially against a standard that was not fully agreed and completed. The draft standard required further technical input but this process became bogged down as scarce resources dried up and Coillte's certification became a distraction for disaffected parties.
These factors resulted in mistrust and conflict so that toward the end of 2002 IFCI spent more time dealing with internal procedures and wrangling instead of the real business at hand. FSC were asked to intervene and after a meeting in late 2002, FSC made the following recommendations to be implemented as soon as possible.
These were:
(a) to establish IFCI as a membership organisation
(b) to address the legality of some decisions made by the Steering Committee
(c) to amend the Memorandum and Articles of Association (M&AoA)
(d) to consider the current Steering Committee as an interim entity and to elect a new Steering Committee as soon as possible
(e) to ensure that adequate resources were secured in order to address the drafting of an agreed standard
(f) to appoint, if possible, an independent Chair for the interim Steering Committee
(g) that the Steering Committee establish a code of conduct
Since 2003, most of these issues have been addressed, including membership, legal issues, revision of the M&AoA, reconstitution of the interim Steering Committee, including the appointment of an agreed Chairman, the development of a code of conduct and the procurement of adequate funding to continue drafting the new standard. In addition, the Technical Working Group (TWG) has amended the standard, which is expected to be finalised in the coming months prior to a final round of public consultation. All FSC Principles and Criteria have been inserted into the new draft. During the consultation process the Standard will be available to all stakeholders and further submissions will be considered.
In October 2004, IFCI submitted a report to FSC seeking accreditation. Official recognition of IFCI is vital in order to demonstrate credibility and secure funding from stakeholders. A number of preconditions that FSC had previously requested IFCI to address were finalised. FSC responded in March this year stating that they were happy with the report but wished to add two further preconditions before granting accreditation. These were that firstly, IFCI adopt a 3-chamber structure to ensure balance and avoid bias, which was perceived in the 4-chamber structure.
Secondly, IFCI are required to reach out to stakeholders who are unsure about engaging with the process for a variety of reasons. On May 7th last IFCI held an EGM at which a motion to adopt a 3-chamber structure was unanimously passed. As a result of the progress made in recent years, there is sufficient trust to ensure that the views and concerns of the woodland owners will be addressed in the new 3- chamber structure. The new structure should also have a positive effect regarding the future involvement of stakeholders – particularly environmental and social groups - who have concerns, especially vis a vis the 4-chamber structure.
There is renewed optimism that a national standard can be agreed. A considerable amount of time and effort has been put in by numerous stakeholders since 1999 and it would be a travesty if stakeholders were let down as a result of failure to agree a standard. Many members have given a timeframe of one year from last May to finalise the standard. If this is not achieved many stakeholders will walk away from the process. Once accreditation is achieved it should be feasible to raise the necessary resources to finalise the standard and put in place the necessary structures to oversee its implementation. However it is critical that as many stakeholders as possible engage with the process.
In conclusion it is important to recognise that the process of agreeing a standard is very difficult. By its very nature, it requires compromise from all chambers represented – environmental, economic and social - and no one will leave the table entirely happy with the content of the resultant standard. However, the standard will encapsulate and address the views and concerns of all involved.
In addition, individual companies, groups and stakeholders – including Coillte - will be required to seek and/or maintain certification against the new standard, which will be updated every five years.
Time is running out - this is the last chance to achieve an agreed FSC-approved forest standard for Ireland. Given the progress that has been made in recent months and the adoption of recommendations by FSC, it is fair to say that conditions are right for those unhappy with the process to date, to engage in the process. The upcoming AGM in late August at which a new Steering Committee will be elected, and the public consultation process regarding the draft standard both provide opportunities for new stakeholders to participate. I would like to appeal to stakeholders who are interested in the process but who are currently not involved in it to join IFCI in order to advance their objectives.
The considerable progress made in recent years demonstrates that though there are fundamental differences in approach by those involved, progress can be made if there is a positive will to do so.
The consequences of failure are not only the arrival of other certification systems in Ireland that will be required to start from scratch. This will lead to further delay and the continued non- certification of a significant sector of Ireland's forest industry - including small growers, sawmills and manufacturers - to an agreed national standard ratified by stakeholders across the sector. In addition to addressing social and environmental concerns, IFCI has a responsibility to endeavour to protect the livelihoods of non- certified stakeholders by achieving an agreed standard as soon as possible. It will be extremely difficult for any subsequent process to generate the trust required if IFCI fails to deliver. It is apparent that there is now a willingness to complete the standard by the Steering Committee members and their representative stakeholders. These events should contribute towards the positive climate that is currently evolving in IFCI and the finalisation of an FSC-approved forest standard for Ireland.
For further information and membership application forms contact:
Ruth McGrath, Secretary, IFCI Ltd., c/o 9 Upper Mount Street, Dublin 2.
Tel: 01-6425741 E-mail: avoice@iol.ie
WOODLAND LEAGUE LETTER TO IFCI REGARDING REENGAGING IN THE PROCESS
8th July 2005
Irish Forestry Certification Initiative Ltd.,
c/o No. 4 Enterprise Centre (Phase 2),
Ballintogher,
Co. Sligo
Dear IFCI,
The Woodland League, at a meeting in Gort, Co. Galway, on the 18th of June 2005, voted in favour of rejoining the FSC process in Ireland.
However, we have some comments to make about the way the FSC process should proceed. These are listed in no particular order.
We see it as vitally important that the process have an independent mediator/chairman that has no vote in motions. This person will need to be compensated for their time.
We see it as important that the issue of who funding comes from is looked at. We feel that the Forest Service/State should not fund the process, as it leaves the process in a vulnerable position should decisions be made that are against the wishes of the Forest Service/State. Perhaps Lottery funding should be investigated.
We need the terms of reference of IFCI clarified. From Developing FSC Standards – A Survival Guide: “To avoid confusion about the relationship of the standard to the FSC, the ToR can state that the process is linked to FSC and is not a unique national process that some members are linking to FSC while others are not. It is important that the ToR state that the intention is for the standard to comply with the FSC’s P&C, although obviously the standard may be used for other purposes than certification under the FSC. In addition to the ToR, some Working groups have asked all participants to sign a letter of commitment to the process and to the aims of FSC. The ToR also need to state the relationship of the Standard Committee and any subcommittees to the FSC Working Group.” In parallel, the Memorandum and Articles of Association should be altered to clearly demonstrate the commitment of the IFCI to the FSC principles. Currently, they state only a commitment to the production of an FSC based standard.
We see it as vitally important that the IFCI Second Draft is scrapped, as this does not give priority to, nor does it follow, the FSC Principles and Criteria. Thus, as the draft stands it cannot be accredited, and all future drafts will be weakened by it. A new draft needs to be prepared under the new three chamber structure.
We need verification of IFCI’s independence from the state. The State’s and Governmental organisations’ roles in the process needs to be clarified, with due regard to FSC rules. From Developing FSC Standards – A Survival Guide: “Government organisations cannot become voting members of the FSC, but FSC Working Groups are encouraged to welcome and involve government officials with specific expertise in national Working Groups either as participants or as observers.” In our opinion, the Heritage Council’s position in IFCI needs to be examined, as does the position of Woodlands of Ireland. We would welcome them in an advisory and observatory role.
The name of the process, Irish Forestry Certification Initiative Ltd., needs to be changed. There are many groups and individuals that have been alienated from the process. A name change such as this would help de-alienate these people.
The membership fee, however nominal, needs to be removed as a matter of principal for an open process. The EU recently ruled that fees to participate in development processes is illegal. We feel that this could apply to an FSC process. In any case, environmental developments should be free and open to all.
It is important to note that these are not demands for our reengagement. However, we cannot see the process proceeding in any meaningful way without at the above suggestions being implemented.
Furthermore, the Woodland League will not tolerate:
Abuse from any chamber, in particular the economic chamber, and especially if it continues unchecked by the chair. (Ref: Dr. Ann Behan’s letter of resignation from I.F.C.I. Ltd.).
Lack of clarity regarding accounts. Transparency and clarity are the building blocks of Local Agenda 21, and we must not forget that FSC is derived from Local Agenda 21.
Refusal to accommodate NGOs with regard to meeting times. A reasonable number of meetings must be held at weekends.
Refusal to accommodate NGOs with regard to funding, where applicable. When available, funding shall be given with a minimum of hassle and evenly distributed. Sweden is a country with an excellent environmental record because it actively and directly funds NGOs. They consider the views of genuine NGOs important and an investment in the future. Other countries should follow their example.
With all the above points in mind, the Woodland League would like to meet with IFCI to discuss our reengagement.
Please send confirmation of the receipt of this letter.
With regards,
Ciarán Hughes
Secretary of the Woodland League
Copied to:
Kevin Jones, Soil Association/Woodmark.
Liviu Amariei, FSC Europe.
Woodland League Website. www.woodlandleague.org.
Initially, when these requests were made, the WLL were sceptical, given the history of the process in Ireland thus far. However, due to pressure from FSC International, IFCI have begun to address some of the issues that have bogged the process down so far. As an example, at their recent EGM, IFCI voted to remove the contentious fourth chamber, the “Woodland Owners/Small Growers” chamber, which had turned out to be a second economic chamber. As a result of these changes, the WLL tabled the motion to reengage with IFCI, which has been passed.
The WLL have written to IFCI to request a meeting to discuss the possibility of reengaging in the FSC Process for Ireland. Several areas that still need to be addressed by IFCI are outlined in the letter. Also, it is outlined what the WLL will not tolerate – abuse, transparency, etc. The full text of the letter is included here. We are awaiting a response.
Basically, the WLL are willing to give FSC another chance for Ireland. The benefits of well run FSC processes are great, such as the processes in Finland and Sweden, though it is also recognised that an imbalanced process will only further the damage to Irish environmental and social causes, such as has happened in Malaysia and Indonesia.
IFCI recently made a public release (text included here) about the progress to date of the FSC process in Ireland. By and large, the WLL feel that this is a fairly decent report, though it glosses over some issues, and doesn’t mention others, that have dogged the process to date.
Ray Monahan, supporter of the WLL, raised the following point about the IFCI release: “I note the highlighting of the lack of input by the environmental chamber caused by a number of factors. Thus the case for starting the FSC process from scratch has been made and is the only possible fair course. Anything less simply copper fastens the unfair influence the other chambers were able to enjoy due to the lack of input from the environmental chamber. It is stated that ‘It will be extremely difficult for any subsequent process to generate the trust required if IFCI fails to deliver.’ This would have been more credible if it had stated that it would be extremely difficult to generate the trust required if the IFCI does not start again from scratch without the burdens of previous unfair advantages enjoyed by the economic chamber due to the lack of input from the environmental chamber.”
It must be noted that the environmental chamber’s inability to participate was largely due to IFCI’s refusal to hold meetings at times that suited NGOs, i.e. weekends. Economic interests were able to attend because they were paid by their respective companies. NGOs had to take time out of their own work, at their own expense, to attend meetings and often this was impossible for them.
To start from scratch, the WLL feel that it is necessary for the IFCI Second Draft Standard to be removed and a new standard to be developed and agreed by all stakeholders. The WLL also feel that IFCI shoul be renamed to “generate the trust required”, as outlined in the letter below. The WLL also reject the notion "Time is running out - this is the last chance to achieve an agreed FSC-approved forest standard for Ireland". In FSC there are no rules on the timeline for the production of a standard for accreditation by FSC International. It is generally considered that two years is sufficient time to produce a standard and go through several stages of public consultation, though the process can take much longer if necessary. FSC is not going to abandon Ireland if a standard isn’t produced within the next few months or so.
The WLL agree that there is a fairly unique situation in Ireland in forestry, with Coillte (the State Forestry Board) owning approximately 66% of the forestry in Ireland, and the remainder owned by smaller companies and private growers. The case for a fourth chamber was a strong one - that economically forestry was imbalanced against small growers. Initially, there was little objection to the fourth chamber. In FSC (in general) it is decided on a case-by-case basis whether small growers should be in the Economic, Social or Environmental chambers. Because of this, the fourth chamber should have had equal representation by people who own small woodlands for economic, social and environmental reasons. However, the fourth chamber was dominated by economic entities, and ended up giving the economic interests a 50% share in the voting power (needing 75% to pass a motion, this gave the economic chambers a veto on any vote). Issues that genuinely concerned small growers were never addressed.
The WLL also call into question the use of the IFCI Second Draft Standard in the certification of Coillte, and IFCI’s apparent lack of knowledge of this event. The then auditors, SGS (the current auditors are Soil Association/Woodmark), used the IFCI Second Draft Standard when drawing up the Generic Standard for Coillte. When the WLL met with Liviu Amariei, we brought up this matter. Liviu Amariei agreed that SGS could not have used the IFCI Second Draft without consulting with the IFCI Steering Group. However, the WLL have been told by several people that were then members of the IFCI Steering Group that they were never consulted regarding the use of the IFCI Second Draft in the certification of Coillte.
To sum up, the WLL are willing to give FSC another go, but we do so with a wary attitude considering what has happened in the past meetings of IFCI.
- Brendan Kelly (Liaison Officer) and Andrew St. Ledger (PRO)
[The Finnish FSC Standard and Developing Forest Stewardship Standards– A Survival Guide are both available for download at www.woodlandleague.org].
The IFCI Press Release referred to above is included below.
The letter from WLL regarding reengaging with IFCI is included below.
IFCI PRESS RELEASE
FSC forest certification update – progress to-date and the future. Declan Little, Outgoing Chairman, IFCI Ltd.
The process of developing an FSC-approved forest standard for Ireland began in 1999 with the establishment of the Irish Forestry Certification Initiative (IFCI). The following describes what this process is all about, its inherent complexities and a timetable for completion.
Certification strives to ensure best practice throughout the forest sector and enshrines the principles of Sustainable Forest Management. It involves the establishment of a chain-of-custody from the producer to the consumer, which verifies that adherence to a certifiable standard has been achieved. There are numerous certification bodies and processes in the international arena today.
The Forest Stewardship Council, or FSC as it's more commonly known, is one of these and it is involved in forest certification in many countries, using ten principles covering a wide range of issues, including social, economic and environmental agendas. This process involves stakeholders from all sectors involved in forestry in these countries. National standards are formulated and agreed by consensus by participating forestry stakeholders.
The process of forest certification in Ireland has not been easy.
There are numerous reasons for this and - at the risk that all those involved to-date may not fully agree - I wish to outline what I consider the primary difficulties. Over the past two years it was important to identify these difficulties in order to address them to enable the process to be advanced. In order to do this it was also imperative that all prejudices were set aside and to reflect objectively on the failings of the process to-date.
At the outset, IFCI was established as a four chamber body comprising Economic, Environmental, Social and Woodland Owners. The majority of national initiatives have only three chambers but in some countries, especially Ireland, small woodland owners do not feel adequately represented by the other chambers, especially the Economic chamber. Hence, the establishment by a majority vote of the Woodland Owners chamber at the initial stakeholders meeting in Dublin in 1999. It is my view that the motivation and unique concerns of the Woodland Owners were not adequately communicated at the outset to other stakeholders, many of whom merely see Woodland Owners as an Economic entity.
Another problem that hindered progress was the lack of adequate resources to address the production of a national standard. A good start was made through the compilation of a draft standard from which an agreed, final standard would be developed. This was based on the UK standard, where the forest sector resembles that in Ireland much more so than any other country. However, at subsequent Technical Working group meetings in 1999, where it was envisaged that all chambers would be represented and their stakeholders views would be incorporated into the standard, it was notable that some chambers – especially the Environmental chamber - had little or no input. The reasons outlined at the time were a lack of financial resources and this is quite understandable, particularly in the case of ENGOs and community representatives. In addition, the significance of the draft standard and its implications for the certification of individual stakeholders may not have been fully understood by some stakeholders at the time. Many did not realise that certification of individual grower groups or companies could proceed in the absence of an agreed national standard. Nonetheless, the standard was drafted, sanctioned by the then Steering Committee and subsequently presented at public consultation meetings at venues nationwide. It was hoped that any gaps or deficiencies would be identified and addressed subsequently. Thereafter, written submissions from stakeholders nationwide were sent to IFCI which were supposed to be considered in a subsequent draft.
In the meantime, Coillte sought certification. IFCI were not to know the exact time frame for this and it is perfectly reasonable for any individual stakeholder or forest industry to seek individual certification. However, many stakeholders – particularaly from environmental and social groups - were unhappy that Coillte received certification, especially against a standard that was not fully agreed and completed. The draft standard required further technical input but this process became bogged down as scarce resources dried up and Coillte's certification became a distraction for disaffected parties.
These factors resulted in mistrust and conflict so that toward the end of 2002 IFCI spent more time dealing with internal procedures and wrangling instead of the real business at hand. FSC were asked to intervene and after a meeting in late 2002, FSC made the following recommendations to be implemented as soon as possible.
These were:
(a) to establish IFCI as a membership organisation
(b) to address the legality of some decisions made by the Steering Committee
(c) to amend the Memorandum and Articles of Association (M&AoA)
(d) to consider the current Steering Committee as an interim entity and to elect a new Steering Committee as soon as possible
(e) to ensure that adequate resources were secured in order to address the drafting of an agreed standard
(f) to appoint, if possible, an independent Chair for the interim Steering Committee
(g) that the Steering Committee establish a code of conduct
Since 2003, most of these issues have been addressed, including membership, legal issues, revision of the M&AoA, reconstitution of the interim Steering Committee, including the appointment of an agreed Chairman, the development of a code of conduct and the procurement of adequate funding to continue drafting the new standard. In addition, the Technical Working Group (TWG) has amended the standard, which is expected to be finalised in the coming months prior to a final round of public consultation. All FSC Principles and Criteria have been inserted into the new draft. During the consultation process the Standard will be available to all stakeholders and further submissions will be considered.
In October 2004, IFCI submitted a report to FSC seeking accreditation. Official recognition of IFCI is vital in order to demonstrate credibility and secure funding from stakeholders. A number of preconditions that FSC had previously requested IFCI to address were finalised. FSC responded in March this year stating that they were happy with the report but wished to add two further preconditions before granting accreditation. These were that firstly, IFCI adopt a 3-chamber structure to ensure balance and avoid bias, which was perceived in the 4-chamber structure.
Secondly, IFCI are required to reach out to stakeholders who are unsure about engaging with the process for a variety of reasons. On May 7th last IFCI held an EGM at which a motion to adopt a 3-chamber structure was unanimously passed. As a result of the progress made in recent years, there is sufficient trust to ensure that the views and concerns of the woodland owners will be addressed in the new 3- chamber structure. The new structure should also have a positive effect regarding the future involvement of stakeholders – particularly environmental and social groups - who have concerns, especially vis a vis the 4-chamber structure.
There is renewed optimism that a national standard can be agreed. A considerable amount of time and effort has been put in by numerous stakeholders since 1999 and it would be a travesty if stakeholders were let down as a result of failure to agree a standard. Many members have given a timeframe of one year from last May to finalise the standard. If this is not achieved many stakeholders will walk away from the process. Once accreditation is achieved it should be feasible to raise the necessary resources to finalise the standard and put in place the necessary structures to oversee its implementation. However it is critical that as many stakeholders as possible engage with the process.
In conclusion it is important to recognise that the process of agreeing a standard is very difficult. By its very nature, it requires compromise from all chambers represented – environmental, economic and social - and no one will leave the table entirely happy with the content of the resultant standard. However, the standard will encapsulate and address the views and concerns of all involved.
In addition, individual companies, groups and stakeholders – including Coillte - will be required to seek and/or maintain certification against the new standard, which will be updated every five years.
Time is running out - this is the last chance to achieve an agreed FSC-approved forest standard for Ireland. Given the progress that has been made in recent months and the adoption of recommendations by FSC, it is fair to say that conditions are right for those unhappy with the process to date, to engage in the process. The upcoming AGM in late August at which a new Steering Committee will be elected, and the public consultation process regarding the draft standard both provide opportunities for new stakeholders to participate. I would like to appeal to stakeholders who are interested in the process but who are currently not involved in it to join IFCI in order to advance their objectives.
The considerable progress made in recent years demonstrates that though there are fundamental differences in approach by those involved, progress can be made if there is a positive will to do so.
The consequences of failure are not only the arrival of other certification systems in Ireland that will be required to start from scratch. This will lead to further delay and the continued non- certification of a significant sector of Ireland's forest industry - including small growers, sawmills and manufacturers - to an agreed national standard ratified by stakeholders across the sector. In addition to addressing social and environmental concerns, IFCI has a responsibility to endeavour to protect the livelihoods of non- certified stakeholders by achieving an agreed standard as soon as possible. It will be extremely difficult for any subsequent process to generate the trust required if IFCI fails to deliver. It is apparent that there is now a willingness to complete the standard by the Steering Committee members and their representative stakeholders. These events should contribute towards the positive climate that is currently evolving in IFCI and the finalisation of an FSC-approved forest standard for Ireland.
For further information and membership application forms contact:
Ruth McGrath, Secretary, IFCI Ltd., c/o 9 Upper Mount Street, Dublin 2.
Tel: 01-6425741 E-mail: avoice@iol.ie
WOODLAND LEAGUE LETTER TO IFCI REGARDING REENGAGING IN THE PROCESS
8th July 2005
Irish Forestry Certification Initiative Ltd.,
c/o No. 4 Enterprise Centre (Phase 2),
Ballintogher,
Co. Sligo
Dear IFCI,
The Woodland League, at a meeting in Gort, Co. Galway, on the 18th of June 2005, voted in favour of rejoining the FSC process in Ireland.
However, we have some comments to make about the way the FSC process should proceed. These are listed in no particular order.
We see it as vitally important that the process have an independent mediator/chairman that has no vote in motions. This person will need to be compensated for their time.
We see it as important that the issue of who funding comes from is looked at. We feel that the Forest Service/State should not fund the process, as it leaves the process in a vulnerable position should decisions be made that are against the wishes of the Forest Service/State. Perhaps Lottery funding should be investigated.
We need the terms of reference of IFCI clarified. From Developing FSC Standards – A Survival Guide: “To avoid confusion about the relationship of the standard to the FSC, the ToR can state that the process is linked to FSC and is not a unique national process that some members are linking to FSC while others are not. It is important that the ToR state that the intention is for the standard to comply with the FSC’s P&C, although obviously the standard may be used for other purposes than certification under the FSC. In addition to the ToR, some Working groups have asked all participants to sign a letter of commitment to the process and to the aims of FSC. The ToR also need to state the relationship of the Standard Committee and any subcommittees to the FSC Working Group.” In parallel, the Memorandum and Articles of Association should be altered to clearly demonstrate the commitment of the IFCI to the FSC principles. Currently, they state only a commitment to the production of an FSC based standard.
We see it as vitally important that the IFCI Second Draft is scrapped, as this does not give priority to, nor does it follow, the FSC Principles and Criteria. Thus, as the draft stands it cannot be accredited, and all future drafts will be weakened by it. A new draft needs to be prepared under the new three chamber structure.
We need verification of IFCI’s independence from the state. The State’s and Governmental organisations’ roles in the process needs to be clarified, with due regard to FSC rules. From Developing FSC Standards – A Survival Guide: “Government organisations cannot become voting members of the FSC, but FSC Working Groups are encouraged to welcome and involve government officials with specific expertise in national Working Groups either as participants or as observers.” In our opinion, the Heritage Council’s position in IFCI needs to be examined, as does the position of Woodlands of Ireland. We would welcome them in an advisory and observatory role.
The name of the process, Irish Forestry Certification Initiative Ltd., needs to be changed. There are many groups and individuals that have been alienated from the process. A name change such as this would help de-alienate these people.
The membership fee, however nominal, needs to be removed as a matter of principal for an open process. The EU recently ruled that fees to participate in development processes is illegal. We feel that this could apply to an FSC process. In any case, environmental developments should be free and open to all.
It is important to note that these are not demands for our reengagement. However, we cannot see the process proceeding in any meaningful way without at the above suggestions being implemented.
Furthermore, the Woodland League will not tolerate:
Abuse from any chamber, in particular the economic chamber, and especially if it continues unchecked by the chair. (Ref: Dr. Ann Behan’s letter of resignation from I.F.C.I. Ltd.).
Lack of clarity regarding accounts. Transparency and clarity are the building blocks of Local Agenda 21, and we must not forget that FSC is derived from Local Agenda 21.
Refusal to accommodate NGOs with regard to meeting times. A reasonable number of meetings must be held at weekends.
Refusal to accommodate NGOs with regard to funding, where applicable. When available, funding shall be given with a minimum of hassle and evenly distributed. Sweden is a country with an excellent environmental record because it actively and directly funds NGOs. They consider the views of genuine NGOs important and an investment in the future. Other countries should follow their example.
With all the above points in mind, the Woodland League would like to meet with IFCI to discuss our reengagement.
Please send confirmation of the receipt of this letter.
With regards,
Ciarán Hughes
Secretary of the Woodland League
Copied to:
Kevin Jones, Soil Association/Woodmark.
Liviu Amariei, FSC Europe.
Woodland League Website. www.woodlandleague.org.
