A brief perspective by Richard Zell Donovan, May 2024

Sometimes it takes a long time to learn something. I have been part of the process of creating the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) system since November 1990. Subsequently, during 27 years at Rainforest Alliance, I was involved in managing parts of the system. I was at the Founding Assembly in Toronto in 1993 and have been at all FSC General Assemblies since then. These have occurred about every 3 years, and I plan to be at the next GA, planned to occur somewhere in the “Global South” in late 2025.

My involvement in the system has been a roller coaster, with many ups and downs. I have witnessed or heard about the many “warts” the system has had over the years. At no point do I want to minimize FSC failures to live up to expectations, be they driven by certificate holders of all kinds, businesses, NGOs (social and environmental), or indigenous or traditional peoples. In fact I have always felt that critiques represented moments for improvement. I may have disagreed with X critique, and said so, but I NEVER have stopped asking people to weigh in, to criticize, to comment otherwise, etc. Though I am not sure, I think that this philosophy – sometimes very hard to take when one faces very aggressive attacks or criticism – was a message I always communicated to the staff that I worked with at Rainforest Alliance, FSC, certified forest managers, or others.

So why write this particular perspective on FSC now? What makes this “moment” special?

First, I think right now there is more global attention on forests than I have seen in my lifetime. In part it is due to the deep attention being placed on climate change, and the role of forests in the climate reality. This is also a moment when, for the first time in human history, more people live in an urban environment, not rural. It is also a moment where more than any previous moment in time, many people are asking “wait a minute, where does that stuff come from?” How did producing that “stuff” affect people, communities, the environment and forests?

Second, over the past 35+ years, commercial forestry has been subject to broad and deep criticism. This has happened everywhere in the world, in tropical, temperate and boreal biomes. Parallel to that there have been deeply thoughtful scientific and practice-oriented examinations of why and how we manage forests of all kinds. We have seen observers from all around the world send messages on concepts they suggest that forest managers should listen to, learn from and implement. Ecological forestry is no longer just a concept or an idea – but an ongoing practice, needing science and improvement through practice. Some changes are complex, some are simple. Examples? People are part of the ecosystem and that we absolutely should depend on and build on the perspectives and values of indigenous and traditional peoples and local communities as we implement forestry (which for me is best defined as the “art and science of tending forests”). More than ever before, we now know that forests fulfill many functions and have many values, from “coarse woody debris” for biodiversity and forest nutrients, to non-timber forest products used for time immemorial by indigenous, traditional and local communities, to wood fiber for mass timber construction or fuelwood and biomass energy. It is no longer just about lumber, and the primacy of wood as a value is gone.

Third, and it may seem like I have been a bit stupid over the years, I have come to the conclusion (yes, you can call it a “kumbaya” moment for me) that perhaps more than any other thing, FSC is a movement, NOT just a certification system. This has deep process, political and technical – social, environmental and economic – implications. It is perfectly appropriate for the FSC community to have wide-ranging conversations/dialogues – sometimes heated – on forest and forestry topics, whether that happens at the GAs or in other forums. From the very start, FSC has been about changing the status quo in forests and forestry. Its members have been driven by passion, a desire to see all kinds of forestry ecologically-driven – including the reality that humans are part of, not separate from, the ecosystem.

Personally, the above means at least two things to me. First, the FSC community should never hesitate to take on conversations about the tough or thorny issues in forests and forestry – in natural forests, plantations, or agroforestry systems. Some may wish FSC did not do that – that it “stick to its knitting” and just focus on certification. I will forcefully disagree and suggest that thoughtful, respective dialogue on tough forest issues is what we are about. Second, FSC should not waiver in supporting ecological forestry, however steep or difficult the climb to attain it might be. That is not just a certification system issue. It is our movement’s central responsibility. So yes, we should improve a critical and central part of the FSC movement – the certification system, how it works, and its benefits. But in parallel, FSC must remain a forceful and consistent advocate for positive change, where necessary refuting the status quo, and above all, true to the FSC mission – to promote environmentally sound, socially beneficial, and economically prosperous management of the world’s forest. FSC pioneered real forestry accountability through forest management unit and chain of custody auditing and certification, concepts such as free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), identification, management and protection of high conservation values (HCVs), and increased third party transparency and due diligence on well-managed forests and their role in supply chains and society. FSC is not the “silver bullet” for forests. It is imperfect. It will not cure all our forest and society ills. But it can and should be a complement to initiatives around forest protection, particularly HCVs, increased indigenous/community forest tenure, forest restoration, and innovative management of forests for timber and non-timber values at all scales.