FSC-Watch

An independent observer of the Forest Stewartship Council

Accreditation Services International: A watchdog with neither bark nor biteTags: Uganda, Accreditation controls, Corrective Action Requests, SGS Qualifor

Last year, Accreditation Services International (ASI) discovered that SGS's certification of Mount Elgon National Park in Uganda was based on hoped for future improvements, rather than what was actually happening in the National Park. ASI, however, failed to take any meaningful action against SGS.

FSC certification requires that the company certified complies with FSC's Principles and Criteria, at the time the certificate is issued. This is fundamental to the credibility of the FSC system.

In April 2007, ASI carried out an annual audit of SGS at Mount Elgon in Uganda. Simultaneously, SGS carried out a reassessment of the Ugandan Wildlife Authority-FACE Foundation tree planting project on 25,000 hectares inside the Mount Elgon National Park. The tree planting project was certified in 2002. After SGS arrived in Uganda in April 2007, UWA requested that SGS certify the entire National Park. The area to be certified area shot up from 25,000 hectares to 112,100 hectares. Undaunted, SGS's team of four people assessed the entire National Park in three days.

In December 2006, World Rainforest Movement published a report that I wrote with Timothy Byakola of the Ugandan NGO Climate Development Initiatives about the problems at Mount Elgon. Villagers told us that UWA's management of the park is brutal. In one village on the boundary of the park, a villager showed us an envelope containing bullet shells, fired by UWA rangers. "The bullets were shot by people trying to kill us," he said. "Some people have died. Others have been injured." The FACE Foundation's carbon offset tree planting is making matters worse for people living around the park.

sPhoto 2

Three months after SGS's assessment, Stephan Faris, a journalist from Fortune magazine, visited Mount Elgon. He reported serious land rights conflicts around the National Park and found that half-a-million of the FACE Foundation's trees had been cut down in 2006. Villagers planted the cleared land with maize.

In September 2007, I wrote to SGS's Gerrit Marais to ask him how SGS could issue the certificate given that FSC criterion 2.3 states that "Disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normally disqualify an operation from being certified". I sent Marais a link to the Fortune article and asked for his comments. "I am not aware of the article in Fortune," he replied.

SGS raised three major corrective action requests during the April 2007 assessment. The certificate could, according to FSC rules, only be reissued once these corrective action requests had been met. SGS, however, issued a six month extension of the certificate. After a "close-out visit" by one SGS auditor in August 2007, SGS issued the certificate. ASI comments that "Major CARs have been closed based on documents and procedures to be implemented rather than field performance," and adds "Compliance with FSC certification requirements is not clear."

The audit at Mount Elgon is actually the fourth time that ASI has noticed that SGS is not complying with FSC rules: "This issue is a recurring nonconformity which has already been pointed out following ASI field surveillance audits in Russia, Poland and Guyana." But ASI has done nothing to prevent SGS from repeatedly cutting the same corners with FSC's certification requirements.

ASI might have added Spain to the list, given the serious problems with SGS's certificate awarded to Norfor (which prompted Spanish NGO Asociacion Pola Defensa da Ria (APDR) to issue a formal complaint to FSC against Norfor and ASI).

"SGS shall implement appropriate measures to correct the nonconformity detected in this assessment and described above within the given timeline. The measures shall be adequate to correct the current problems and to eliminating causes of nonconformities in order to avoid recurrence," states ASI's report on the Mount Elgon audit.

This may sound good, but in November 2006, ASI wrote the same thing after auditing SGS's certification of the Regional Directorate of State Forest in Bialystok in Poland. ASI set a timeline of 5th May 2007 (three months after ASI's audit was completed) for SGS to implement the "appropriate measures to correct the nonconformity". At Mount Elgon, ASI found that SGS had failed to take any measures whatsoever, appropriate or otherwise.

The FSC certificate of Mount Elgon remains in place. SGS is allowed to continue issuing FSC certificates. Having discovered that one of FSC's Certifying Bodies is not certifying in accordance with FSC rules on five separate occasions, surely the only sensible course of action is to suspend the certifying body from issuing FSC certificates. Why does ASI not do this?

How much more evidence is needed that the certifying bodies have a stranglehold on FSC?

Comments

No comments yet.

Thousands of Indigenous People evicted from FSC-certified Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda | FSC-Watch
FSC certification of US public forest lands: the warnings from Michigan | FSC-Watch
How Accreditation Services International (FSC-ASI) allows certifiers to break FSC’s rules and issue certificates to non-compliant companies | FSC-Watch
FACE Foundation makes misleading claims about FSC | FSC-Watch
Controversy deepens over Veracel certification | FSC-Watch
FSC Watch: Controversy deepens over Veracel certification
The controversy over SGS Qualifor's certification of Veracel deepened last week with two-pages of articles in the Brasil de Fato newspaper. The articles (in Portuguese, links b...
FSC Watch: Thousands of Indigenous People evicted from FSC-certified Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda
In 2007, SGS Qualifor certified Mount Elgon National Park as "well managed" under the FSC system. Accreditation Services International found that SGS Qualifor's certification was based on hoped for future improvements, rather than what was actually h...
FSC Watch: FACE Foundation makes misleading claims about FSC
The FACE Foundation, a Dutch carbon offset company, claims on its website that its tree planting projects at Mount Elgon and Kibale national parks in Uganda are both certified by FSC. While Mount Elgon is FSC certified (despite
FSC Watch: How Accreditation Services International (FSC-ASI) allows certifiers to break FSC's rules and issue certificates to non-compliant companies
In the past, FSC-Watch has been welcoming towards the work of Accreditation Services International (ASI), the FSC body which is supposed to ensure that the FSC's Principles and Criteria are upheld by the accredited certifiers. There is no doubt that ...
FSC Watch: FSC certification of US public forest lands: the warnings from Michigan
Debate is growing in the US about the certification of public forests with FSC and the so-called Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) being the front-running schemes. There are good reasons to question whether, in its current state, FSC is an appro...

Add a comment

Please leave these fields blank (spam trap):

No HTML please.


You can edit this comment until 30 minutes after posting.

< 111 older entries107 newer entries >