As we have previously reported, the complaint against SODEFOR's certificate dates back to April 2011, but by the time Greenpeace had lodged their appeal, the certificate had already been withdrawn by the certifier, Rainforest Alliance SmartWood. Because of this, the Complaints Panel, consisting of three independent experts convened by the FSC to look into the allegations, rejected Greenpeace's argument that the the certificate damaged the reputation of the FSC and that the organisation should invoke its 'Policy of Association' by immediately cancelling the certificate and formally dis-associating itself from SODEFOR.

However, the Panel's other findings and recommendations on the case go to the very heart of some of the FSC's problems and its disintegrating credibility.

The report of the Panel finds that there appear to have been gross errors in the way that SmartWood conducted its original certification assessment of SODEFOR back in 2010. The logging company was seeking to obtain 'Controlled Wood' certification, an essentially 'self-certification' process whereby documentation and paper commitments provided by the company play a key role in the external assessment. Amongst these are a requirement that the company has proper written policies preventing it from harvesting or trading in illegal wood, that it doesn't abuse peoples' rights, and that it doesn't exploit wood from areas of high conservation value forests. Despite the ease with which these should have been checked by SmartWood, the Panel could find no evidence that SODEFOR possessed such documents, and "we therefore assume they don't exist and hence, the company should not have been given a certificate."

Neither did the company have any written procedures for its workers as to how it needed to behave to qualify for the FSC's Controlled Wood standard, and nor did it provide any training in how to do so. The Panel concluded that "Considering the existing conflicts in the area, this is a serious omission that should have been pointed out by SmartWood". The Panel also pointed out that one member of the SmartWood mission to assess SODEFOR was also a member of the government's forest control administration and that "it is difficult to see how his double mandate would not rapidly lead to major conflicts of interests." Concerning the quality of SmartWood's work in the Congo, the Panel concludes, "The audit report by Smartwood does not show any real understanding of the complications of the Congo Basin".

As a result of all these failings, the Panel "recommends to suspend SmartWood from further operations in DRC and asks the FSC Board to investigate SmartWood practices in other Congo Basin countries (or other ares with bad forest governance) to ensure it meets FSC standards. This type of certificates only undermines the FSC."

As important as this recognition is of the damage that SmartWood specifically is doing to FSC's reputation, the Panel report goes even further into the structural reasons why such problems continue to occur, despite many years of warnings (from FSC-Watch among others). The report notes in conclusion that "FSC seems to be too dependent on the quality (or lack thereof) of the due diligence process of certification bodies. The panel therefore urges to re-assess how FSC can better control these CBs so they don't continue to certify the 'uncertifiable' in line with recommendations put to FSC by a number of NGOS and timber traders in October 2008."

In its response to the Complaints Panel report, the international Board of the FSC has clearly accepted the Panel's recommendation that the FSC should not 'dis-associate' itself from SODEFOR. But on the other more important recommendations - that SmartWood should be prohibited from issuing any more certificates in the Congo Basin region, and that the FSC needs to better control the certifiers more generally - the Board remains totally silent.

It seems that FSC's new complaints process, ushered in only last year, will do little to overcome the certifiers' stranglehold on the organisation. More 'certifications of the uncertifiable' are bound to follow, as will NGO resignations from the FSC's membership.

As the Greenpeace press release below reports, the Swiss-owned Danzer Group has sold its subsidiary SIFORCO, one of Africa's largest logging companies, to the US-based Groupe Blattner Elwyn. Under Danzer, SIFORCO had been awarded a Controlled Wood FSC certificate by SGS, though as we previously reported, this was highly controversial, and was formally challenged by Greenpeace in 2011. The new owners have said that they no longer intend to pursue FSC certification, and the certificate has been cancelled.

Danzer has been a leading partner with WWF in its 'Global Forest and Trade Network', but is one of the ever-growing list of members of the group which have proven to be highly controversial or discredited.

The area of FSC certified logging in the Congo Basin which has been cancelled, suspended or is being formally challenged is now greater than the area of 'valid' certificates. The cancellation of Danzer's certificate is yet another nail in the coffin of the myth of sustainable industrial logging in the Congo Basin. FSC must now be wondering whether the best strategy for salvaging its reputation in the region would be to insist on a moratorium on the issuing of any more certificates there.

Danzer Sells Its Logging Operations - Will Its Successor Do Any Better?**

After months of rumours, it's official: Danzer has sold its industrial logging operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

Effective February 23rd, its subsidiary Siforco (which holds logging rights to around 2.1 million hectares of forest) was ceded to American-owned Groupe Blattner Elwyn (GBE).

This ends 40 years of Danzer's involvement in the DRC, a time that was all too often characterised by social conflicts and destruction of tropical rainforest.

The key questions are what the Siforco takeover will mean for the communities that were victim of Danzer-sponsored violence and what the new owner will bring in terms of "sustainable forestry" and "development".

Danzer's press release stated: "Besides the industrial development, we have also reached an internationally recognized professional level in sustainable forest management and social activities" - totally disregarding the reality on the ground.

A history of violence

Danzer has caused uproar in local communities by repeatedly violating its social obligations such as providing schools and health centers. In 2011, village protests against Danzer led to violent repression, rape, and beatings that then resulted in the death of one person - involving the use of Siforco vehicles and payments of the perpetrators by a Siforco manager. The victims filed a historic legal complaint against Danzer's worksite manager and police and military.

Now that Danzer is leaving the DRC, will it still be held accountable for its deeds? Will communities be compensated for the severe human rights abuses in which it was involved?

Greenpeace urges Danzer to act responsibly, respect the right of communities to take legal action, and promote a fair and transparent legal process. Sustainable Forest Management remains an illusion

Danzer's departure from the DRC, and the chaos it's leaving in its wake again exposes the myth that industrial logging brings sustainable development.

In the rainforests of the Congo Basin, industrial loggers cut out the most commercially valuable trees, pack up their chainsaws, and go on to find new, pristine forest. What's left behind for local communities is a depleted forest resource, disrupted social structures, and lost jobs.

The logging frontier moves deeper and deeper into the remaining intact rainforest areas of the Congo Basin, exposing vast new areas to destruction.

Gross deforestation rates have doubled in the Congo Basin since 1990 and logging is a key driver. DRC's 2002 moratorium on the allocation of new industrial logging permits in the DRC should be enforced and maintained.

Instead of promoting further logging, international donors should invest in real solutions, like community-based alternatives, independent monitoring and a participative land-use plan.

Will the new operator do any better?

Danzer's operations in the DRC will be taken over by Groupe Blattner Elwyn. Other members of the Blattner family are involved in the logging sector via Safbois in Orientale province. In 2008 Greenpeace reported on Safbois' illegal logging activities and social conflicts in Yafunga. GBE has been involved in infrastructure and agribusiness, amongst other activities.

GBE has - as far as we know - not yet released information on their plans, but according to Danzer, they "intend to follow our industrial and forest management concept".

What this really means is unclear at this point. But the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) has told Greenpeace that GBE will not pursue FSC certification of sustainable forest management or controlled wood. The existing certificates were immediately cancelled on GBE's request.

We have little hope that the forest and its people will be better off with GBE.

The company selling the plywood, Asia Plywood Company, is the largest exporter of Meranti wood and plywood in Malaysia. The website Sarawak Report explains that Asia Plywood Company got its FSC certificate not for the timber it logs in Sarawak, but "by pledging that at least 70% of the content of its finished plywood was now being sourced from New Zealand plantation pine."

In fact, the plywood on sale in the UK was "almost completely made up of tropical hardwood, such as meranti wood," Sarawak Report notes.

Asia Plywood Company did have an FSC chain of custody certification, from 21 February 2006 to 20 February 2011, as this screenshot from SCS’s Certified Client List dated April 2010 shows (click on the image for a larger version):

But when the chain of custody certification expired, it seems that Asia Plywood Company just carried on exporting plywood stamped with the FSC label. B&Q continued selling the falsely labelled plywood until a story about the scandal appeared in the Daily Mail. Wickes just carried on selling the falsely labelled plywood.

On 7 January 2012, FSC's certifying body, SCS, put out a statement that concluded:

"Our investigation found that the FSC products sold by Asia Plywood between February 25th, 2011 and present are not FSC certified and should not carry the FSC label or any marks that indicate that the material is certified.

"We have requested that Asia Plywood remove the FSC label from any products that they have in stock and that Asia Plywood request the same of the customers to whom they sold these products."

On 27 January 2012, two days before the article in the Daily Mail, FSC put out a statement explaining that,

"FSC is aware of a problem relating to Asia Plywood’s supply of FSC labeled products to Kingfisher and is investigating the matter further.

"We are engaging all relevant parties, including certification body SCS, to ensure that a full understanding about the facts of this case is established. Further, we are performing an internal assessment of our standards and database systems and, if appropriate, will implement changes to ensure that this situation is prevented in the future."

A spokesperson for B&Q (which is part of the Kingfisher group) told the trade journal DIYWeek that,

"We were alerted to a potential supplier accreditation issue regarding plywood on December 7 2011, and immediately took action. We had sourced a small amount of product from this supplier from October 2011 and as soon as we were made aware, all future shipments of this plywood were immediately cancelled.

"We sought and received written assurances from FSC ... as recently as January 13th that B&Q's current stock is FSC certified, which remained valid until potential further information came to light on Friday, January 27.

"As a result we launched a further investigation and, while this is underway, we have taken the decision to remove any existing stock of this plywood from our shelves from Friday, January 27. We have done this because we are proud of our heritage in this area and are committed to ensuring that our customers can be assured there is no doubt whatsoever about our supply chain."

A spokesperson for Wickes told DIYWeek:

"[We] have not purchased any product from Asia Plywood since we were made aware of the withdrawal of its FSC certification on December 15 2011, at which time we re-sourced to an alternative supplier. We believe that the right course of action and best for the environment is to sell through the remaining product rather than scrap it and manufacture and ship more to replace it.

"All of us in the timber supply chain have a responsibility to work in a collaborative way to ensure that, if things do go wrong, information is shared quickly and accurately so that the standard remains an effective assurance of best practice."

As of 3 February 2012, Wickes was still selling plywood from Asia Plywood Company labelled as FSC certified. B&Q has stopped, but only about 8 weeks after being alerted to the problem. FSC is carrying out an internal assessment (which will probably never see the light of day).

SCS meanwhile requested Asia Plywood Company to remove the labels from plywood in stock. Then they asked Asia Plywood to get in touch with their customers and ask them to remove the labels. SCS does not mention any deadline for doing this, nor does it explain what will happen if the company fails to comply with either of these two requests.

The plywood was sold with the label "FSC Mix". Here's how FSC explains its FSC Mix label:

The wood used to produce FSC certified products with a “Mixed Sources” label comes from FSC certified well-managed forests, controlled sources and/or recycled material.

FSC's website explains that there are two ways of meeting the requirements for the FSC Mix label, as follows:

The proportion of FSC certified and recycled material used in the production must be at least 70% to qualify for the FSC “Mixed Sources” label.

This means that if a manufacturer produces 100 chairs and has FSC certified and recycled material for 70 chairs, then all the chairs can carry the FSC “Mixed Sources” label.

If a manufacturer uses less than 70% but more than 10% of FSC certified and recycled material, they are allowed to label a proportion of the production which is equivalent to the proportion of FSC certified and recycled input used in the production. For example, if a manufacturer produces 100 chairs, but only has FSC certified and recycled material for 30 chairs, then only 30 chairs can carry the FSC “Mixed Sources” label.

FSC must now investigate how big the Asia Plywood Company scandal really is. At the very least, FSC must answer the following questions:

• How long did Asia Plywood Company sell plywood falsely labelled as FSC certified? How many tonnes of timber were involved?

• Is it possible to trace the percentage of plywood that Asia Plywood Company sold - without relying on the company's documents which may also have been forged?

• Given the climate of corruption and illegality surrounding the logging industry in Sarawak, can we really be sure that plywood sold with the FSC label was even legally harvested?

• On its website, FSC boasts 22,280 chain of custody certificates. How many other cases of timber falsely labelled as FSC certified are on the market?

The problem is, none of the actors involved have any interest in carrying out the necessary research (that's assuming they can carry out the research). B&Q, Wickes, SCS, Asia Plywood Company and the FSC Secretariat all have a vested interest in keeping quiet and hoping that the problem will go away. While the media interest may fade, the problem won't.

The article describes the growing consensus that the "Swedish model" of forestry is failing to protect biodiversity, and old growth forests continue to be clear-cut, including those with FSC certification. With 10 million hectares certified, or 45% of its total forest, Sweden has one of the largest areas of FSC certified logging.

But certification has failed to protect valuable wildlife habitat. As part of his report, Hoffner interviewed Daniel Rutschman of Protect the Forest and Malin Sahlin of the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC). In the short video below, they explain how FSC certified companies such as SCA get round FSC's requirements not to log key areas of old growth habitats: they simply sell those areas to someone else.

SCA accounts for over two million hectares of FSC certified area in Sweden, under a certificate (opens pdf, 500kb) issued by SGS - whose certificates are already being challenged in at least three other countries.

Hoffner's article ends with a quote from Lina Bergström of FSC Sweden: "I wish we could have more backbone" she says. "But big companies make mistakes. We are not a monitoring system, we are an improving system. It's a slow process, but we're getting there."

The truth is that FSC has been issuing certificates in Sweden for well over a decade. The country's tiny remaining fragments of old growth/high conservation value forest have continued to be trashed, including by FSC certified companies. If the FSC does not actually 'monitor' all this, then what exactly does it do? FSC is not supposed to be an 'improving' system, it is supposed to be a performance-based certification system.

Quite where Lina Bergström thinks FSC is "getting" is very open to question. All the evidence seems to suggest that, far from being an 'improving system', any improvements have now stalled and are going backwards. If the FSC proves to be too slow and too easily circumvented even in a relatively well-regulated country like Sweden, it bodes very poorly for the system in other more problematic parts of the world.

Photographs taken by Erik Hoffner showing the search for old growth characteristics in Sweden's forests are available here.

As a Greenpeace blog points out about SIFORCO, "villagers were fed up with the broken promises and seized some equipment from the company in order to get them to the negotiation table. In a mission of brutal retaliation, security forces came to the loggers' assistance, raped women and girls, beat people up and destroyed property."

People sold down the river. Image courtesy of Global Witness.

A statement (opens pdf, 728Kb) issued in late October by Jose Endundo, DRC's Minister for Environment, Nature Conservation and Tourism, concerning both the events related to SODEFOR in Oshwe in January 2010 and those in the village of Yalisika in May 2011 concerning SIFORCO, will do little to reassure those who have suffered atrocities at the hands of FSC-certified logging companies. But it does at least cast some more light on the disgraceful fraud that constitutes FSC's so-called Controlled Wood Policy, and the actions of FSC's certifiers.

Minister Endundo notes about the logging concessions that "resource rights within their boundaries are geographically ill-defined and, de facto, sometimes claimed by many different rights-holders" (1). This will come as no surprise to those who have been saying for years that the arbitrary issuing by the DRC government of logging concessions over vast areas of forest that are all under claims of traditional ownership and customary use by local communities is a powder-keg waiting to explode.

If the Minister's statement has any value, it is what it says about the conditions under which SGS could have issued SIFORCO, a subsidiary of the Swiss-based Danzer group, with an FSC Controlled Wood certificate in 2010. Under FSC's Controlled Wood rules, wood from origins with any of five characteristics must be avoided, including "Wood harvested in violation of traditional and civil rights" and "Wood harvested in forests in which High Conservation Values (areas particularly worth of protection) are threatened through management activities". In order to ensure that wood can be certified as Controlled Wood, FSC's accredited certifiers are supposed to conduct a risk assessment and, according to the FSC's rules, "The results of the company's risk assessment shall be made publicly available."

So what does SGS's Risk Assessment for the issuing of an FSC Controlled Wood certificate have to say about forest tenure in an around the SIFORCO concession? This remains a mystery because, if SGS has ever conducted such an assessment, it hasn't made it public. SGS has, however, produced a Public Summary report for the certification. The problem with this report, though, is that it is such an amateurish muddle that it is surprising that the FSC Secretariat didn't suspended SGS until it was corrected and made into something intelligible.

The problems with SIFORCO have now come to the attention of the international media, with Swiss TV broadcasting a piece which investigates the issues - available below, currently only with the original German narrative.

In early November, Greenpeace published a detailed briefing setting out its concerns with SIFORCO, and simultaneously submitted a formal complaint to FSC against the whole of the Danzer Group, which also includes the FSC certified IFO logging company operating in the Republic of Congo. Greenpeace has not made the complaint publicly available, but notes in its briefing that "To ensure that FSC's reputation in the international marketplace is maintained it is clear that the FSC must not only move swiftly to disassociate from Danzer, but also provide credible commitment that no further certification in the Congo Basin is supported until the necessary preconditions for enabling credible certification are met".

In response, FSC has issued a statement acknowledging that Greenpeace has filed a complaint under FSC's 'Policy of Association'. This procedure, which provides a mechanism for FSC to dissociate itself entirely from companies which might otherwise bring it into disrepute, has only been used on one previous occasion (in relation to the highly controversial APP company in Indonesia), and if successful could result in immediate cancellation of all Danzer certificates.

Danzer has also issued a statement in response to Greenpeace's briefing.

Whilst it is to be welcomed that SIFORCO and Danzer's certificates are being challanged, what should not be overlooked is that, what is at stake here is not really whether a particular logging company behaved in a totally unacceptable way or made mistakes - that is the least one would expect from most logging companies in the Congo Basin. The issue as far as forest certification and wider forest policy is concerned, is how such a company could have come to be certified in the first place?

The complaint against Danzer/SIFORCO is more than just another grievance against yet another certificate that should never have been issued. It is a warning that SGS's certification system as a whole simply cannot be trusted. Arguably, it is FSC's 'association' with SIFORCO's certifier, SGS, that most serves to undermine FSC's reputation, and it is from them that FSC should dissociate itself. Typically, though, and reflecting as ever the stranglehold that the certifiers have over the FSC's policies, the Policy of Association rules cannot be used to break the FSC's ties with any of its accredited certifiers, only with the companies they have erroneously certified. Until the FSC empowers itself to completely cut ties with certifiers whenever necessary, it will find itself constantly being associated with companies that bring it into disrepute.

The complaint against Danzer is also the latest signal that the FSC process is seriously ill-adapted to the conditions of the Congo Basin, and is probably unusable there. According to FSC-Watch's calculations, the complaint means that the area under FSC certification in the Congo Basin which has been cancelled, suspended or formally challenged is now greater than the certified area which is, as yet, formally uncontested. What is stake is whether the whole model of 'sustainable forest management' (i.e, industrial logging) in the Congo Basin is a failed paradigm, and something which the FSC should have nothing more to do with.

(1) In the original French, "des droits sur les ressources mal définis dans leurs limites géographique et, de facto, parfois revendiques par plusieurs ayants-droits différents"