Dovetail Report: October 2006

Combining Organic and FSC Certification of Non-Timber Forest Products

Reducing Costs, Increasing Options

Matthew Wenban-Smith

To request a hardcopy, please call or email for ordering information.
The full text of this report is available in Adobe PDF format (632 kb) .

Introduction
 

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification for forests and organic certification for agriculture would appear to be natural partners in international efforts to promote sustainable land use.

FSC promotes environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world's forests, while the International Federation for Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) supports the worldwide adoption of ecologically, socially and economically sound agricultural systems based on the principles of organic agriculture [1] .

The two programs have much in common.   Both depend ultimately on the marketing benefits of promoting certified products as being socially and environmentally preferable, with organic labeled products benefiting in addition from perceived health benefits to consumers. Market acceptance of both programs has been impressive, and is increasing rapidly. The market value of certified organic food and FSC labeled forest products is now measured in terms of billions of US dollars worldwide.   At the same time, the positive social and environmental impacts of the programs are also becoming increasingly clear in terms of biodiversity, water and soil conservation, working conditions and livelihoods.

Organic and FSC programs generally run side by side, reflecting the often separate worlds of agriculture and forest management.   In the case of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) however they overlap.

For NTFP producers and processors there are potential advantages in the existence of two widely recognized and potentially valuable labels: the FSC label and the organic label.   On the other hand, the existence of two labels may also represent a risk, if producers are forced to choose between one and the other, or pay increased costs for double-labeling; and manufacturers and consumers may be confused by two apparently competing systems.

Given the common goals and shared values of organic and FSC-based certification there ought to be potential for cooperation between the programs that could reduce costs and increase benefits to producers. While ultimately it will be producers, manufacturers and consumers who decide which (if any) certification program they prefer, it should be in the shared interest of both the organic movement and FSC to cooperate where possible to increase social and environmental gains, as well as benefits to program participants.

This report provides background about both programs; information from recent research into potential collaboration between the two; and suggestions for future efforts to increase the uptake and benefits of combined FSC and organic certification of non-timber forest products.

[1] This paper focuses on the IFOAM international accreditation program, but it should be noted that the organic movement is highly diverse and often government regulated at the national level.   Many organic certification bodies do not have international accreditation.

Download the full text of this report. (PDF)

 

About the Author

Matthew Wenban-Smith has been involved with the development of forest certification since 1994, with the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Woodmark forest certification programme.   He now serves on the Technical Advisory Board of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and is Director of OneWorldStandards Ltd, an independent consultancy advising on all aspects of social and environmental standards and standard setting. For more information, please visit: http://www.oneworldstandards.com