Intact forest landscapes: how FSC should maintain the high conservation values of

large landscape-level ecosystem mosaics that are significant at global, regional or national levels,

and fulfill it's own Principle 9

Alexey Yaroshenko, head of forest department, Greenpeace Russia

Two basic thresholds of forest conversion

1. Forest conversion to plantations or non-forest land uses;

2. Intact forest landscapes conversion to fragmented forests First threshold is adequately addressed by FSC principles and criteria (6.10), and this type of conversion usually not happen at certified areas.

Second one is not directly addressed; FSC does not consider it as a major issue and highest risk for world forests. Despite IFLs are considered as HCVFs, FSC globally accepts their fragmentation by roads and loggings (conversion to fragmented managed or degraded areas).

For companies, operating IFLs, FSC opens (or keeps) markets and loan opportunities, and allows with some temporary limits (moratoria etc.) to continue business as usual.

If this will not change, FSC may become one of the most effective drivers (or advocates) of IFL conversion.

Scale of the problem: FSC share in IFL loss Preliminary assessment of proportion of FSC FM certified areas in total IFL loss for selected countries for 2000-2013:

Canada - 9,1%

Russia - 10,9%

Gabon - 10,8%

Republic of Congo - 20,7%

Cameroon - 24,3%

Important note: due to wide spread of FSC controlled wood system, real share of FSC in IFL loss may be several times higher.

Full evaluation of FSC role in IFL loss is not possible now due to FSC secrecy and lack of transparency:

a) maps of certified areas are available not for all FM certified concessions;

b) areas of wood supply, certified with FSC controlled wood, usually are unknown for stakeholders.

Example: FSC FM certification in 2000-2013 and IFL loss in European part of Russia (preliminary data)

Example: FSC FM certification in 2000-2013 and IFL loss in Canada (preliminary data)

Example: FSC FM certification in 2000-2013 and IFL loss in Cameroon (preliminary data)

GFA-FM/COC-001114 OAO Svetlozerskles,

Arkhangelsk region, Russia

First Issue Date: 13.08.2004

Termination Date: 31.12.2013

In case with IFLs, FSC often serves as a hospice for logging companies with extremely unsustainable logging rates, that inevitably exhaust most accessible resources and lead to economic death.

All moratoria agreements, reached with these companies, come to end. New companies, that will probably appear, will start IFL logging "from the white list".

Typical "sustainable industrial clearcutting" in IFL

Opposite ways of forest use: forestry and wood mining Forestry - the science, art, and craft of creating, managing, using, conserving, and repairing forests and associated resources to meet desired goals, needs, and values for human benefit

(this economic activity is similar to agriculture)

OR

Wood mining - the practice of wood extraction from intact natural forests (mostly IFLs) - extremely complicated self-sufficient ecosystems and landscapes, that can not be restored with all human science, art and craft

(this economic activity is similar to oil, gas or coal mining).

The concept of sustainable management is applicable for forestry, not for mining. "Sustainable management" is a misleading name for IFL development.

Logging in IFL is a pure example of wood mining. We think, that now is a time to abandon it, hopefully with help of forest certification. FSC should be more forestry-friendly, and ensure maximum protection of intact forest landscapes.

What should be done? We all should recognize that conversion of IFLs to fragmented areas in not least important threat to forests, than conversion of natural forest to plantations, and ask FSC to address these two conversions in the same way.

FSC should take immediate action to stop IFL conversion, and to ensure that Principle 9 will be fulfilled for all IFLs. This should include:

a) no certification before comprehensive and representative protected area network has been established (and full stop of new IFL development in future);

b) sustainable cut rates for commercial tree species and forest types around IFLs to exclude increase of motivation for further IFL development after exhaustion of forest resources outside;

c) full transparency of IFL-related information about FSC certified forest management (open access to maps of FSC certified concessions and other forest management units that may relate to certified wood sourcing from IFLs).

Existing FSC rules actually include Greenpeace demands Principle 9. The Organization shall maintain and/or enhance the High Conservation Values in the Management Unit through applying the precautionary approach.

HCV 2. Large landscape-level ecosystems and ecosystem mosaics that are significant at global, regional or national levels, and that contain viable populations of the great majority of the naturally occurring species in natural patterns of distribution and abundance.

This obviously includes IFLs and some other intact natural forests.

Criterion 5.2. The Organization shall normally harvest products and services from the Management Unit at or below a level which can be permanently sustained.

So, we are not pushing for any new demands, principles, criteria or limits. We only ask for the fulfillment of already existing principles 9 and 5.

Transition period and exceptions We understand that current situation is too far from real implementation of Principle 9, and it will be extremely difficult to turn it back (to fit initial idea of FSC about sustainable forest management and HCVFs).

It is obvious, that some transition period is needed - may be some years. But FSC must be clear, that after this transition period it will come back to the initial idea of Principle 9 - "management activities in high conservation value forests shall maintain or enhance the attributes which define such forests".

It is obvious, that some exception should be; but FSC must be clear, that exceptions for "IFL/fragmentation" threshold should be based on the same rules than "forest/plantations" threshold (conversion affected a very limited portion of the area of the Management Unit and is producing clear, substantial, additional, secure long term conservation benefits in the Management Unit).

Greenpeace will help to reach it, but FSC must show that Principle 9 is not least important, than any other principles and criteria.

See more information about IFLs and related issues here:

glad.geog.umd.edu/intactforests (in English)

forestforum.ru (in Russian)

Some global (boreal) and regional updates will be published in 2014-2015