Forest Policy and Certification: the Role of Governments.

1. Forest Policy and Certification: the Role of Governments. Gerardo Segura National Forestry Commission, Mexico. Symposium on Forest Certification in Developing and Transitioning Societies: Social Ecological and Economic Effects. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. New Haven, Connecticut. June , 10-11, 2004.

2. Context of the Origins of Certification • Severe deforestation and degradation of forest ecosystems in the 1970’s and 1980´s. • Unfruitful international and national efforts to take action and ensure SFM. • New and more complex political and economic realities (e.g. new pressures for local control, globalization, new forms of inequity). • New local and international demands on governments to ensure a broader spectrum of public and private benefits form forestry. • New pressures of local stake-holders and civil society on governments to have more control over forest issues (e.g. land tenure, management and conservation).

3. Responses and Involvement of Governments in Certification • Initially perceived by most timber producing and exporting countries as an external imposition that could pose a treat to governments and the private sector (barrier to trade) • Active participation in promoting the adoption of international systems (e.g. FSC in Austria, Netherlands and Mexico) • Strong support to the creation of non-governmental national certification programs (e.g. Indonesia, Malaysia, Canada and Finland) • Promotion for developing regional schemes (e.g. Cameroon, Ghana and Gabon in W. Africa; Malaysia in SE Asia)

4. Opportunities • Stimulate compliance and strengthen enforcement of local regulations • Improve national definitions and standards for SFM through participatory processes • Improve forest and environmental regulations • Gain credibility by certifying public forests • Advance in international policy dialogues to achieve SFM (e.g. UNFF, UNCBD, FAO, ITTO)

5. Barriers • Acceptance and spread of certification schemes that may be in conflict with local policies • Proliferation of certification schemes that could create confusion among consumers • Challenge government rights over public forest • Trade barrier that discriminates against poor communities and small land owner

6. Policy Context of Market Oriented Certification Forest policy Environmental policy “hard” Regulation Taxation Incentives Sustainable Forest Management Certification Environmental and social quality of products Market communication “soft” Market for forest products O+ From Bass and Simula, 1999

7. Country Case Characteristics

8. Influence of Certification on Government Policy Processes for SFM

9. Influence of Certification on Participatory Forest Policy Processes Induction of a new culture of multi-stakeholder dialogs at local, national and even regional levels leading to: • Increase the awareness of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) issues • More ample and democratic participation of actors traditionally marginalized from forest policy debates (e.g. local community organizations and NGO´s) • Changes in traditional coalitions among stake-holder groups. • Influence on decentralization processes • Agreements on local, national or regional definitions, standards, criteria and indicators to achieve SFM.

10. Influence of Certification on Regulatory Frameworks • Little direct influence on improving legislation for SFM. • Seen as a complementary tool for law enforcement to stimulate compliance and reduce illegality. • Enforcement power is limited due the voluntary nature of certification. • Enforcement effects are most successful when good incentives are designed (e.g. Bolivia). • Used as a formal legal requirement would tend to have the same limitations of other legal instruments (e.g. inflexibility to change and induction of corruption).

11. Who is paying for certification? Malaysia Mexico

12. The Role of Governments: the Way Forward • Promote and facilitate the establishment of certification schemes, mainly where NGO´s and private sector actors have limited capacities. • Ensure an appropriate institutional and political framework for certification (integration of certification as tool for SFM). • Ensure the “fit” of certification with local policies, livelihoods and land-use realities as to solve real forest problems (e.g. development of national standards, involvement of local stakeholders and municipal governments). • Contribute to the design of certification schemes that are appropriate to local conditions and capacities (e.g. the phased approach). • Work with communities, certifiers and industry to simplify procedures that regulate forest management.

13. The Role of Governments: the Way Forward • Address land tenure and property right constraints that limit certification. • Address and prevent problems of equity (e.g. trade discrimination of small and marginalized producers and balanced stakeholder representation). • Set rules for better market conditions (e.g. prevent proliferation of parallel certification systems and ensure proper and fare international trade rules). • Link local communities to specialized certification markets (e.g. promotion of partnerships and dissemination of market information). • Design new incentives for certification (e.g. tax incentives, exemption of audit requirements, tariff reduction and government procurement). • Link certification to other instruments to recognize multiple values generated by local communities (e.g. PES and other conservation programs)

14. MainConclusions • The response of governments to certification has ranged form neglecting it (due to its perception as an external imposition), to an active support and involvement in the adoption and development of international, regional or national certification systems. • The most important contribution of certification as a policy instrument has been on the induction of multi-stakeholder dialogues to advance in developing local principles, standards and criteria to achieve SFM. • Certification has had little influence in inducing direct forest policy changes and reforms of regulations and institutional arrangements. • The role of certification as a “soft” policy instrument to achieve SFM has been most effective in countries where minimal pre-conditions of good forest governance have been developed. In countries where these conditions do not exist certification has a limited effect on SMF. • Direct financing of certification is costly to governments and its benefits to SFM are not allays justified. More comprehensive strategies need to be developed to incorporate certification as tool to achieve SFM.