Forest Stewardship Council wants to reduce worker risks in erodible, 'non-certified' forests

One of the world's largest certifiers of responsible forests is cracking down on risky work in erosion-prone forests, which could affect smaller plantation growers.

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) was working to reduce health and safety risks in forests that were not certified under its programme, but supplied what was known as "controlled" wood into mixed class products.

The Germany-based organisation's strict certification aimed to prevent illegal harvesting, human rights violations, to reject the use of genetically-modified organisms and protect conservation values.

The FSC label found on paper or wood products aimed to assure shoppers that the forests where the wood came from were sustainably managed.

Under its "mix" product class, up to 30 percent of the wood's came from either recycled or "controlled wood" sources (not FSC-certified), on products included packaging, paper or furniture.

The FSC was proposing more than a dozen new risk mitigation measures in "controlled" wood areas, largely relating to erodible soils.

The consultation was part of its global review of risk assessments affecting 60 countries, including Aotearoa.

Most of New Zealand's large foresters were FSC-certified, but up to 490,000 of exotic plantation forests were owned by small growers, most of whom were not certified.

Concern over erosion areas - FSC

FSC Australia and New Zealand senior policy manager Stefan Jensen said it was proposing significant due diligence changes in New Zealand, especially in steep and erosion-prone areas.

"Deforestation isn't a major concern; our concern is more about work health and safety and issues related to those highly erodible soils you have in areas of New Zealand," said Jensen.

He said the current risk assessment included one specified risk that was relatively easy for companies to meet, but more were being proposed.

"The revised draft risk assessment suggested three specified risk categories where forest managers are required to mitigate that risk before sourcing," he said. "Three that were nationally applicable.

"And then specifically for very high risk erosion prone areas, [consultants] suggested an additional 15 indicators to ensure materials from those areas is not from unacceptable sources."

However, the certifier considered New Zealand as a low risk forestry nation across various metrics like deforestation risk, due to strong regional and national commercial forestry standards.

What do you think? Let us know monique.steele@rnz.co.nz

Jensen said forestry was a relatively risky businesses.

"There's unfortunately in the past been quite a few fatalities, most of them not in FSC-certified forests, but this is about sourcing from non-certified forests," he said.

"There has been quite a number of fatalities that the consultants have reached the conclusion that there is a significant risk of sourcing from non certified areas where workers' rights could be a little bit under pressure."

He said the changes were to address potentially greater health and safety risks for workers, and to comply with incoming requirements under the European Union Deforestation Regulation.

Forest owners, wood processors concerned about practicality, duplication

Parts of the forestry sector were concerned the proposals might be unworkable in New Zealand forests and could affect saw mills' general participation in the scheme.

The Wood Processors and Manufacturers' Association saw FSC's proposals as duplicating and exceeding current regulatory controls, "without clear benefit".

Chief executive Mark Ross said an example was the use of the term "red zone" which under its framework determined risk thresholds, but was itself unclear.

"For local harvesters the risk mitigation measures are impracticable and unachievable, with confusion between harvesting and engineering," said Ross.

"This puts FSC at risk in New Zealand, which is hugely unfortunate because it misunderstands the NZ situation and imposes unrealistic mitigation measures, that essentially prohibit controlled wood from a large part of the country's forest sector."

Ross said mills relied on FSC-certified logs, and changes could mean they may not be able to stay within the FSC systems.

"If New Zealand plantation forests could not meet the FSC requirements, then mills would not be able to source certified wood products."

Forest Owners Association chief executive Elizabeth Hegg said it supported work to improve environmental and health and safety outcomes in forests, but changes must be proportionate, risk-based and practical.

"We've given FSC some feedback that some of the definitions weren't clear or were not standardised for the New Zealand environment, so it makes it hard for us to know exactly what's intended.

"Where there are terms like high risk areas or critical slopes, that those are clearly defined so that we all know exactly what we're talking about."

Hegg said most of its members were FSC-certified, but the proposals might pose challenges for smaller growers who would face new mitigation measures.

"We also had some concerns about operational feasibility and participation," she said.

"And there was some duplication in what was proposed that would in some cases actually make it very hard to achieve just from a bureaucratic perspective."

FSC was reviewing submissions on its draft proposals for New Zealand.

It certified about 160 million hectares of forests across 70,000 organisations globally.

New Zealand's total 20 million hectares of exotic plantation forestry covered about 7.8 percent of the country's total land area.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.