FSC: learning by doing

(1)

SWEDISH FOREST STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (CEMUS)

VAN HALL LARENSTEIN

FSC: Learning by Doing

Examples of behavioural effect of the Swedish FSC standard, in terms of lessons learned from Corrective Action Requests (CARs), for assessment of biodiversity and management of nature considerations in

boreal large-scale forestry.

Anne M.M.M. van der Bruggen

Cyriel C. van de Winckel

Uppsala, Sweden, July 2012

(2)

(3)

Learning about the environment Illustration, by Frits hikingartist.com free to download and use: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/.

Hosting org./External supervisor; Henrik von Stedingk, FSC researcher (Skogs- och standardansvarig) Swedish-FSC, (http://www.fsc-sverige.org/) office in Uppsala. henrik.von.stedingk@fsc-sverige.org +070-776 96 01 Home org./Internal supervisor; Robbert wijers, timber trade company director and ITT

(International Timber Trade) lecturer at Van Hall Larenstein International University of Applied Science, Larensteinselaan 26 a, VELP GLD, 6882CT, The Netherlands. info@houthandelwijers.nl +0317 310698

External supervisor (2) (Sweden); Eva Friman Program Director, researcher CEMUS, Centre for Sustainable Development (CSD), Uppsala University (UU). (Programdirektör, forskare GLOPAT).

eva.friman@csduppsala.uu.se + 018-471 72 95 Contact authors; Anne van der Bruggen, anne.vanderbruggen@wur.nl

Cyriel van de Winckel, cyriel.vandewinckel@wur.nl

BSc. Tropical Forestry and Nature Conservation, Van Hall Larenstein International University of Applied Science, Larensteinselaan 26 a, VELP GLD, 6882CT, The Netherlands. http://www.vanhall-larenstein.com/

CEMUS at/and Centre for Sustainable Development (CSD UPPSALA) are both part of Uppsala University (UU) and Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), focusing on environmental, development and sustainability issues.

Van Hall Larenstein (VHL) International University of Applied sciences, is part of Wageningen University and Resource centre (WUR) in The Netherlands.

Swedish-FSC office in Uppsala: FSC is an independent, non-governmental, not-for-profit organization established to promote the responsible management of the world’s forests.

(4)

Acknowledgements

This report is the result of a 5 months Bachelor Thesis (from the 3rd of March to the 27th of August 2012), as a joint collaboration project between CEMUS at the Centre for Sustainable Development (CSD

Uppsala) part of Uppsala University, and the Swedish-FSC, who facilitated and hosted this project respectively. The study was conducted voluntarily by two Tropical Forestry and Nature Conservation students, from the International University of applied Science Van Hall Larenstein (part of Wageningen University and Research center), Velp, The Netherlands.

It forms part of ongoing research on assessing effect of the Swedish-FSC on forest management in Sweden, by Henrik von Stedingk (Swedish-FSC researcher).

Without the office and resource facilities kindly offered to us by CEMUS and CSD-Uppsala, the preparation of this report would not have received the desired effective and productive devotion which led to its current state. We would especially wish to thank therefore PhD. Eva Friman (Programme Director CEMUS) for her practical no-worries approach and welcoming nature. Also our appreciation goes naturally to all staff of the Swedish-FSC, in particular Henrik von Stedingk (Swedish-FSC researcher) for his commitment to hosting and guiding this project. In this respect our coordinator in The Netherlands Robbert Weijers deserves recognition too. We thank all interview participants and persons that contributed to our study for investing their scarce time (which – due to our planning – was usually just before or in their summer holidays) and commitment, which not only helped shape this report, but contributed to our personal learning too. Specifically because of their dedication to our learning: Hans Djurberg, Magnus Bergman and Håkan Blomqvist from SCA, Karin Fällman and Stefan Bleckert from Sveaskog, Uno Brinnen and Bengt Brunberg from Korsnäs, and Andreas Renöfält from SGS-Sweden. But also the contractors who have given us the field level perspective: Patrick Andersson (SCA), and Erik Engstrand (Korsnäs).

Financial assistance from an European Erasmus placement agreement grant, has covered most transport costs required for doing the field work.

(5)

Summary

It is vital to be able to demonstrate that forest certification is effective in promoting ecological awareness and practical measures in forestry for its legitimacy as an environmental standard (Gulbrandsen, 2005). Much research has looked into effect of the FSC in terms of changes in forest management, while the underlying process of (and prerequisites for) sustaining performance improvement, have not claimed much attention. Contribution of the FSC in terms of behaviour is a relatively new territory of inquiry (Tikina et al., 2008). After 15 years of implementing the standard in Swedish forestry, the time is ripe to assess behavioural effect.

The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of Corrective Action Requests (CARs) on behaviour of large-scale Certificate Holders (CHs) in Sweden, by following-up CARs and conducting semi-structured interviews with CHs and 3rd party certifiers. We see if CARs are a tool for following-up behavioural change. And help understand how CARs might or should be "lessons learned" for CHs, in a way that on the long run they and the socio-ecological environment benefit from changed management. We record first hand experiences of FSC induced learning at four operational levels in three CHs which combined manage the bulk of FSC’s forests in Sweden. Follow up of isolated CARs as case studies, in perspective with the combined effect of many closed CARs together, gives insight in:

1. The extend CHs are learning from CARs,

2. How this learning is reflected in behavioural change (which can be described as effect of the FSC), and,

3. How practical the FSC standard is in terms of encouraging learning.

CH and individual learning is integral to the CAR compliance process. CARs have contributed to a marked behavioural change at the individual and CH level mostly via training and calibration sessions. However trainings have perhaps focused too much on the “do” instead of the “why” part, therefore staff attitude appears to lag behind the actual knowledge and skills obtained. Attitude towards the FSC ought to be better, which is difficult in the face of management becoming more prescriptive and stringent, since this generally leads to less satisfaction. Attitude also has to do with the message that the FSC seeks to deliver, which is known but has not got much substance in the forest.

Via CH leadership directed at disseminating FSC responsibility to individual staff members, and via communication of FSC’s contribution and vision, CHs and employees get assurance for committing themselves to taking on perhaps the most difficult part of FSC compliance: developing attitude based on working with a heart for nature and for forestry continuity, the major underlying factors of FSC’s mission.

(6)

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1. List of abbreviations and definitions. ... 8

Table 2. List of informants... 8

Table 3. Change due to CARs.. ... 11

Table 4. Conversion of indicators ... 17

Table 5. Specification of target group ... 20

Figure 1. Learning Organizations. ... 14

(8)

Abbreviation Definition CAR Corrective Action Request

CB Certificate Body (3rd party certifier)

CH Certificate Holder (FSC FM and FM/CoC certified forestry organization)

CoC Chain of Custody

Competences Knowledge, technical skills, and attitude

(E)NGO (Environmental) Non Governmental Organization

FM Forest Management

FMU Forest Management Unit (unit used for planning and management of forestry areas) FSC Forest Stewardship Council

FSC I.C. Forest Stewardship Council International Centre in Bonn Germany

HCVF High Conservation Value Forests (nature conservation concept introduced by the WWF)

Nr Number

SFM Sustainable Forest Management

Standard Current Swedish-FSC standard, FSC-STD-050510 V2-1 Table 1. List of abbreviations and definitions.

Name Organization Position

# Karin Fällman Sveaskog FSC coordinator

# Hans Djurberg SCA Sustainability director

# Uno Brinnen Korsnäs Director of Forestry

# Andreas Renöfält SGS Lead auditor

1 Hans Djurberg SCA Sustainability director

2 Karin Fällman Sveaskog FSC coordinator

3 Sofia Eriksson Bergvik FSC coordinator

4 Roland contractor BV Lead auditor

5 Caroline Rothpfeffer Kornsäs Environmental chef

6 Anders Tosteby Sveaskog (Tosteby Miljökonsult) Ecologist

7 Elisabet BrömsSterner DNV Lead auditor

8 Johan Bjernulf Stora Enso Certification coordinator

9 Magnus Bergman SCA Chief technical officer

10 Håkan Kristofferson Sveaskog Forester

11 Bengt Brunberg Korsnäs Sustainability manager

12 Helen Knutsson korsnäs Internal quality/planning

13 Martin Schmalholz StoraEnso Environmental chief

14 Per Simonsson SCA Ecologist

15 Erik Engstrand Korsnäs contractor (Hedesunda Skogsgallring) Contractor entrepreneur 16 […] Korsnäs contractor (Hedesunda Skogsgallring) Machine operator

17 Stefan Bleckert Sveaskog Head of conservation

18 Håkan Blomqvist SCA Environmental specialist

19 Patrick Andersson SCA Contractor (Puttes Skogsentreprenad) Contactor entrepreneur 20 [...] SCA contractor (Puttes Skogsentreprenad) Machine operator Table 2. List of informants. In order of conducted interviews, in red are informally conducted interviews.

(9)

CHAPTER 1 Introduction

“Knowledge is the basis of sustainability”. This quote from one of the participants in this study, means that the ultimate goal of the FSC is knowledge creation for the better management of the environment. Unlike areas such as product safety or energy efficiency labelling and certification, the use of forest certification schemes to enhance Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) is very complex. Because the elements of SFM are broad ranging, and variable in time and space. Also understanding FSC’s contribution is complicated and has become one of the most controversial issues in international forest policy

discussions (Elliott & Schlaepfer, 2001).

Apart from providing fuel for debate, the different perceptions of effect can be negative for the credibility of the system. For a certification scheme aiming at sustainability, such as the FSC, credibility is crucial: for encouraging multi-stakeholder participation, increasing membership, spreading knowledge about the FSC, safeguarding the integrity and ensuring consumers confidence in the verification process and the

standard as a whole (ISEAL, 2010; www.fsc-sverge.org). Impact studies are therefore important for investigating the success of the FSC in achieving its goals, and whether performance of the system leads to sustainability in the forest (ISEAL, 2007).

1.1. Background FSC Certification

For the last decades high global deforestation rates and forest degradation due to poor forest management practices or illegal logging have been one of the greatest concerns of the international environmental community (Gullison, 2003; Rametsteiner and Simula, 2003). The inter-governmental failure to adopt a global forest convention at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 spurred the development of national and local initiatives to combat global deforestation.

One of these initiatives was forest management certification (e.g. Leslie, 2004). In the absence of a forest convention or strong international commitments to protect forest biodiversity, forest certification is widely regarded as one means to effectively promote sustainable forest management in both developed and developing countries (Gulbrandsen, 2005). Certification schemes have emerged in recent years to become a significant and innovative venue for standard setting and governance in the environmental realm. Those in the forest sector are among the most advanced and thus are useful to explore (Auld et al., 2008).

Representatives from 25 countries, including some of the world’s leading environmental groups like WWF and social NGO’s, the timber trade and forestry entities decided to sidestep governments and created the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) in 1993 (Cashore, 2007). There are two globally dominant certification systems for Sustainable Forest Management (in terms of certified area and number of Certificate

Holders): the Forest Stewardship Council and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) (www.itsglobal.com). UNECE/FAO data (2011) indicates that FSC is currently the fastest growing certification system in the world (11% annual growth equal to an average 23 million ha per year), as opposed to 5% by the standards covered in the PEFC. This corresponds with a 9% increase in area in the EU over the 2010-2011 period. However PEFC dominates in terms of global certified area coverage with 236 million ha compared to FSC’s 148 million ha, this latter is about 5% of the world’s productive forest land spread over 80 countries (UNECE/FAO, 2011). Not necessarily anticipated at the establishment of FSC most certified areas (almost 90%) are in the temperate and boreal zone of the northern

hemisphere (Auld et al., 2008), with Europe as the most important region (44% of global FSC certified area is found in the EU)(UNECE/FAO, 2011). Continental Europe has historically had and still has the broadest consumer recognition and appreciation for the FSC system (for example, in The Netherlands, 71% of the population have at least some knowledge of the FSC label). But current research data from FSC also reveal significant increases in FSC label awareness within global market places (FSC e-Newsletter 9th of March 2012).

FSC’s vision to meet the social, ecological and economic rights and needs of the present generation without compromising those of the future, is articulated in ca 300 wide ranging indicators that seek to capture social issues based on stakeholder consultation, environmental forest dynamics and economical feasibility aspects of management in various levels of detail. The FSC standard is designed as a market driven incentive for SFM, biodiversity maintenance and for curbing deforestation, based on agreement

(10)

between members divided over a three chamber board: representing social, environmental and economical interests. The FSC aims to provide a credible link between responsible production and consumption of forest products, via standard setting, trademark assurance and accreditation services for groups of small landowners and organizations interested in responsible forestry (UNECE/FAO, 2011). The standard is based on a set of globally responsible forestry Principles and Criteria, national and

sub-national multi-stakeholder committees which develop regionally appropriate standards, and accreditation of Certificate Bodies (CBs) whom audit forestry organizations.

The Swedish FSC national standard consists out of 10 Principles sub-divided over 56 Criteria which are articulated in 382 Indicators (FSC-STD-050510 V2-1). Certified organizations have to follow these

Principles and Criteria at the Indicator level. In Sweden more than 11 million hectares of forest land is FSC certified over 23 FM and FM/CoC certificate holders (FSC I.C., 2012), which corresponds to about half of the productive forest area (Skogsdata, 2011). Sweden also has the longest history of implementing the FSC standard (www.fsc.org) globally, which means that Swedish forestry organizations have been involved with forest certification from the beginning (Barklund, 2009). FSC currently allows certified operations to gain some type of market advantage vis-à-vis their competitors (such as market access, price premiums, and the more abstract notion of a “social license to operate”) (Cashore et al., 2006), which are considered the motives for compliance.

1.2. Effect of the FSC in terms of outcomes of compliance

Effectiveness is the capability of producing a desired result. At the end of the day, forest certification will be judged on its ability to change forestry practices in ways that contribute to SFM. This is partly a question of the stringency of the certification standards i.e. level of performance required and detail of management prescribed, and partly of compliance with those standards i.e. rigor, accuracy and result of the compliance process (Gulbrandsen, 2005; ISEAL, 2007). This study looks at the latter part: the ability of the FSC standard to change forest management practices via its compliance process.

1.2.1. The compliance process with CARs

Evaluations/audits are a way of controlling the performance in relation to the indicators in the standard. Each Certificate Holder (CH) – forestry organization – is audited by a Certificate Body (CB), at least once a year to ensure their continued compliance (Karmann and Smith, 2009), based on FSC’s general

requirements for evaluations (FSC-STD-20-007 V3-0). The FSC also provides a system in which CBs themselves are accredited and annually audited by Accreditation Services International (ASI) (FSC I.C., 2007), to ensure that CBs operate in a consistent, reliable and credible manner, facilitate acceptance of the FSC and so furthering trade and promoting sustainable development (FSC-STD-20-001 V3-0). In addition to these requirements, the conditions necessary for a CH to receive or maintain a certificate, are based on evaluation of the forest management organization’s conformity with the requirements of the applicable national standard for forest management (FSC-STD-20-007 V3-0). When the CB has identified non-compliances by forest owners/CHs, the auditors discuss their findings with the CH, bearing in mind that there is often room for interpretation, and taking into account the fragility and uniqueness of the forest resource, to determine the impact of the non-compliance (FSC I.C., 2007; FSC-STD-20-007 V3-0). There are three types of non-conformities depending on the seriousness of the finding: observations are findings without binding requirements i.e. like suggestions, and MINOR or MAJOR Corrective Action Requests (CARs) are findings with binding requirements. A CAR is considered minor if it is temporary, non-systematic and does not result in a fundamental failure to meet the objectives of the applicable criteria (FSC-STD-20-007 V3-0, #8.6), it has to be corrected within a year. If the minor CAR is not adequately corrected or responded to by the CH within a year, or if a combination of minor CARs i.e. the cumulative impact, or a non-conformity alone, is likely to result in not being able to meet the objectives of the applicable criteria or leads to a systematic failure in a significant part of the management system, than a major CAR is issued (FSC-STD-20-007 V3-0, #8.7). Major CARs have to be solved within 3 month time, and lead to suspension or withdrawal of the certificate (FSC-STD-20-007 V3-0, #8.11.2) and may require

(11)

immediate action of the CH e.g. immediate cessation of use of a prohibited pesticide, immediate cessation of dangerous activities or activities causing serious environmental damage.

CARs are intended to make the CH act in order to conform to the standard, on areas of their management in which operations are insufficient i.e. those that do not yet meet the standard. When a CH has received a CAR, they investigate the underlying cause and then undertake a corrective action, e.g. in the form of a training. The CAR is closed by the CB if this training results in sufficient evidence of compliance. This eventual adaptation is in the CHs own benefit because it will likely mitigate non-compliance in the future and improve efficiency, but also CHs have to fulfil the CAR received to maintain their certification, although this has rarely been studied (Peña-Claros et al., 2009).

CARs are effectively the central pivot of this study, find further proceedings on the CAR compliance process related to changing Forest Management (FM) in Annex 2.

1.2.1.1. Change due to CARs described by ISEAL

While the FSC standard is written in terms of principles, criteria and indicators, change is most

appropriately described in terms of inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts (ISEAL, 2007). The monitoring & evaluation scheme from ISEAL (Table 3) describes four successive stages of the impacts of certification, that align with the regime effectiveness theory of Underdal (2001). These can both be used to

schematically present the causal relations of what happens after a CAR is given to the CH. Table 3 provides an overview of four main levels of change, whereby: 1) CARs are the external input from the CB driving the need for change in the CH, 2) the action subsequently undertaken by the CH as the output, 3) the outcome of that action is the change in behaviour which leads to 4) the impact in terms of changes in performance of forest management.

Nr. Level of Change Description in ISEAL Definition by Underdal

1 Input

The physical, human, financial, and capital resources applied to a CAR and to its component activities. Short term.

Regime effects driven by CARs

2 Output

The deliverables directly generated by the CAR activities that reflect changes in knowledge, skills, and attitude. Short term.

Sets of rules, standards, and principles

3 Outcome

Behavioural changes in people or institutions and changes in the environment that occur as a result of the CAR inputs and outputs.

Medium term.

Changes in human behaviour

4 Impact

The long-term environmental / biophysical, social, financial, and market-based changes that occur as a result of the maintained behavioural changes from the CAR.

Changes in environmental conditions

Table 3. Change due to CARs. This table shows the change due to CARs and gives a common language for monitoring and evaluation that can be used to describe the successive stages that occur after a CAR is issued for a non-compliance. In this case the CAR is the input (in the top left hand corner) which initiates the process of change in the CH by following the successive levels of change from non-compliance to compliance i.e. from the top to bottom in the table respectively. Short term is <1 year and long term is >5 years. This conceptual framework rests on a traditional results-based management framework. After ISEAL (2007) and Underdal (2001).

1.2.2. The CAR analysis in literature

It is possible to examine the causal effects of certification in terms of changes to ‘on-the-ground forest management’ by examining the specific improvements in forest management that forest owners/ managers are required (CARs) to make in response to the certification auditing process. These provide a means of examining ‘before’/‘after’ situations in certified forests (Sheil et al., 2004) (with CIFOR author annotations).

(12)

CARs have been used for studying effect of FSC’s compliance process since the early stages of the FSC (Thornber, 1999; Karmann & Smith, 2009). It entails sourcing most information from public summary reports with specific attention to suggestions for improvement (observations) and binding requirements (CARs), stated near the end. Public reports are the summarized proceedings from an evaluation/audit. While CARs are considered an indirect indicator of impact (Newson et al., 2006), they are well

documented, provide clear baselines from which to indicate change, and build further on an existing research base (Karmann & Smith, 2009). Through the review of CARs, the FSC has the ability to

demonstrate measureable performance (Mechel et al., 2006). CARs have been used to assess FSC effect via summary statistics (Hirschberger, 2005), by revising, comparing and follow-up of CARs in the tropics (Peña-Claros et al., 2009), by assigning thematic topics to CARs in the United States (Newson et al., 2006) and by using CARs as the basis for interviews and questionnaires in Japan (Sigiura et al., 2011). An often used design in the CAR analysis, is to look at the relative distribution of CARs over the corresponding principles of the standard. This provides a general indication of the CHs main achievements and main areas for improvement, but also shows whether the distribution of CARs changes between years and thus if progress is made. Peña-Claros et al. (2009) found that aspects that were permanently reviewed by the evaluation team in the tropics, were mostly (82% of the cases) dealt with satisfactorily. There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance for one fifth (18%) of the indicators assessed during the audit, which are normally (98% of the time) solved sufficiently within the first 5 years of certification. Distribution of CARs in Swedish forestry shows that two thirds of more than 400 CARs, issued from 1996 to 2001, addressed ecological issues, a quarter concerned social-, and less than two percent addressed economical issues (Dahl, 2001; Auld, 2008). Similar to Dahl (2001), Rametsteiner (2002) found that, in his study of FSC certification in European countries, most CARs addressed ecological and social measures in forestry and the state of written documentation in forest management. He argues that FSC certification and audits are likely to improve forest practices in Europe. His study indicates that FSC in European countries has improved the protection of rare and threatened species and their habitats, increased tree species variation, and the conservation of mixed stands, and reduced the use of chemicals in forestry. Data on adoption patterns show that certified areas are skewed in favour of temperate and boreal forest, indicating that FSC certification has spread primarily among producers who face relatively low costs of participation (Auld et al., 2008). This implies that most findings on effect are subject to already high performers, since the most progressive organizations are most likely the first ones to pursue certification (Hayward and Vertinsky, 1999). Operations whose practices could most be improved may be the least likely to join.If certification is indeed dealing with the most progressive forestry operations, then we would expect the impact of forest certification to be even greater in the future than what current studies show (Hayward and Vertinsky, 1999).

Tikina (2008) states that obtaining certification may or may not involve a change in practices of a particular organization depending on the precertification management level. This includes issues about whether the standard is to low if systematically no CARs are raised for a criterion, or if raising of a CAR is due to better visibility of one criteria over another e.g. safety helmets opposed to perpetuating High Conservation Value (HCV) -trees and -forest. Or whether the focus of external audits, is too much directed by public stakeholder comments and complaints, which force the evaluation to address the areas for which a complaint is issued or public inquiry is made. When Environmental Non Governmental

Organizations (ENGOs) dominate in submitting complaints and comments, it can influence the external audit to be predominantly directed to looking at principle 6 (environmental impact). This principle also has the most number of indicators in the Swedish FM standard (FSC-STD-050510 V2-1).

Some forms of FSC’s effect are well known and recognized by a wide range of institutions (process and constitutive effectiveness)(Tikina, 2008). However most CAR studies conclude, while there are

quantifiable influences on the ground e.g. enforced through HCV areas in the United States (Newsom et al., 2006), there is a need for further research on effect. Similar conclusions appeared in studies on the FSC’s impacts in Norway and Sweden (Gulbrandsen, 2005) and Germany (Pattberg, 2005) and also in more recent work from Japan (Sugiura et al., 2011) and North America (Moore et al., 2010).

Although effectiveness interests many stakeholders and CARs are practical for analysing change, the need for further research is partly because many studies on FSC’s effect are rarely standardized or compatible, are often based on indirect signs of effect, and are conducted at different levels which can show

(13)

outcomes are not easy to compare and to summarize (Peña-Claros et al., 2009; Karmann and Smith, 2009). And because there is no comprehensive framework to systematically assess effect of forest certification (Tikina 2008). Which results in an insufficient foundation to answer broader questions about certification’s cumulative effects over larger areas (Newsom et al., 2006).

While Forest Management (FM) certification is currently considered an important multi-stakeholder governance process, the most advance labelling initiative (Audl et al., 2008) and environmental activists often present the FSC process and its multiple regional standards as a better alternative for FM than other certification schemes (Ozinga, 2001). Studies from different geographical regions state that the FSC’s impact on the ground is yet to be fully evaluated (Peña-Claros et al., 2009; Gulbrandsen, 2005; Tikina et al., 2008; Karmann and Smith, 2009) and no definitive assurance exists that any forest certification scheme will direct management towards SFM in the long run (Tikina et. al., 2008). Gulbrandsen concludes that in 2005, for the Swedish and Norwegian context, the limited knowledge about forest certifications’ environmental impact and efficacy as a problem-solving instrument, remains a major constraint for identifying determinants and indicators of effectiveness. Resulting in significant different perceptions of legitimacy, applicability, rigour and efficacy of certification schemes among stakeholders in Scandinavia (Gulbrandsen, 2005). The ability of the instrument to contribute to SFM and biodiversity maintenance is in general unclear (Rametsteiner, 2002; Kuijk et al., 2009; Peña-Claros et al., 2009), and has become one of the most controversial issues in international forest policy discussions (Elliott & Schlaepfer, 2001). And it currently provides room for critique of the ecological sustainability of the standard by NGOs (Auld et al., 2008) and members of the environmental board in FSC Sweden.

When looking at studies on effect of CARs through the 4 levels of change in the ISEAL scheme (Table 3), it appears that many have used CARs as indicators for change at level 4 i.e. forest management practices, without much scrutiny of preceding underlying levels. Regardless of these levels being fundamental to and a prerequisite for ability of making such claims in terms of impact (ISEAL, 2007). This rather concentrated attention is pointed out by Tikina et al. (2008), saying that the effectiveness of the FSC in changing behaviour is less clear. Underdal (1992) sheds light on this by noting that “the assessment of behavioural changes is possible only some years or decades after adopting certification, because the process is still young and rapidly developing, therefore it might be too early to expect marked behavioural changes”. Studies have rarely assessed the long term contribution of CARs to what changes in FM take place during or after the FSC FM certification process (Auld et al., 2008; Peña-Claros et al., 2009; Sugiura, 2011). It is considered by many authors (e.g. Tikina et. al., 2008) to early stage to go beyond level 3 (Table 3) and look at actual environmental impact of the FSC at an inter-, national scale. The long-term nature of forestry issues and the subsequent delay in impacts make assessing the contribution of FSC to outcomes of FM premature. Although impacts on FM are the ultimate goal the FSC seeks to deliver, it is important to step back a bit, and assess the actual behavioural change (Level 3, Table 3) which

fundaments, precedes and sustains changes in performance (Garvin, 1993) of FM (ISEAL, 2007).

1.3. Behaviour and Learning

Evaluating the effect of a system is often generalized to provide the answer to the following question: “has the modification of behaviour eliminated or mitigated the issues that motivated the adoption of the system” (Sprinz, 2000; Underdal, 2001; Young, 1994)? Outcomes of compliance should be expressed in terms of the desired behaviour in individuals (ISEAL, 2010), and Schlyter et al. (2009) comments that, the environmental effect of a certification scheme does not only rest on standard stringency and certified area. The degree to which environmental practices are accepted, internalised and utilised by people performing the job e.g. contractors employed in forestry operations, also significantly affect performance. In many respects, this is probably a more important educational and practical challenge for forest

managers/owners to focus on when trying to implement and sustain on-the-ground practices that lead to improved environmental performance.

Hence we look into behavioural effect, as outcomes of compliance, which according to Tikina et al. (2008), measures differences in behaviour brought about by a governance system. ISEAL level 3 behavioural outcomes are articulated in terms of knowledge and skills which are influenced by attitude and

(14)

leadership. The acquisition of knowledge and skills amongst forestry staff whom are implementing the standard in the field, is done via trainings, possibly as a result of a CAR. While changing attitude and leadership involves the development of a certain mindset, which is considered a slower long term effect, as a result of the “general way of working”, perhaps induced by the effect of several CARs together. Transmitting a certain attitude and commitment in every day work is mainly the responsibility of persons who occupy key leadership positions. Harvard professor Garvin (1993) states that most training programs focus primarily on problem solving techniques, using exercises and practical examples. Tools are

straightforward and easy to communicate but mindset is more difficult to establish. Accuracy and precision are essential for learning. Employees must therefore become more disciplined in thinking and more attentive to details, must continuously ask: “how do we know this dead birch (Betula species) with a 30 cm diameter at breast hight (Dbh) is a nature value tree”, i.e. why is it valuable?

CARs where the human factor is an integral part of the non-compliance, for e.g. related to nature value assessments, often need CH level training and calibration sessions. Although the human factor can never be ruled out, learning is essential to preventing the same CAR from reoccurring in the future. Naturally digitalization of mapping and tracking of operations has streamlined the Swedish Forestry model incredibly over the past decade, they do not however exchange human interpretation and implementation, but merely facilitate these capacities.

Changes in behaviour in the 3rd level of the ISEAL scheme (Table 3) can be further specified by Garvin (1993) who says that before behaviour is changed, a certain degree of learning must occur to provide the knowledge, skills and attitude that convince the need for changing behaviour. In the absence of learning, companies – and individuals – simply sooner or later repeat old practices (Garvin, 1993). Learning about how to manage forests in order to meet the FSC level, is a key process that has to take place at the CH and individual level. It is helpful to clarify and conceptualize learning i.e. behavioural change, as occurring in different consecutive steps. According to Garvin (1993), a learning organization follows three steps, that lead to improvement and sustain performance. It must be noted that these steps (Figure 1) are not the exclusive way for development in performance to occur, but perhaps most efficient, to progress to the FSC level of FM. For e.g. performance may be improved in step 3 without much behavioural change in the preceding step 2. Although hypothetically, Garvin (1993) indicates that, sooner or later this behavioural change will have to be encouraged either internally or via a CAR, to be able to stay certified sustainably. Therefore it is interesting to describe the effect of the FSC in improving performance in forestry by looking at the aspects of behaviour that fundament performance, and which for a large part come down to learning.

Figure 1. Learning Organizations. This box shows the Harvard steps of learning organizations. All three steps must be assessed to measure (the extend of) change in organizational learning. This ladder describes what to study when looking into behavioural effect as an outcome of compliance i.e. to better understand level 3 – outcomes of CARs – stated in Table 3. After Garvin (1993).

 1st step: cognitive: members expand their knowledge and begin to think differently o Measured via Interviews focused at attitude and depth of understanding

 2nd step: behavioural: employees begin to internalize new insights and alter their behaviour, cultural change.

o Measured via Interviews supplemented by direct observation, proof is in the doing, and there is no substitute for seeing employees in action. Evidence of compliance is found during independent audits by 3rd parties and demonstrated by the continued certified status.

 3rd step: performance improvement: changes in behaviour leading to measurable improvements in results, structural change.

o Without proof in the field, companies would lack a rationale for investing in learning and the assurance that learning was serving the organization’s ends.

(15)

CHAPTER 2 Aim of the study

The aim of the study is to investigate the impact of CARs on behaviour of large-scale CHs in Sweden. This provides insight into the extent the compliance system with CARs works, as a driver for CHs towards SFM. We indicate whether CHs learn from CARs, how this learning is reflected in behavioural change of staff, and seen in terms of re-occurring of similar CARs. And how practical the FSC standard is in encouraging learning.

Assuming that behavioural change can be represented by a change in competences in terms of skills, knowledge and attitude, we hypothesize that changes in behavioural competences occur due to CARs. Since behavioural change is a prerequisite for performance improvement in the forest according to ISEAL (2007), Underdal (2001) and Garvin (1998). And evidence for performance improvement in the forest is found by CBs when closing a CAR (FSC-STD-20-007 V3-0).

To study what the impact is of CARs on behaviour of large-scale CHs, we address the following questions:

 How does the history of CARs look in Sweden?

 What are the behavioural effects of CARs on competences of forestry staff?

 Are CARs a tool for following-up behavioural change?

(16)

CHAPTER 3 Methods

We compile public summaries and process these into a CAR database in excel. After which we follow-up CARs and conduct semi-structured interviews with CHs and CBs.

We follow-up CARs raised in general for non-compliances in principle 6 (environmental impact), which often stress the need for designing new instructions and routines for nature considerations in forestry. And have typically led to CH-wide training programs involving planners, contractors and machine operators (ca 800 individuals per CH during 2008 - 2009). We hold interviews with CHs at the central, district, regional and field levels and with lead auditors from CBs, to assess development of competences required for (planning and implementation of) nature considerations in forest management. Terms and definitions used are given in table 1: list of abbreviations.

Our study starts with CARs and is linked to behavioural change, following recommendations from ISEAL (Table 3). Integral to behavioural change is learning (Figure 1). In order to be able to learn as an individual, the organization as a whole has to be skilled at providing the enabling environment for learning (Garvin, 1998). Thus behavioural effect is influenced by leadership (Garvin, 1998). We use two theoretical frameworks to describe our analysis:

1. ISEAL: gives the basic framework of how CARs are related to behavioural change, by saying that an action, induced by a CAR, must first have an outcome in terms of behaviour in level 3, before impact in the forest in level 4 can be sustainably achieved (Table 3, page 11).

2. The Harvard steps: provide a concept of learning. This concept is helpful to further analyze the behavioural change in level 3 of ISEAL. It says that before behaviour is changed a certain degree of learning must occur to provide the knowledge, skills and understanding that convince the need for changing behaviour (Figure 1, page 14).

3.1. Overview of Main Methodological steps

Below are the main steps we have taken, with their successive relations (from top to bottom and left to right respectively). Literature analysis and reporting are not included, since we regard these as integral to our study and continuous throughout each step.

 Compile CAR database.

 Identify a number of comparable CARs to follow-up per CH

 Find and contact the people involved/associated with these CARs

 Interview 4 or 5 individuals per CH at the following operational levels:  field level operators/contractors

 district level planners/foresters/environmental staff  regional level FMU planners/ FSC coordinators  central level directors/chief officers

3.1.1. Quantitative and Qualitative data

Our method yields some quantitative data but mainly qualitative data. The 1st step of analysis (the CAR database) is a basis for analysis in the 2nd step (the individuals and topics to be interviewed). Thus we use a method which is theoretically described by Teddlie and Yu (2007) as mixed method sampling based on the explanatory sequential model by Cresswell (2009). This method fits well with using the quantitative data available from the public summaries in combination with qualitative data from the interviews. In the 1st phase we identify CARs from the database based on 6 requirements (chapter 3.2.). In the 2nd phase we follow-up these CARs by conducting interviews with people involved with the CARs at four levels in the CHs, as well as with auditors from the CBs.

(17)

3.2. Selection of CARs

We compiled the CAR database from all public summaries available in Sweden, that record CARs since 2008. The database was used to identify CARs that met our primary requirements. The actual CARs to follow-up were selected from this sample based on ability to contact associated individuals at all 4 operational levels, for which we consulted key resource persons (FSC coordinators, sustainability managers) in the CHs to which the CARs were given.

We have selected CARs according to the following six requirements: 1. CARs must be closed.

2. CARs only for single certificate type.

3. Distinct FSC prescriptions related only to the design and implementation of environmental considerations in forestry as stated in principle 6 (environmental impact).

4. CARs must have comparable outcomes amongst the target group organizations. 5. The CARs must address the need for developing behavioural competences of staff and

individuals involved.

6. Staff and individuals associated with the CAR must be traceable and have some English speaking skills for ability to hold interviews.

Using these requirements typically yielded two or three CARs per CH that had comparable traits. This allowed key resource persons greater flexibility in finding people involved with CARs three to four years ago, and thus allowed our study to be more efficient. All CARs have been raised during 2008-2009 and have subsequently been closed during 2010.

3.2.1. Follow-up of CARs

The follow-up of CARs is based on interviews and public summaries. All indicators stated in this study refer to the current Swedish FSC standard (FSC-STD-050510 V2-1), see table 4 for a conversion between indicators for CARs based on the former standard (FSC-STD-050598 V1). Although we recorded CARs in our database from 2008 to 2012, we only looked at pre 2010 CARs, since it is too early to measure outcomes of more recent CARs in terms of behavioural effect. In contrast, individuals associated with implementation of a CAR may not remember CARs from a long time ago, may not even (need to) know a training was driven by a CAR, and the current Swedish FSC standard endorsed since June 2010 makes comparison difficult with CARs based on the previous standard version. The current standard contains more and other indicators and criteria than the previous version and CARs are meant to be raised at the criteria level (for e.g. 6.1) instead of at the indicator level (6.1.1), which further confounds analysis.

FSC-standard 1998

FSC-standard 2010

4.1.2 4.1.6/4.1.11

6.1.2 6.4.2

criteria 3, indicator 6.4.3 and annex 1 6.4.2 and annex 4

6.5.4 6.3.17

6.5.8 6.3.7

6.1.1 6.2.1

Table 4. Conversion of indicators between the 2010 and 1998 FSC standards, based on description of the non-compliance which may refer only to a part of a new indicator in the 2010 standard (Omföring Dokumentet, 2010).

(18)

We have selected CARs related to indicators that raise the bar above the forest management level and detail as legislated in Swedish forest law and which are distinctly attributable to the FSC. However several principles are distinctly attributable to the FSC for e.g. principle 1 (compliance with laws and FSC

principles), which gives binding requirements to the objectives from the forestry act which are otherwise based on a “freedom under responsibility” regime (Barklund, 2009). CARs raised for principle 1 are often broad, general and thus not ideal for tracing cause and effect relations or in depth analysis. Principle 6 (environmental impact) seems to receive the most nr of CARs in total, and has done so previously (see: Dahl, 2001), and stresses the need for trainings which are clear to follow-up. The environmental impact in forestry includes the part of the FSC that is most visible to the public, and outcomes of nature value assessments on harvested sites are often used to judge the responsibility of forestry by ENGOs and used for articulating effectiveness of the standard (e.g. Sahlin, 2010).

3.3. The informants

We have interviewed 20 people mostly in English. Three people were lead auditors from SGS-Sweden, Bureau Veritas and Det Norske Veritas respectively. The other 17 participants are employed by the larger forestry companies in Sweden 6 participants were from SCA, 4 from Sveaskog and 1 from Bergvik, while 7 were related to Bergvik land holdings: 5 persons from Korsnäs and 2 from StoraEnso. The forestry

representatives held different positions in the companies: 4 participants held central level positions, 7 were operational at the regional level, 3 were working at the district level and 4 participants worked at the field level (2 contractor entrepreneurs and 2 machine drivers). At SCA we spoke with the sustainability director (central), chief technical officer (central), two ecologists/environmental specialists (at the central and district levels) and a contractor and machine operator both working in the field. For Sveaskog we talked with the Head of Conservation (central), the FSC coordinator (central), a permanent employed ecologist (at a regional level in Sveaskog, but from an external consultancy organization) and a forester at the district level. Bergvik outsources all their management to Korsnäs and StoraEnso, hence we only spoke with the FSC coordinator at the central level in Bergvik and more with these latter two forestry organizations. Therefore we spoke with the Korsnäs environmental chief (central) whom referred us to the sustainability manager and internal quality and planning manager at the regional level. This led to the possibility to meet contractors and machine drivers, working on Bergvik holdings, in the field. See table 2 for the list of informants.

3.3.1. The interviews

The interviews where performed from June 12th to July 12th 2012, of which about half (9) were on location at the district offices or in the field, two interviews were held at our office in Uppsala and the remainder were held by phone. For the onsite interviews and field visits we have travelled ca 4000km from our office in Uppsala to Åsele and surroundings forests in Västerbotten, to Sundsvall, to Hedesunda and forests in Gästrikland, to the forests around Bräcke in Jämtland, and to Falun in Dalarna.

Each interview took around 1,5 hour. The interviews were made in a semi-structured way following a template (see annex 1 for a schematic overview of the topics and relations we used for the design of our interview questions and templates). We asked evaluative, comparison, process and contextual questions related to behaviour, learning, the Swedish FSC standard, CARs and the sources of CARs, and questions related to other drivers of change. The four core themes which guided our interviews (Figure 2) address: I) the main reasoning for – and justification of – doing this inquiry, after which we see if, II) CARs are a tool for driving behavioural change. III) We highlight behavioural change in terms of acquisition of knowledge, skills and attitude amongst forestry staff. And see how developing these competences could be improved by looking at 3 main aspects on which behavioural development depends: interpretability of the FSC standard, attitude, and organizational leadership (question IV, and the dependent variable components for measuring effect in sub-questions i until iv respectively).

(19)

I. Is behavioural change needed to reach effect of the FSC? II. Are CARs a driver for changing behaviour?

i. Why do certain areas of the standard have more CARs than others i.e. what are the drivers and sources of CARs?

ii. Do the same CARs come back over time?

III. What has been the change in behaviour expressed as knowledge, skills and attitude? IV. What aspects influence behavioural change, and can be further developed?

(since the behavioural effect of the FSC is dependent on practicality of the standard text)

i. Is the Swedish FSC standard practical to work with, incl. also differences with the 1998 standard version, and in terms of usability of nature value indicators?

(since behavioural effect of the FSC is dependent on the attitude towards using the standard)

ii. What is the attitude towards the Swedish FSC standard, has this changed?

(leadership forms an important enabling environment for individual and CH level learning)

iii. How is leadership involved in disseminating the attitude for the FSC way of working? Figure 2. The four core themes that guided our interviews.

We adjusted some parts of the interview template (see annex 2 for an example) to make the questions more applicable to the operational level in which participants are working, although we had a common set of questions that we asked all participants regardless of background, position or operational level. We first interviewed participants whom had been working at the CH at least since 1996, before the FSC. This allowed us to get an overview of current important issues related to CARs and the FSC. Interviews were led by one author while the other author wrote down proceedings mostly digitally (in a word file).

Coordination of the interview was shared, interviews were also recorded on audio-tape, and both authors kept notes of all interviews on paper too. The two versions of interview proceedings per informant, were than merged into one file.

We processed the proceedings in a spreadsheet and systematically quantified and summarized the answers per question, operational level and occupation. We compiled interview proceedings into 20 questions that could be answered explicitly and uniformly, and 15 open questions for which more anecdotal information was given (and which were therefore harder to quantify). Questions were

subdivided over the four core themes (Figure 2) and lay-out from annex 1, which clarified inter-relation of findings and thus made analysis of the results easier.

3.4. The Swedish Forestry sector

Sweden is covered by 28.4 million ha of forests as defined by international definitions, of which 22.7 million ha is considered productive forest land (Skogsdata, 2011). Although this is just below 1% of the world’s commercial forest area, Sweden provides 10% of the world’s sawn timber, pulp and paper (Barklund, 2009). This output is enabled through a highly efficient and mechanized forestry model, where operations are carried out by specialized organizations focussing only on parts of the forest sector. E.g. separate contractors are responsible only for harvesting, planting of seedlings, and for thinning by silvicultural units respectively. Planning, overall management and processing is done by different, mostly large organizations. There are ca 100 large-scale forestry organizations (>5000 ha) in Sweden

(www.skogsstyrelsen.se), however only a small number of these large industrial forest enterprises own some 25% of all forest land in Sweden (Barklund, 2009). Although large-scale forestry organizations have their own operating teams and employ 7.4% of all forestry employees in 2010, their self-activity shows a long declining trend (www.skogsstyrelsen.se). The bulk of their operations is outsourced to contractors, who account for half of the labour force employed in forestry (49.2%) and for more than half of the total number of hours worked in forestry (2011 survey by the Swedish Forest Agency). On-demand supply due to the efficient (rail) transport and infrastructure, allows storage of roundwood to be minimal. The forest

(20)

sector is increasingly globalizing (Lindahl and Westholm, 2012), and is the single largest sector that contributes around 100 billion SEK (ca 10 billion €) to Sweden’s net exports (www.skogsstyrelsen.se).

3.4.1. Sample group

Selection of organizations in our target group is based on three criteria: 1. Currently largest FSC certified area in Sweden.

2. FSC certified holdings since beginning of the FSC in Sweden ca 15 years. 3. Single-type certificates

These criteria narrowed down the 23 forest organizations that currently have a FSC FM or a FM/CoC certificate in Sweden (FSC I.C., 2012), to Sveaskog, SCA and Bergvik Skog (see table 5).

Certificate holders

Criteria 1: Criteria 2: Criteria 3: Criteria 4: FSC certified PRODUCTIVE forest area Comments about size Commence ment of FM certificate Single-type certificate?

Organizational structure and management of holdings SVEASKOG 3.3 million ha Largest in Sweden, 5th largest in EU 1999-05-011 yes Public owner/manager/contracted SCA 2 million ha 2nd largest in Sweden, largest in EU 1999-01-20 yes Private owner/manager/contracted BERGVIK SKOG 1.9 million ha Approx. 3rd largest in Sweden 1997-09-292 _yes Private owner/contracted Table 5. Specification of target group according to criteria, information from public summaries.

1

= FM group certificate nr. SGS 0001867, single-type since 2009 nr. BV-FM/CoC-950815.

2

= issue date for Korsnäs FSC certificate, which covers ca 300.000 ha of Bergvik’s holdings in the east.

Most area (3.3. million ha productive forest) is managed by Sveaskog, the states’ forestry organization, second in line in terms of productive area is SCA (with 2 million ha) which is part of the largest private land owner in Europe, and another organization in the same order of magnitude i.e. managing ca 1.9 million ha, is Bergvik Skog. Bergvik Skog however is land owner only, and outsources all operations in their holdings in the east and west to the former owners Korsnäs and StoraEnso respectively, who have been responsible for managing and certifying these holdings since the beginning of the FSC. These extra two CHs form (indirectly) a part of our target group required to following-up CARs from Bergvik.

We have focused on single-type certificates, since these are likely to have more “traditional” staff-leadership structures and operational levels than group-type certificates. It is interesting to look at behavioural effect at these three CHs since the combined scale of operations (ca 7.3 million ha productive forests) comprises a third (32.2%) of Sweden’s productive forest area and the bulk (66%) of Sweden’s FSC certified area. Also the shared number of staff employed and contracted, approximated to be ca 4300 individuals based on 2010 employment data from the Swedish Forest Agency (www.skogsstyrelsen), allows resources for educational reform to be mobilized on a large scale, and may affect up to 15% of forestry employees in Sweden.

(21)

CHAPTER 4 Results

Findings are based on two successive phases of data collection (chapter 3.1.1.), and results are subdivided accordingly. We start by giving background to the CARs per CH and proceed afterwards on the change that they incurred. Study findings indirectly related to our main inquiry are listed in the results part of annex 3.

PHASE I FOLLOW-UP CARs

Follow-up of CARs means we generally look at behavioural outcomes of trainings. Related to the development of competences, for implementation of the prior to harvest assessment routines and instructions, and for responsibilities of planners, contractors and machine operators in identification and management of High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF), nature value trees, retention of high stumps and species or area key-habitats (CARs issued for non-compliances in indicators 4.1.11, 9.3.1, 6.3.20, 6.1.2, and 6.3.7, respectively).

4.1.1. Sveaskog CAR nr. 24

For Sveaskog we selected CAR nr. 24. This CAR forms an example of all possible drivers for change: public, internal and external. It shows how the FSC standard offers the transparency and possibility for inquiry by public stakeholders via a complaint from an ENGO, indirectly drives monitoring and internal follow-up in the CH via internal CARs, and is based on CBs’ findings during evaluations.

In August 2008 a formal complaint was made by the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC or SNF in Swedish) which notified Sveaskog about the harvest of nature value trees specifically trees with fire scars and >200 years old in the Granåsen, Älvdalen area (west of Sweden).

Sveaskog did an internal follow up which led to the identification of two main root problems : o Root cause 1: The nature value trees were not registered during planning

o Root cause 2: Machine operators did not identify nature value trees during harvesting The result was that trees with biodiversity values were cut and dead wood was driven over while they should have been identified and noted during planning and/or afterwards identified and left undisturbed (standing) by the machine operator during harvest.

It should be noted, that at the time of planning and harvest there was 30 cm of snow which could have effectively covered the bottom part of the tree trunk where fire scars are mostly situated, and weather conditions were dark which meant that harvesting was performed using available light on the machines. Also since machines normally harvest in an uphill direction, in which most fire scars are directed, reading the scars was unfavourable.

During the 1st surveillance audit of the Sveaskog single type certificate by the CB in August 2009, minor CAR nr 24 was raised. In part, to put a binding obligation – and thus more momentum – on the 2 internal CARs, but also because the CB found insufficient evidence to suggest that competences of (contracted) staff, internal instructions for assessment of nature values, and that nature value planning routines, lead to selection and identification of individual nature value trees.

CAR nr 24 was issued for indicator 4.1.6 and/or 4.1.11, which states that: managers shall ensure (and document) that contracted employees possess the required competence for their specific tasks as regards both production and the natural and cultural environment. The corrective action for closing the 1st root cause (in May 2010), was a document for nature value assessment with site specific instructions for the 5 geographically different districts in which Sveaskog operates.

Biologically, Swedish forests are different, mainly along a north–south climatic temperature gradient (Nilsson, 1990; Barklund, 2009). Thus when operating in geographically diverse areas of Sweden, the site

(22)

specific instructions, taking into account the a-biotic and biotic factors and historical land-use, are considered essential for ability of standardizing identification of nature value trees.

The corrective action to solve the 2nd root cause was an organizational wide training with all planners and operators employed and contracted, that included theory and field excursions for calibration of

assessment of nature value trees. Since it was found that the non-compliance could have happened to other machine teams also. Individual and collaborate trainings were done on several occasions and in several areas from spring in May to autumn in September 2009, to take into account the variation during the seasons – in which prior to harvest planning mostly takes place – and subsequent effects on growth traits, visibility and ability to identify trees with nature values. A repetition training for machine operators for identification of HCVF was held in June 2010. The calibration took place in August 2010. As such CAR nr 24 was closed in the beginning of October 2010 after sufficient evidence was found by the CB, that both root causes had been effectively solved.

4.1.2. Bergvik Skog CAR nr. 34

CAR nr. 34 for Bergvik, shows the importance of communicating the central level environmental policy held at the Bergvik level, to the CHs at the field level responsible for managing Bergvik holdings (Korsnäs and StoraEnso). In early 2010 Bergvik has received a major CAR nr 34, because there was not sufficient evidence for a central level policy or directive for nature value assessment, and the methods applied by both contractors (StoraEnso and Korsnäs) were not formally approved by Bergvik. CAR nr 34 was raised for non- conformance to annex 4 guidelines for site assessment related to the environment, criteria 6.4 to protect representative samples of ecosystems, and indicator 4.1.11 to ensure (contracted) staff

competences meet the tasks they are expected to perform. This major CAR was issued in the light of not having found sufficient evidence of having addressed the root cause, – and hence for not having

performed effective corrective actions – for two earlier minor CARs that had been raised for the need to hold calibration trainings for nature value assessment amongst planners and for subsequently following up these nature value checklists in the field (minor CAR nr 1 from 2008 and nr 28 from 2009 respectively). Minor CAR nr 1 was issued for non-conformance in indicator 6.4.2 which says that: Managers shall select “key biotope” areas according to 6.4.1 (5% set aside in productive forest), demarcated and prioritized based on their significance for biodiversity and landscape representativeness. Minor CAR nr 28 was raised for a non-compliance in indicator 6.4.2 and annex 4 (see description for annex 4 above).

During the evaluation in March 2010 it was emphasised that, although there was on the whole a good quality in general nature considerations on Bergvik holdings, more effort could be put into procedures to secure that un-registered woodland key habitat are identified and secured, in a standardized way for both Korsnäs and StoraEnso. I.e. this means that both contractors individually could have had sufficient nature value assessment procedures in place, only that these had to be aligned and formally approved by the central level in Bergvik to be in line with their own environmental policy. It was noted that it might be necessary to give extra support to planners, either through a central resource or through a tighter co-operation with the forest authority to judge the “border line” sites. Control of and dissemination to entrepreneurs/contractors needs to be improved, as well as the method for identification of woodland key habitats. CAR nr 1 from 2008 was closed after calibration exercises for woodland key habitat

classification with Swedish Forest Agency personnel had been carried out by Korsnäs as well as StoraEnso. Additional education by Bergvik is planned for 2010 in connection with the Ecological Landscape Plan (ELP) -education, in line with environmental goals. However insufficient evidence for functioning of the new assessment document was found, when the auditor identified an area based on using the CHs own document, that should have been classified as a key biotope. This new non-conformance, CAR nr 28, was closed out 11 months later (in October 2010), when a new nature assessment document was prepared with specialist consultation.

The closing of both minor CARs (1 and 28) was evidence for closing major CAR nr 34 later in 2010, which verified that: Bergvik has approved the procedures used by StoraEnso and Korsnäs for assessment of

(23)

biodiversity values. A completely new procedure for assessment has been tested and implemented in June-September 2010, contractors have been educated in this new methodology and the procedure is now fully in use. Previously planned areas are also reviewed to ensure that no biodiversity values are missed. The new procedure and methodology were found working as a document and thus approved for use by the CB.

4.1.3. SCA CARs

In light of NGO criticism (via complaints) and the subsequent FSC CARs (nr 12-15 and nr 6-8 in 2007 and 2009 respectively), and due to the internal driven need for improving staff competences for

implementation of nature considerations, SCA implemented an extensive training program during the winter and spring of 2008. All (including contracted) forest machinery operators (ca 600 individuals) who work for SCA, received training and underwent a knowledge test. Follow-up of nature considerations in felling (related to indicator 6.3.20) was made more stringent and both felling plans and ecological landscape plans (ELPs) have been revised. Because SCA initiated their own corrective actions in line with the need to take action (external CARs), it is difficult to select one single CAR responsible for the overall outcome in behavioural change that has occurred in reality. Rather a more holistic approach is needed to do our inquiry at SCA. We therefore follow-up the extensive training program that can be said to have been the result of all CARs, complaints and internal actions over the 2007-2009 period.

The non-compliance that led to several CARs (nr 12 to 15) at SCA in 2007, had been brought to attention by complaints from Greenpeace and SSNC. But also the internal environmental evaluators at SCA raised the need to improve management of nature considerations during harvest. It is interesting to follow-up CARs nr 12 to 15 since both internal, external and public drivers for change were involved (in a similar process that gave rise to the Sveaskog CAR). CAR nr 12 was raised in November 2007 for insufficient nature value procedures regarding clear cut and because the instructions ensuring avoidance of large clear cut areas were not practical to work with, in specific related to indicator 6.3.17. Findings noted that large clear cut areas had not been avoided by retaining trees and tree groups according to instructions. An additional CAR nr 13 was raised for addressing the retention of high stumps during harvest and thinning (indicator 6.3.7). CAR nr 14 for indicator 6.2.1 was issued by following up a local stakeholder complaint stating that an area with woodland key habitat had been harvested. SCA agreed that pronounced uneven-aged, multi-layered natural forests with a great abundance of old trees and large dead wood in different stages of degradation had been cut in non compliance with the FSC standard, which made field inspection to this area during the audit unnecessary. In November 2007 major CAR nr 15 was issued to SCA for not putting enough momentum on, and for not prioritizing corrective actions, on the minor CARs nr 12-14 (above mentioned). CARs nr 12, 13 and consequently also CAR 15, were closed within a years’ time in June 2008, and CAR nr 14 was closed in October 2008. The auditing team verified that the corrective actions had been powerful and included all levels of the organization and that they also have had clearly positive effects (in competence, control, follow up and reporting).

One year later due to SSNC complaints, the (1st annual) surveillance in the fall of 2009, was mainly focused on environmental aspects regarding harvest planning, competence and training of forest workers,

ongoing and finalized final felling, and thus indirectly formed an external follow-up of SCA’s training outcomes (since the training was held in 2008 and addressed similar issues). Two sites brought to attention by SSNC’ complaints regarding harvesting of forest key habitats at Blåbärstjärn and Lill-Klumpvattnet, were visited by the CB. The evaluation found that: “staff did not have the right level of competences, which is why forest key habitats had not been exempted from measures other than the management required to preserve and support the natural biological diversity of the habitat. And that selection and demarcation of conservation areas, have not been prioritized according to their importance for biodiversity and mosaic in the landscape”. This led to CAR nr 6, 7 and 8 for indicator 4.1.6, 6.2.1 and 6.1.2 respectively. These three CARs are shortly specified below, they were closed out within a years’ time, at the end of October 2010. CAR nr 6 concerned seasonally employed personnel that had not received sufficient training and guidance. CAR nr 7, about woodland key habitat, had already been

FSC: learning by doing