A 'sustainable' timber certification system used around the world today needs a major overhaul if it is to protect indigenous rights and the environment, says a report released Wednesday that contains investigative case studies in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand.

The 150-page report 'Trading in Credibility' was published by the Britain-based Rainforest Foundation

ahead of a meeting in Mexico this weekend of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), which runs the global certification scheme.

''The public cannot be assured that a wood product carrying FSC's logo comes from a well-managed forest,'' the damning report states.

Established in 1994 to accredit and label 'sustainable' timber, the FSC now has accredited timber from operations in 66 countries.

Products carrying the FSC trademark, it claims, demonstrate ''that the product they are purchasing originates from a forest or woodland, which is managed according to internationally, agreed social and environmental principles and criteria''.

But this is not is what is happening in places like Thailand, according to a forest researcher with the Thailand-based Towards Ecological Recovery and Regional Alliance (Terra) who co-authored a case study on the FSC certification of 3.5 percent of the operations of the Thai Forest Industry Organisation (FIO).

''The FSC certification of part of the FIO's operations is merely prolonging the life of the debt-ridden and controversial logging agency,'' said the researcher, Noel Rajesh.

Not adopting NGO views

The certification of the FIO was undertaken by Smartwood, an arm of the New York-based non-profit group the Rainforest Alliance.

According to the Asia-Pacific manager for Smartwood, Jeff Hayward, the accreditation resulted in an increase in the standard of living of villagers who work with Thai Forest Industry Organisation.

''We witnessed a spirit of renewed cooperation and hope taking place on those plantations and in the villages. But that is part of the process that few critics get to experience, because they don't actually go out to the plantation and critically evaluate it,'' he wrote in an e-mail interview.

Rajesh disagrees, arguing that the FSC certification has made the task of communities harder. It ''has undermined the efforts of local communities in Thailand trying to bring a halt to the FIO's forestry operations, recover the forest areas taken over by the FIO for its tree plantations activities, and gain more control over forest ecosystems'', he said.

Hayward believes that certification involves achieving a balance between the views of commercial, government and non-government 'stakeholders', not adopting NGO views. ''We know that at times we upset NGOs because they want us to take their positions. That is not the intent of the FSC system. The FSC requires a balanced approach between economic, social and environmental values,'' he said.

In October 1998, Smartwood also awarded FSC accreditation to some of the Javanese logging operations of the Indonesian state forestry company, Perum Perhunti.

''Perhutani was certified despite massive illegalities, serious tenure disputes and violence being known to the certifier at the time of endorsement. Key issues, such as corporate corruption and tenure rights, appear to have been ignored in the assessment process altogether,'' the Rainforest Foundation report states.

Following protests from community groups, the certification was suspended by the FSC in 2000 and 2001. However, assessments for FSC accreditation of other forest areas continue, despite opposition from a broad coalition of community organisations.

Collaboration with MTCC

In Malaysia, the FSC has opted to collaborate directly with the Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC) in the development of standards that can be recognised by the council.

Frustrated by the failure of the MTCC to address concerns over the lack of indigenous rights, the collective on indigenous people and forest issues, Jaringan Orang Asal dan NGOs Tentang Isu Hutan (JoangoHutan), wrote to FSC executive director Heiko Liedeker to protest against FSC support for the process.

''If the FSC continues to lend its name to MTCC's development of flawed certification standards and practices, promoting Malaysian timber sales, while ignoring indigenous peoples' rights to their lands and forests, the FSC has become a hindrance of, instead of a catalyst for, the promotion and respect for indigenous peoples' rights,'' Carol Yong wrote in a Nov 1 letter.

Leideker defends the track record of the organisation. ''When I look at the overall performance of the system, then I think these cases are the exception,'' he explains.

''For every example that (the Rainforest Foundation) cites on the negative side, we would have probably 10 or 20 examples on the positive side,'' he said.

Leideker also does not accept that FSC accreditation has undermined campaigns by community NGOs. ''I have not heard claims from NGOs in the South that we are actually undermining their campaigns. We would take that sort of information very seriously,'' he said.

The director of the Rainforest Foundation, Simon Counsell, believes time is running out for the FSC. ''All efforts to improve the FSC through its internal processes, over a period of years, appear to have failed,'' he said.

The general assembly (in Mexico) is probably the last chance for FSC to show that it is capable of reforming itself to become a reliable certification system,'' Counsell pointed out. ''(The) FSC must decide whether it wishes to uphold its principles and criteria, or submit to the vested interests of the certifiers and their clients,'' he said. IPS