Protecting Ecosystem Services Makes Business Sense

Verification of an ecosystem services impact can only take place when the required result from FSC-PRO-30-006 Ecosystem Services Procedure: Impact Demonstration and Market Tools, Annex B is demonstrated. The only difference between validation and verification is that verification has a comparison value that is leading to ‘result’.

Below is an example of FSC-PRO-30-006 Ecosystem Services Procedure: Impact Demonstration and Market Tools, Annex B, ES 1.1: Restoration of natural forest cover. The first three columns are for both validation and verification. To verify a positive impact on ecosystem services, the fourth column (Comparison: Compare present value to) which indicates what the measure has to be compared to (Clauses 9.2–9.3) and the result of this comparison has to comply with the requirements indicated in the fifth column (Required result) (Clause 10.1).

ADVICE-20-007-19 (FSC-DIR-20-007) provides advice to certification bodies on forest management auditing time. When the evaluation of ecosystem services is included in the scope of the assessment, this will increase audit time. The time required to verify ecosystem services impacts depends on a number of factors, including:

• whether the verification of ecosystem services impacts is integrated in the forest management audit or scheduled separately;
• the number of ecosystem services impacts to be verified; 
• the type of impact(s) to be verified and the chosen methodologies to measure the outcome indicator(s);
• whether it is the first ecosystem service impact evaluation or a subsequent evaluation;
• the specific context of the forest management organisation.

To minimize costs for the forest manager and maximize efficiency for the certification body, ecosystem services impacts should be evaluated during forest management certification audits (clause 17.4 of FSC-PRO-30-006).

Generally, the more ecosystem services impacts are to be verified, the more time will be required for the evaluation.

Experiences from pilot testing and field testing of draft versions of the FSC Ecosystem Services Procedure revealed that about 1-3 auditor (person) days are needed in addition to the forest management assessment.

Ecosystem services impacts shall be verified at least every 5 years or at each main forest management evaluation (clause 17.1 of FSC-PRO-30-006). There is no need to include ecosystem services verification in surveillance audits, unless:

1. there is a need to evaluate the closure of non-conformities identified in previous evaluations;
2. there are significant changes in the ESCD (see FAQ 3).

Significant changes in the ESCD include: 

• the addition of a new impact; 
• significant changes to the theory of change (for example: a change in management practices); 
• changes to the selected outcome indicators; 
• changes to the methodologies used to measure the outcome indicator;

Other reasons for conducting a surveillance audit include a change of scope in the management unit(s) for which the impact is demonstrated, and monitoring results that would question the verified ecosystem services impact.

During the forest management audit preparation phase, the certification body should ask the certificate holder whether there are any changes to the ESCD and/or whether there could be any other reasons to conduct a surveillance audit. By latest 30 days prior to the scheduled forest management evaluation, the certificate holder should inform the certification body on the nature of any changes to the ESCD.

For any verified ecosystem services impact, an ecosystem services claim can be used.

A separate approval is required when an FM, FM/COC or COC certificate holder or Promotional Licence holder uses FSC trademarks to promote ecosystem services claims (see FAQ 5).

Certification bodies will also need to verify the passage of ecosystem services claims along the supply chain through sales and/or delivery documents.

There are different potential uses and users of the FSC trademarks in association with ecosystem services claims as explained in Part IV of the FSC-PRO-30-006 Ecosystem Services Procedure: Impact Demonstration and Market Tools.

Forest managers that have an ecosystem services claim for the forest under their management may want to promote this via a news item or a video on their website or via other communication channels.

FSC chain of custody (CoC) certificate holders may want to promote forest products that carry an FSC Ecosystem Services Claim. CoC certificate holders and non-certificate holders alike may be involved as a financial sponsor of ecosystem services and as such may want to communicate about their support for the maintenance/conservation or restoration/enhancement of the ecosystem service.

Whether certificate holder or not, retailers and other organisations may also want to promote FSC 100% products that carry an  FSC Ecosystem Services Claim.

Buyers and sellers of external assets (e.g. carbon credits) that carry an ecosystem services claim or the registries listing such assets may also want to promote these assets with an FSC ecosystem services claim. These buyers may be CoC certificate holders or non-certificate holders.

The users of the FSC trademarks in association with ecosystem services claims will propose the content for the promotion of ecosystem services claims.

The approval for the use of FSC trademarks in association with ecosystem services claims is done by:

• Forest management accredited certification bodies for forest management certificate holders
• Chain of custody accredited certification bodies for CoC certificate holders
• FSC trademark service providers for non-certificate holders (use of the FSC trademark requires a promotional licence)

Part IV of the FSC-PRO-30-006 as well as section 7 and Annex 1 of the FSC Trademark Use Guide for Promotional Licence Holders provides examples of wording that can be used to promote ecosystem services claims. It is important that any embellishments of ecosystem services claims (for example when story-telling is used) are based on facts included in the publicly available ecosystem services certification document (ESCD). 

FSC trademark use by FSC certificate holders shall be in compliance with FSC-STD-50-001.

Ecosystem services evaluations follow the existing normative requirement around group certification for forest management certification.

FSC-STD-30-005, clause 3.4 states that “The Group entity or the certification body shall evaluate every applicant for membership of
the Group and ensure that there are no major nonconformities with applicable requirements of the Forest Stewardship Standard, and
with any additional requirements for membership of the Group, prior to being granted membership of the Group.”

FSC-STD-20-007, clause 6.3.5 states that “The number of FMUs to be visited in a surveillance evaluation of forest management groups shall be determined according to Annex 1. If new FMUs (e.g. group members or newly acquired FMUs) have been added to the scope of the certificate since the main evaluation, the new FMUs shall be sampled at the rate of a main evaluation”.

This means that group managers can add new members to the group without the immediate need of a certification body to evaluate compliance, as long as the certification body is confident that the procedures and internal control systems provide sufficient safeguards for a credible expansion of the group.

Certification bodies can use the same sampling approach to select group member for the evaluation of ecosystem services, in line with Annex 1 of FSC-STD-20-001. When ecosystem services is part of the scope of an evaluation, this should be an additional factor to weigh in on the decision what members and sites to include and to visit during the evaluation.

It should be one ESCD per ecosystem service for a Certification Holder (CH) (see clause 1.5.2 FSC-PRO-30-006) where a CH could include multiple Management Units (MUs), e.g. in case of group certification.
This means that if all group members pursue positive impacts on the same ecosystem services (e.g. all members want to demonstrate positive impact of their management activities on watershed services), are under the same management and the same methodology is used to measure certain outcome indicators, then one ESCD per ecosystem service is sufficient. If, however, every member is pursuing to demonstrate a positive impact on a different ecosystem services (one member wants to demonstrate positive impacts on carbon, another on biodiversity, a third on recreational services), then there will be separate ESCDs.

In practice, it may be easier i.e. clearer to develop one ESCD per impact (even if multiple impacts within an ESCD are possible, e.g.
multiple biodiversity impacts demonstrated for a CH). 

(Refer to: FSC-PRO-30-006, Ecosystem Services Procedure: Impact Demonstration and Market Tools, clause 1.4 and 1.5.2)

Some of the ecosystem services impacts can be validated/verified for a part of the management unit, whereas for others the impact needs to be demonstrated for the entire management unit. Annex B of the FSC Ecosystem Services Procedure stipulates per claim what is needed in terms of scope and monitoring). Please see the required outcome indicator(s) and the required result (Refer to: FSC-PRO-30-006 Ecosystem Services Procedure: Impact Demonstration and Market Tools, Annex B) and when there is a statement ‘on management unit’, the scope is the entire management unit. For example for ES2: Carbon sequestration and storage (see figure).

And shall/should the ecosystem services claim and any promotional statements/communication be also updated/changed?

Events outside of the Organization’s control are part of the contextual factors that may influence whether or not the outcome and impact is achieved (see box 1 and clause 6.5 of FSC-PRO-30-006 Ecosystem Services Procedure: Impact Demonstration and Market Tools).
In case a natural disturbance, for example forest fire, negatively influences the ecosystem services to the extent that one can no longer proof there is conservation or maintenance of that ecosystem service, the Organization loses the ecosystem services claim including the rights to use the FSC trademarks to promote that conservation/maintenance claim. However, the Organization can restore the damage done by the external event and pursue a restoration impact on that same ecosystem service. This entails a revision of the ESCD, including the Theory of Change, and the Organization may start with a validation of the restoration impact. As soon as the restoration impact is verified, the Organization will be able to use the FSC trademark in communicating about restored ecosystem service.

The validation goes until the next ecosystem service evaluation, so it would be maximum in 5 years.