**7. SFM and forest certification in the private sector**

During the same period the aforementioned efforts were being promoted by the government, the Galician private forest sector was under growing pressure to demonstrate SFM and due diligence with respect to legal source procurement. The growing importance of certification in the forest product marketplace and legislative initiatives such as European Regulation (EC) No 1024/2008 (European Commission, 2008), (EU) No 995/2010 (European Parliament, 2010) or Spanish Order Pre/116/2008, (Government of Spain, 2008), have been instrumental in increasing pressure on the private sector in this respect. In addition, the global economic downturn that followed the collapse of major US financial institutions significantly reduced demand for forest products (UNECE/FAO, 2010). SFM, previously considered by many players as a "tool for reaching new markets", suddenly turned into something "compulsory for maintaining declining core markets".

Despite growing pressures, forest certification schemes have not been very effectively implemented in Spanish forestry in general and in Galician forestry in particular. The share of certified area in Galicia is far below that of most of European countries, as is shown in Figure 2. In 2009, 9% of European forests were certified under PEFC or FSC, but if the Russian Federation is not included then this figure rises to an average of 46%, with several major wood-producing countries having certification rates of 60% or higher.

Fig. 2. Share of Forest Area under SFM certification in different European countries in 2009. Sources PEFC (2011), FSC (2011), FAO (2009). Note that due to difficulties in cross checking the FSC and PEFC databases, areas certified under both schemes are counted twice.

Sustainable Forest Management in Galicia (Spain): Lessons Learned 231

Fig. 4. Evolution 2001-2011 of certified forest area by management type and scheme. Source: Calculated from certificate public reports in registries of certification schemes. PEFC (2011),

However, in the past five years, some of the Galician forest industry has been making significant investments in Chain-of-Custody certification. From indications provided by PEFC (2011), FSC (2011) and Monte Industria et al (2008a), there is a currently a potential annual demand for 3.5 million m3 of certified roundwood in Galicia alone, regardless if it is PEFC or FSC certified. In addition, the industry in neighboring regions (mainly Asturias and Portugal) would demand close to an additional million m3 from Galician forests. According to calculations based on public statistics on timber sales (Xunta de Galicia, 2010) and public reports on certified companies registered in PEFC (2011) and FSC (2011), as of 2009, forests in Galicia only produced approximately 275,000 m3 of PEFC-certified production, while no certified production at all came from FSC-certified forests. As well, it should be recognized that there a large number of small forest contractors that buy standing timber but do not have Chain-of-Custody certification. This means that some of the timber that was purchased from certified forests by such contractors lost its certification on its way to sawmills, woodbased panel factories or pulp mills. According to the summaries of certified timber auctions in public managed forests published by Xunta de Galicia (2010), this would have further

The overall situation regarding difficulties in implement forest certification schemes may also be due to the slow and incomplete progress in the implementation of the proposed SFM strategy in Galicia. Ambrosio (2006) refers to complaints by the private sector about the lack of speed of the region's forest administration in formulating strategies, policies, processes or cost-effective methods aimed at helping the private forestry sector adopt principles of SFM

reduced the supply of certified timber to industry by 60%.

and certify its performance under internationally recognized schemes.

FSC (2011),

As of 2011, only 6.9% of the forest land in Galicia was certified under internationally recognized schemes. Regarding the type of certification scheme, 97% of the certified area is PEFC-certified and only 3% FSC-Certified. In Figure 3, contrary to what would be normally expected for region where a small private ownership predominates, it can be stated that despite some group and regional initiatives being recently launched, individual certification is most common (72%). This is probably due to the fact that 62% of the certified area is managed by DXM (Figure 4) and 10% by industries, while certification processes and SFM initiatives have not been implemented in areas managed by small private non industrial owners.

Fig. 3. Evolution 2001-2011 of certified forest area by scheme and type in Galicia. Source: Calculated from certificates public reports in registries of certification schemes. PEFC (2011), FSC (2011),

There are several possible reasons of the slow pace of forest certification in Galicia. Some authors, such as Ambrosio (2006), for example, postulate that the small size of private forest holdings implies relatively huge certification implementation and auditing costs. As well, such an ownership pattern implies significant traceability costs. For example, in 2010 there were more that 33.000 timber harvesting operations with an average of only 210 m3 obtained from each harvest (Monte Industria, 2010a).

Beyond the matter of scale, Picos (2009) suggests that the requirements of the PEFC and FSC are more stringent than those of forest certification schemes in place in other woodproducing countries. This fact represents a commercial disadvantage to industries that depend upon the local Galician wood supply. Local certified wood cannot compete with imported products on price, quantity or certainty of continuous supply. The paradox is that this situation favors operations audited according to less stringent standards and more distant suppliers, thereby requiring more long distance transport.

As of 2011, only 6.9% of the forest land in Galicia was certified under internationally recognized schemes. Regarding the type of certification scheme, 97% of the certified area is PEFC-certified and only 3% FSC-Certified. In Figure 3, contrary to what would be normally expected for region where a small private ownership predominates, it can be stated that despite some group and regional initiatives being recently launched, individual certification is most common (72%). This is probably due to the fact that 62% of the certified area is managed by DXM (Figure 4) and 10% by industries, while certification processes and SFM initiatives have not been implemented in areas managed by small private non industrial

Fig. 3. Evolution 2001-2011 of certified forest area by scheme and type in Galicia. Source: Calculated from certificates public reports in registries of certification schemes. PEFC (2011),

There are several possible reasons of the slow pace of forest certification in Galicia. Some authors, such as Ambrosio (2006), for example, postulate that the small size of private forest holdings implies relatively huge certification implementation and auditing costs. As well, such an ownership pattern implies significant traceability costs. For example, in 2010 there were more that 33.000 timber harvesting operations with an average of only 210 m3 obtained

Beyond the matter of scale, Picos (2009) suggests that the requirements of the PEFC and FSC are more stringent than those of forest certification schemes in place in other woodproducing countries. This fact represents a commercial disadvantage to industries that depend upon the local Galician wood supply. Local certified wood cannot compete with imported products on price, quantity or certainty of continuous supply. The paradox is that this situation favors operations audited according to less stringent standards and more

owners.

FSC (2011),

from each harvest (Monte Industria, 2010a).

distant suppliers, thereby requiring more long distance transport.

Fig. 4. Evolution 2001-2011 of certified forest area by management type and scheme. Source: Calculated from certificate public reports in registries of certification schemes. PEFC (2011), FSC (2011),

However, in the past five years, some of the Galician forest industry has been making significant investments in Chain-of-Custody certification. From indications provided by PEFC (2011), FSC (2011) and Monte Industria et al (2008a), there is a currently a potential annual demand for 3.5 million m3 of certified roundwood in Galicia alone, regardless if it is PEFC or FSC certified. In addition, the industry in neighboring regions (mainly Asturias and Portugal) would demand close to an additional million m3 from Galician forests. According to calculations based on public statistics on timber sales (Xunta de Galicia, 2010) and public reports on certified companies registered in PEFC (2011) and FSC (2011), as of 2009, forests in Galicia only produced approximately 275,000 m3 of PEFC-certified production, while no certified production at all came from FSC-certified forests. As well, it should be recognized that there a large number of small forest contractors that buy standing timber but do not have Chain-of-Custody certification. This means that some of the timber that was purchased from certified forests by such contractors lost its certification on its way to sawmills, woodbased panel factories or pulp mills. According to the summaries of certified timber auctions in public managed forests published by Xunta de Galicia (2010), this would have further reduced the supply of certified timber to industry by 60%.

The overall situation regarding difficulties in implement forest certification schemes may also be due to the slow and incomplete progress in the implementation of the proposed SFM strategy in Galicia. Ambrosio (2006) refers to complaints by the private sector about the lack of speed of the region's forest administration in formulating strategies, policies, processes or cost-effective methods aimed at helping the private forestry sector adopt principles of SFM and certify its performance under internationally recognized schemes.

Sustainable Forest Management in Galicia (Spain): Lessons Learned 233

the regional government, the provincial government and the 315 local municipalities), all of which could lead to confusion and problems, the authors believe that it is the lack of clarity regarding the roles of local municipalities, in particular, that impeded the implementation of the proposed strategy framework. For example, local municipalities regularly endorse plans, laws, decrees and regulations that regulate (ban or allow) harvesting operations, plantations and/or specific forest species in ways that contradict the Galician government's plans and laws. On the other hand, there is resistance at higher levels of government to the creation of district SFM committees for SFM due to fears that some local representatives may use these committees to advance political platforms or pressure the government for funding that is not related to SFM objectives. Therefore, before undertaking this process, the roles and responsibilities of the various levels of government (and the reasons for these as they relate to critical competencies with respect to SFM decision-making) should have been clarified and made explicit in a legal framework – preferably one that would advance sustainable

**Lesson Three – Legislative Support:** Given the legislative changes required to ensure advancement of such a significant and politically sensitive initiative, it is necessary to receive full political support by the government in power right from the beginning of the process, and continuing support over the implementation period. Unfortunately, the large number of significant actions required to implement the strategy meant that inadequate progress was made before the elections of 2005, when there was a change in the Galician government, at which time the new government had to be educated regarding the strategy framework and the details of its proposed implementation. While progress continued to be made, it was slow and was then again slowed when another new government was elected in 2009. For these reasons, we believe that it would have been advisable to begin the strategy development and implementation process at the beginning of a political mandate and obtain broad political support so that any changes in

**Lesson Four – Operational Priorities and Organizational Gaps:** There are practical problems that impeded the DXM from making a sustained effort to manage and control the continued development and implementation of the new SFM strategy. The DXM has two main responsibilities: to develop and implement forest policies, and to prevent and fight forest fires. The principal forest stakeholders have persistently claimed (Monte Industria et al., 2008a; Monte Industria 2010b; Picos, 2010b) - that 95% of the time of a district director is taken up with organizing and managing forest fire fighting brigades during fire season, while forest services company associations have complained that all the technical staff of forest districts are fully occupied with fire detection and fire-fighting responsibilities from at least July 1st to September 30th, and in bad weather conditions the main fire season period

While these complaints may be somewhat exaggerated, it must be recognized that the individuals and units tasked with implementing forest management practices at the district level are preoccupied with fire prevention and fighting for up to six months of the year. This significantly reduces the time and attention they have available for overseeing the implementation of new forest management strategies. It should be recalled that, within the

a. control and monitor the degree of accomplishment of means proposed in District plans; b. provide information and guidance to landowners and forest managers about regarding

district and regional priorities, funding applications, BMPs, SMs and so on;

proposed strategy (and generally), district-level staff are expected to:

management and reduce political manipulation.

government would be less likely to impede progress.

may be further lengthened significantly.

Concerned by the situation regarding Forest and Chain-of-Custody certification, in 2009 the Galician forest industry, in cooperation with some forest owners associations, founded a Forest Certification and Chain-of-Custody Group, (Grupo Galego de Certificación Forestal e Cadea de Custodia or CFCCGA) aimed at achieving certification for small forest owners (under PEFC and/or FSC) and designing a due-diligence system that would comply with the imminent introduction of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1024/2008. According to CFCCGA (2009a), in less than two years, more than 4,500 forest holdings (with an average size of 0.7 ha) have joined the group, making this initiative the first and only one to date which has been able to implement forest certification for small forest owners in Galicia. The aims and actions of this group are relevant to this paper because they can be seen as an attempt by a stressed private sector to take more responsibility for and ownership of broad SFM initiatives despite the fact that the SFM strategy framework developed by DXM has not been fully implemented. It is notable that some of the tools and processes developed by this group, namely Grouped Management Plans (Picos, 2010a), Best Management Practice codes (CFCCGA, 2009b) and Silvicultural Models for major forest species (CFCCGA, 2009b), are quite similar to the FDMPs, BMPs and SMs proposed in the Sustainable Forest Management Framework for Galicia.
