Ex-FSC head: ‘You can’t run a global NGO on ideals alone’

Heiko Liedeker pulled the Forest Stewardship Council back from the brink of collapse. Today, the former Executive Director says the organisation must fix its governance, make its approaches, systems and norms fit for purpose and future success, develop systematic measures to monitor performance, learn to communicate its value to the world, and rebuild trust with its members, global networks and constituents.

“I came to FSC when it was in a precarious state with less than two months’ life left,” he recalls. “Major donors — Ford Foundation, Wallace Global Fund, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, WWF and others — understood and helped to get the organisation back on the road. We revised the standard-setting systems, the accreditation systems, built business models that still contribute to FSC today, and began to reorganise decentralised operations. The FSC A.C. remained in Oaxaca, Mexico, but all operations were legally separated and moved to Germany — a more strategic location to guide, govern and manage FSC’s global operations and networks.”

“The FSC was built on political correctness, but political correctness doesn’t compensate for competence.”

When Liedeker left in 2008, FSC had gone from near bankruptcy to stability. “FSC needed competent business and management models as strong, stable and resilient foundations for its operations to deliver towards the expectations of FSC’s members, network partners and constituents,” he says.

Democracy without direction

In Liedeker’s view, the current governance systems have room for improvement. FSC must strengthen its ability to act decisively, ensure equitable and meaningful engagement of its members, network partners and constituents, and effectively supervise implementation of its systems and decentralised global networks.

“We’re seeing in many ways vulnerability to the same problems I saw 20 years ago,” he says. “There seems to be a lack of trust in FSC’s professional teams. Today FSC is drowning its members and constituents with all sorts of technical detail and operational information, but transparency about information to, decision-making by, and accountability of the FSC Board of Directors and/or FSC’s professional executives has decreased — and is often absent.”

“I always believed FSC needs equitable grassroots democracy, engagement and representation, supported by professional experience and competence. Good governance is fundamental to building stability and resilience. It enables effective supervision of FSC’s global network in delivering towards the social, environmental and economic expectations of its members and constituents.”

Integrity under pressure

For Liedeker, the deeper problem is credibility. “Governance and integrity are two sides of the same coin,” he says. “Without effective governance, you can’t maintain control, integrity and accountability.”

He calls for a risk-based approach to auditing and accountability.

“If a small forest owner in Denmark has five hectares and adds very little risk to FSC’s systems overall, the operation doesn’t need to be audited every year,” he says. “But if a multinational operates in ten countries, with huge product scope and quantities, its operations may potentially add a lot of risk to FSC’s systems. If something goes wrong, it can become a disaster for FSC’s reputation and its constituents rather quickly. Such operations need to be audited as needed to mitigate the associated risk.”

He is equally critical of the system’s failure to control the flow of certified material. “We’ve been talking about volume control for years,” he says. “Without it, you don’t know how much certified wood enters or leaves the value chain. It’s basic integrity, but there seems to be reluctance to implement it.”

Liedeker also believes FSC needs to know more about its own impact.

“We don’t have the metrics,” he says. “We don’t know enough about how well our approaches, norms and systems are performing — or what the social, economic and ecological effects of implementing our norms, systems and certification are. Are we really improving forest stewardship or just creating a bureaucratic ritual? Performance must be more than a hypothesis — it must be based on hard factual evidence. FSC’s current move towards outcome-oriented systems is an excellent first step in the right direction.”

Losing the narrative

“FSC is a global brand with extraordinary potential. It depends 100% on communication — and right now, it seems to be failing to convincingly tell its own story,” he says.

“Few people outside the system understand what FSC does and why it matters. Moreover, it seems that FSC is beginning to lose support, commitment and engagement among its supporters and constituents. The organisation often talks to itself — endless discussions, consultations, motions and technical language. Members, network partners and constituents seem increasingly unable to follow and engage with the enormous scope, quantity and complexity of technical detail and operational information disseminated by FSC.”

“Communication is not about what FSC wants to tell — but about what the audience understands, takes home and engages with. It’s not the quantity or detail that matters in communication, but the relevance, quality, integrity and credibility that inspire members, network partners and constituents to engage with and follow FSC’s lead. Communication connects integrity with impact, engagement and accountability,” he says. “FSC has to show the world what it is achieving and that its work matters — otherwise credibility, engagement and support die in silence.”

Relevance or redundancy?

Still, Liedeker remains proud of what FSC has built over the years.

“I’m very happy that FSC is a relevant global organisation,” he says. “It grew enormously, it professionalised, and it built the infrastructure it needed. But it must now decide which way to go into a successful future and professionalise once again — in governance, in communication, and in proving that its impact is more than a theory but makes a difference in the real world. It is all about making FSC fit for a successful future and mobilising its enormous technical and political potential.”