Diplomacy in the Forest: Lessons from the British Certification System

This article is based on our podcast episode released on 27th February 2025. [Listen to the full episode here]

In episode #20 of Foresting Tomorrow, we spoke with two key figures in forestry certification: Ben Gunneberg (UKWAS Chair) and Peter Wilson (UKWAS Working Group Chair).

Peter Wilson, former head of the Timber Growers Association, and Ben Gunneberg, ex-PEFC chief who helped certify 300 million hectares globally, now lead UKWAS together. 

Together, they have shaped how forest certification has evolved from a contentious issue to an accepted practice in forest management. Both remain active in the Institute of Chartered Foresters and other key forestry organisations.
‍

From Conflict to Collaboration: The UKWAS Model

British forestry has transformed significantly over time. From just 3-5% forest cover after the First World War, the UK now has 13.5%, and this number continues to grow. As we explored in a previous article, this shift has been driven by deliberate reforestation efforts, particularly in Scotland. However, ensuring sustainable forest management has not been without challenges.

In the 1990s, forest owners and environmental groups were often in direct conflict. Peter described it as “trench warfare.” The breakthrough came in 1997 when the Forestry Commission stepped in and established a technical working group, leading to the launch of the UK Woodland Assurance Standard (UKWAS) in 1999.

UKWAS stands apart from other certification attempts due to its consensus model. As Peter puts it: “Consensus means no sustained opposition. In practice, it means everyone has a veto.” This structure ensures that all stakeholders feel their concerns are genuinely addressed.

A key point that emerged in our conversation is that UKWAS is not a certification scheme itself but a standard-setting body. It was first endorsed by FSC before later gaining recognition from PEFC – an order that helped establish its credibility among different stakeholder groups.
‍

Building Strong Systems and Facing New Challenges

Similar projects in Norway and Sweden initially gained traction. In Norway, the Living Forest Standard successfully set a national framework in 1998, and in Sweden, the StockDAV initiative sought to harmonise FSC and PEFC standards. However, over time, unresolved disagreements led to separate certification systems in both countries – unlike UKWAS, which has maintained stakeholder consensus.

Ben explains why this matters: “UKWAS has succeeded by maintaining stakeholder consensus and securing ongoing endorsement from both FSC and PEFC.”

This success comes not just from having a strong standard but from building a robust structure. In 2002, UKWAS was established as a not-for-profit company, later formalising agreements with both FSC UK and PEFC UK. This approach has enabled UKWAS to adapt to evolving certification requirements and legislation over the years.

As we discovered in our previous investigation of UK forestry, UKWAS offers a practical advantage. While Danish forest owners need to go through separate audits for FSC and PEFC, UK forest owners only need a single audit to a single standard. Although they still receive two separate certificates when dual certified, the process is streamlined, reducing complexity without compromising standards.
‍

The Evolution of UKWAS and Current Challenges

Peter walked us through the evolution of UKWAS across its five versions:

"The first edition was primarily driven by environmental concerns. Over time, the focus expanded to include carbon and the historic environment.”

However, UKWAS now faces significant challenges. The latest update, UKWAS 5, has been delayed due to slow approval from FSC. While PEFC has already implemented the standard, FSC might not approve it until 2026.

Peter shares his frustration: "The FSC's timetable for completing its assessment of our draft standard is 2026. It's very disappointing for all concerned." This misalignment means the two systems are currently out of sync – an issue that Peter believes might only be resolved by 2031.
‍

Lessons for Other Countries

An interesting part of our discussion focused on whether other countries have tried to replicate the UKWAS model. While attempts have been made in places like Norway and Sweden, none have matched UKWAS in longevity or dual endorsement.

Ben and Peter highlighted that the failure of other initiatives often stemmed from stakeholder disagreements. In contrast, UKWAS has succeeded by maintaining an inclusive, consensus-based approach.
‍

Future Perspectives and Global Implications

Looking ahead, our conversation raised questions about the future of certification as legal regulations become more significant.

Peter wonders: "Will certification as we know it endure, or is it just a transitional system as we move toward frameworks like the EUDR and the UK's forest risk commodity regulation?"

Despite the uncertainties, UKWAS has delivered tangible results. Peter shares: "We have 44% of UK forests certified, most of them with dual certification."

However, certification still faces global challenges. As Ben points out: "We were once at 13% of the global forest area certified. That figure has now dropped to 9% when considering dual certifications between FSC and PEFC."

UKWAS proves that structured dialogue and mutual respect can create lasting solutions – an approach that may be key to future sustainability efforts.

Want to hear the full conversation? Tune in to our podcast here.

‍