Frequently Asked Questions: Remedy Process

FSC approves Third Party Verifiers for each remedy case. Applicants must demonstrate their qualifications and expertise and complete the FSC conflict of interest declaration form. If they are selected for the case, they sign a legal contract ensuring no conflicts of interest and agree to keep FSC apprised of any emerging conflicts during the contract. The FSC Remedy Framework also specifies that the Third Party Verifier and certification body are separate entities prior to the certification stage, i.e. when carrying out remedy.

When expressing interest to be considered by FSC as an Independent Assessor or Third Party Verifiers and enter the pool of experts the organization must submit a conflict of interest declaration for their organization which is reviewed by FSC for financial, managerial, familial, or mission related conflicts.  After an organization is admitted to the pool of experts, it must submit a conflict of interest declaration form for each member of the proposed team that will be working on a specific case before being contracted as an Independent Assessor or Third Party Verifier.

Remedy clients (companies), Independent Assessors (IA), and Third Party Verifiers (TPV) must conform to the requirements of the FSC Remedy Framework for a remedy process to be successful and lead to ending disassociation and/or certification. This includes the extensive requirements for stakeholder and right holder involvement The actions of the remedy client and independent assessor are verified by the Third Party Verifier. 
Despite the uniform requirements, there is some flexibility in how the some of requirements are implemented. For example, depending on the landscape and scope of environmental and social harm, the methodologies for carrying out social and baseline assessments can vary. In cases involving disassociated companies, these methodologies must be verified by the Third Party Verifier. Variations in methodologies may include when and how the Independent Assessors approach stakeholders and rightsholders. Examples of this may include: 

• Carrying out preliminary parts of the assessments using desktop research.
• Carrying out preliminary assessments using GIS technology before making field visits.
• Timing of field visits.
• Methodology for consulting stakeholders and rightsholders.
• The use of multiple contracted entities to divide the assessment of areas in diverse geographic and cultural areas.

It would be expected that the TPV would verify reasonable methodologies, while inadequate methodologies that do not conform with the requirements of the FSC Remedy Framework would not be verified. There would be an opportunity for the IA to correct this before being submitted again for verification to the TPV. 
There is some flexibility, but not total flexibility, as to exactly when the TPV can conduct verification and how the verification deliverables are grouped. If there are affected rights holders present in connection with the remedy process, FPIC rights must be verified before the process can move forward at certain stages. It is also logical that the baseline assessments must be verified before the concept note is verified, and in turn, the concept note must be verified before the Remedy Plan is verified. 

There is specific information which must be made publicly available by the corporate group that is implementing the remedy process. The FSC Remedy Framework includes these reporting requirements. There are also requirements that the company must follow and agree to in a Memorandum of Understanding with FSC which limit what information the organization can share and how they can share it.

There is no one specific timeline for implementing the FSC Remedy Framework. The environmental and social harm that the organization is responsible for remedying can vary widely, as can the ecosystem in which the harm took place. The Remedy Plan includes a participatory process to select remedy actions, set indicators for success, and set timelines. The FSC Remedy Framework sets thresholds for when the organization can apply for association and/or certification. 
In general, cases involving remedying according to the core and additional requirements will take longer than cases involving remedying according just to the core requirements. The initial Memorandum of Understanding between FSC and the organization lasts at least two years, but it would be expected to renew this agreement multiple times. Progress is monitored in various ways according to the requirements of the FSC Remedy Framework. This includes by the organization itself, by participatory processes with stakeholders and rightsholders, and by the Third Party Verifier.

FSC does not play a role in the planning or implementation of consultations and engagement activities with stakeholders and rightsholders according to the requirements pertaining to stakeholder consultation and engagement activities are outlined in the FSC Remedy Framework. The onus of fulfilling these requirements lies with the remedy client. Stakeholder consultation is an integral part of every remedy process and Third Party Verifiers are required to check if the required consultation and engagement activities have been carried out by the remedy client.

Verification of FPIC-based processes as a part of the identification of parties includes the requirements found in Section 8 of Chapter 3 (clauses 8.1 to 8.3) of the FSC Remedy Framework. Once the identification of parties is completed, the verification of FPIC-based engagement with affected rights holders must take place. The identification of affected rights holders is likely to be an iterative process in complex cases, thus identification of parties may not be completed until mapping and identification of harms have been carried out.

There are various ways for stakeholders to express disagreement with remedy decisions. The establishment of a grievance mechanism is open to affected stakeholders and their representatives. The grievance mechanism establishes a process through which grievances concerning business-related human rights abuse can be raised and remedy can be sought, following the criteria outlined in the UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (legitimate, accessible, predictability, equitable, transparency, rights compatible, continuous learning, engagement and dialogue).
There are also requirements in the FSC Remedy Framework about how stakeholders and rightsholders must be consulted and how it must be verified that they are in agreement with the remedy process. Feedback about disagreement could be given at those points. 
The FSC Remedy Framework also specifies that the FSC Dispute Resolution System may be used by stakeholders or other parties if they disagree with the findings or decisions of the Third Party Verifier.

Each remedy client is responsible for managing the grievance mechanism for their respective remedy process. The information regarding the grievance mechanism of each remedy process is available on the respective remedy case page, which can be found on FSC’s website here. Each remedy client also provides a link to directly access the remedy process grievance mechanism on their websites.