DOUG KNEELAND
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
TAGE MICHAELSEN
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Forests were among the most controversial issues during the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
The 1980 forest resources assessment had shown that most deforestation was taking place in tropical forests. This led to a number of initiatives, including the Tropical Forests Action Programme (TFAP) during the 1980s. By 1990 when the two-year preparatory process for UNCED started, tropical countries were becoming weary of being singled out, and launched a counter-offensive aiming at moving the debate from only tropical forests to "all types of forests" and to the recognition of national sovereignty over natural resources.
The "spirit of confrontation" over forests prevailing at UNCED did not allow for agreements beyond Chapter 11 of Agenda 21 "Combating deforestation" and the "Non-legally binding authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests".
By contrast, the period following UNCED became a time of confidence building. The governments of Malaysia and Canada, who had been on opposite sides of the deliberations at UNCED, launched a joint initiative to re-start the intergovernmental policy dialogue on forests.
The post-Rio period also saw the birth of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) with a multi-year programme of work on the follow-up to the many chapters of Agenda 21. Within CSD's multi-year programme of work, Chapter 11, i.e. forests were on the agenda for the first time in 1995.
Even before the CSD met at its third session in April 1995, it had become clear, however, that the issues related to forests were far too complex and politically sensitive to be adequately dealt with in the course of a single regular session of the CSD lasting only a maximum of three weeks and with several other chapters and cross-sectoral issues on the agenda.
During the intersessional meeting in preparation for CSD 3, held in New York in February 1995, it was therefore proposed that CSD 3 should create an intergovernmental panel on forests, under its aegis. Subsequently, the CSD, at its third session in April 1995, created the ad hoc, open-ended Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) with a two-year mandate.
The IPF was charged with a wide-ranging programme of work clustered into five categories of issues summarized as follows:
- implementation of forest-related decisions of
UNCED;
- finance and transfer of technology;
- research, assessment and
criteria and indicators;
- trade and environment;
- international organizations and instruments.
The IPF held four regular sessions, supported by a large number of international meetings of experts.
The final report of the IPF contains over 130 negotiated proposals for action covering the full spectrum of the programme of work of the Panel. Consensus was reached on a number of important issues, including, national forest programmes, forest resources assessments, criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, etc.
The Panel, however, could not reach agreement on a few critical issues, including finance, transfer of technology and a legally binding instrument on all types of forests.
Both CSD 5 and the 19th Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGASS), held in June 1997, endorsed the IPF's proposals for action and called for their immediate implementation. However, in view of the outstanding issues, UNGASS recommended the establishment of an intergovernmental forum on forests to promote the implementation of IPF's proposals for action and deal with outstanding issues.
The open-ended, ad hoc Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) held its first organizational meeting in October 1997 and agreed on a programme of work clustered into three categories summarized as follows:
- promote the implementation of the IPF's proposals for action;
- matters left pending from the IPF process;
- international arrangements and mechanisms.
The IFF, in addition to promote the implementation of IPF's proposals for action, itself produced over 100 proposals. Among these were the recommendations on an international arrangement on forests, including the establishment of a permanent United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) and an invitation to heads of international organizations to form a collaborative partnership on forests (CPF) based on the informal, high-level Interagency Task Force on Forests (ITFF) which had coordinated the support provided to the IPF/IFF processes by international organizations.
The recommendations of the IFF were reflected in Resolution E/2000/35 of ECOSOC dated 18 October formally establishing the UNFF as a subsidiary body of ECOSOC.
The UNFF held its first, organizational, meeting in New York on 12 February 2001. The first substantive meeting is scheduled to take place in June 2001 to discuss the first five-year multi-year programme of work (MYPOW) of the Forum, and the preparation of a plan of action (PA) for the implementation of IPF/IFF proposals for action.
In the meantime, members of the ITFF, chaired by FAO, are taking steps towards the establishment of the CPF.
There is high degree of consensus among all parties that the next five years should be dedicated to the implementation of the IPF/IFF proposals for action.
The question of a legally binding instrument on all types of forests, however, remains as an important and politically sensitive issue. The IFF during a long final night of negotiations, among other things, reached agreement on the following compromise text for the UNFF: The Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly would, within five years, on the basis of an assessment of progress at the national, regional and global levels, "consider with a view to recommending the parameters of a mandate for developing a legal framework on all types of forests".
Following the establishment of the IPF in April 1995, an informal, high level Interagency Task Force on Forests (ITFF) was set up in Geneva in July 1995 to coordinate the inputs of international organizations to the forest policy process. FAO, being the task manager for Chapter 11 of Agenda 21, chairs the ITFF, which includes the following organizations:
- Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR);
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO);
-
International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO);
- Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD);
- United Nations Department for
Economic and Social Affairs (UN/DESA);
- United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP);
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); and
- World Bank.
Throughout the IPF/IFF process, ITFF members coordinated their support consisting of staff secondments to the Secretariat, preparation of Secretary-General's reports, and contributions to international meeting of experts organized by governments. An informal division of labour was established in which each organization took the lead for programme elements closest to its mandate and competence, e.g.:
- CIFOR: Forest research;
- FAO: National forest
programmes; forest assessments; criteria and indicators;
- ITTO: Trade and
sustainable forest management;
- CBD Secretariat: Traditional forest-related
knowledge;
- DESA: International organizations and mechanisms;
- UNDP:
Finance and transfer of technology;
- UNEP: Special need of countries with
low forest cover; underlying causes of deforestation;
- World Bank: Forest
valuation, economic instruments.
The valuable contributions made by the ITFF have been widely recognized and commended as an example of effective interagency collaboration. The IFF therefore recommended building on the ITFF and inviting heads of international organizations to form a collaborative partnership on forests (CPF). FAO has taken a lead role in the transition from ITFF to CPF by convening and chairing formal and informal meetings in Rome (October 2000), Bonn (November 2000), New York (February 2001) and Rome (April 2001).
During the last decade, forest issues have been negotiated by governments along three interrelated tracks:
- The first, which may be called the "sustainable forest management track", has focussed on the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests in a holistic, cohesive and comprehensive manner. This includes UNCED that formulated the "Forest Principles," Agenda 21, especially Chapter 11, as well as the IPF/IFF process.
- The second, which may be called the "international trade track", has focussed on setting the rules for international trade of commodities and services that also include forest products and services. There have been increasing demands that forest products and services should originate from sustainably managed forests. The "trade track" has also included the imposition of the so-called non-tariff trade barriers through environmental requirements for forest products.
- The third track may be called the "global environmental issues track". This includes global environmental issues, for example, biological diversity, climate change, combating desertification, wetlands, and international trade in endangered species, treated under CBD, FCCC, CCD, Ramsar and CITES.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Adoption: 5 May 1992; Entry into force: 29 December 1993. The fourth meeting of the Conference of Parties to the Convention in May 1998 adopted a programme of work for forest biological diversity to develop measures for enhancing the integration of conservation and the sustainable use of biological diversity into their national forest and land use programmes and forest-management systems. The programme is designed to identify traditional forest systems of conservation and sustainable use of forest biological diversity, and to promote the wider application, use and role of traditional forest-related knowledge.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). Adoption: 9 May 1992; Entry into force: 21 March 1994. The objective of the FCCC is to achieve a stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interferences with the climatic system. In order to operationalize the convention, 39 countries agreed at its third conference of parties in Kyoto in December 1997, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the first commitment period ( 2008-2012) by at least 5 percent, based on the emissions of the year 1990 (baseline) - the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol also introduced three so-called flexible mechanisms - Joint Implementation, the Clean Development Mechanism and Emission Trading.
The entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol of the FCCC could have great relevance for forests. It states that each Annex I Party (i.e. industrialized countries) shall, in achieving its quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment, implement and further elaborate policies and measures in accordance with national circumstances, such as the protection and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, taking into account its commitments under relevant international environmental agreements, the promotion of sustainable forest management practices, afforestation and reforestation (Art.2.2). Article 3.3 of the Protocol declares that the net changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting from direct human induced land use change and forestry activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation since 1990, measured as verifiable changes in carbon stocks in each commitments period, shall be used to meet the commitments under the article of each Party included in Annex I.
The inclusion or exclusion of forests as sinks is still under discussion among the parties to the Kyoto Protocol and is one of the as yet unsolved issues on the road towards its ratification.
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa (CCD). Adoption: 17 June 1994; Entry into force: 26 December 1996. At its first meeting, the Conference of Parties to the Convention established a global mechanism for promoting, mobilizing and rationalizing the transfer of financial and technological assistance, and collecting and disseminating information. The global mechanism offers an opportunity to raise financial assistance for forest-related projects. Another feature of the Convention is the provision for partnership arrangements. These agreements spell out the role of each partner, including donor agencies and governments, recipient governments and non-governmental organizations. They can be used for many different purposes, such as mobilizing financial resources, reorienting assistance mechanisms to fit the Convention's approach, making inventories of funding sources or developing new models of technological cooperation. They can also be used to include forest-related matters.
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention). Adoption: 2 February 1971; Entry into force: 21 December 1975 Forests are not of key importance in the Ramsar Convention and a more central role is not currently envisaged. However, the Eleventh World Forestry Congress, held in October 1997, recommended that Governments pay more attention to mangrove and coastal forest ecosystems. The Convention focuses strongly on conservation.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Adoption: 3 March 1973; Entry into force: 1 July 1975. The identification of timber species is of great relevance to forests. The Conference of Parties to the Convention, at its tenth meeting, decided that the Parties should determine whether national standard organizations have already developed agreed vernacular nomenclatures for timber species, and if so, should provide this information to the secretariat. A list of agreed scientific names and their agreed vernacular names should be provided to timber importers and agencies dealing with CITES enforcement and border inspections for such standardization to be useful. CITES, however, is only concerned with a limited amount of species, and the balance between economic and conservation interests is sometimes missing. The CITES focus on transnational trade and border controls is becoming more difficult to maintain with the current expansion of free trade areas.
UNCED in many ways laid the foundations for greatly increased stakeholder participation in intergovernmental processes. Environmental NGOs were particularly successful in influencing the outcomes of the Rio Conference including the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The CSD, as well as its Intergovernmental Panel and Forum on Forests, have further built on the experience at UNCED. All three bodies have accepted participation in their deliberations of organizations accredited to ECOSOC, and chairs and co-chairs have without exception stated that they welcome greater stakeholder participation from all major groups.
A number of the IPF/IFF proposals for action are addressed to the private sector. In general, however, the participation by the forest-related private sector in these negotiations has not been fully satisfactory. There are several reasons for this, including, possibly, the following:
- accreditation to ECOSOC is a long process, which can
take up to several years. This tends to favour international NGOs who were
actively engaged already at Rio;
- the private sector does not identify with
ECOSOC in the same manner as for example with the World Bank;
- there is
insufficient information provided by governments and the international community about the critical role of the private sector in achieving sustainable forest management.
Suggested links to further information:
www.un.org/esa/sustdev/forests.htm
www.iisd.ca/forestry/forest.html
CHRISTEL PALMBERG-LERCHE
FROYLÁN CASTAÑEDA
METTE WILKIE
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
This presentation gives a summarized review of the issue of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. Additional information, especially related to the various ongoing criteria and indicators processes, can be found in the FAO Forestry Department Information Note, which has been made available to the meeting.2
The concept of sustainable forest management, as presently widely agreed, includes economic, environmental, social and cultural dimensions. Action over the past decade has stimulated changes in forest policy and legislation in many countries.
In essence, the implementation of sustainable forest management means that there is, at all levels, from policy and decision-making level to the actual managers and the users of the forests, full acknowledgement of the range of values that forests provide - that is, recognition of their economic, environmental, social and cultural/spiritual dimensions. Put in another way, sustainability means that people at all levels, and in all stakeholder groups, care; that they are heard; that they are aware of these various dimensions; and that they respect each others values and viewpoints.
Neglecting any one of the dimensions of sustainability will lead to friction among interest groups and stakeholders. If practices are continued, such neglect will have a negative influence on all forest values, which are inter-linked; and, ultimately, it will lead to the degradation or outright destruction of the resource.
Although it is difficult to assess the area of forest under sustainable forest management, the information available seems to indicate a decisive global commitment to working toward it. On the ground, changes are occurring in management objectives and practices, and in the involvement of partners in planning and managing forests.
The findings in the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 indicated that 89 percent of forests in developed countries were being managed according to a formal or informal management plan. National statistics on forest management were not available from many or most developing countries. Preliminary results, however, indicated that about 6 percent of forests in developing countries were covered by a formal, nationally approved, forest management plan, spanning a period of at least five years.
Additional information is available in the State of the World's Forests 2000, in Annex 3 of the Data Tables contained in the Supplement to SOFO3. These tables provide available information, by country, on i.a. Area under Forest Management Plans, and on Forest Area Certified. The tables also make reference to the coverage, by country, of criteria and indicators processes for sustainable forest management.
In regard to the above, it must be emphasized that the total area reported to be subject to a formal or informal forest management plan, be it in developed or developing countries, is not necessarily equivalent to the total area of forest under sustainable forest management. Some areas covered by management plans may not actually be sustainably managed. Conversely, areas may be under sustainable forest management without the existence of a formal management plan.
Direct comparison between present-day and earlier estimates of the forest management status in both tropical and temperate/boreal regions is not possible due to differences in definitions used. It can, however, be said with some confidence that the areas under forest management have increased over the past decades in developing countries, while remaining fairly stable in industrialized countries.
Maybe the biggest victory today is that we are discussing how to manage forests everywhere in the world, not whether or not to do it, or whether or not it is possible.
We have a big challenge in front of us!
Criteria and indicators are tools which can be used to review status and to monitor trends towards sustainable forest management at national and forest unit levels, with a view to gradual improvement of prevailing practices.
Criteria define the concept of sustainable forest management and related values.
Indicators are used to measure and monitor status and trends in quantitative and qualitative attributes of each criterion.
Changes in indicators over time will help determine if a country is moving towards increased sustainability in forest management, as defined by the established criteria. It should be stressed that criteria and indicators refer to a time-series; by definition, related values or results cannot, as such, be compared among countries. On the other hand, forest certification - which is the subject of another presentation refers explicitly to agreed-upon minimum performance standards, which allow for comparisons between countries.
Monitoring changes over time using criteria and indicators, will help make policy decisions and to take corresponding action to improve the situation in regard to those indicators which point to a non-satisfactory situation or to undesirable or negative trends. The aim is to gradually improve forest management practices over time: looking to the future, based on evaluation of the present and drawing lessons from past experiences.
FAO, in capacity of lead UN agency in issues related to forests and forestry, in summary, offers the following support and services to member countries in relation to sustainable forest management4:
- provides a forum for discussion at policy and
technical levels;
- collates, analyses and disseminates information;
-
helps streamline concepts and terminology and, thus, comparability and
compatibility of information and data among countries; and
- provides institutional support and technical assistance, at request.
In relation to criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management and in its role as `focal point' for the issue in the post-UNCED international dialogue, FAO, more specifically:
- supports ongoing criteria and indicators
processes;
- catalyzes action in countries and regions not presently
involved;
- promotes comparability among processes (concepts, terms, field
level assessment, analysis, documentation);
- ensures information flow,
dialogue, exchange of experiences and know-how among processes;
- supports
countries in implementation, at request, including the development of assessment
methodologies and the analysis of information; and
- helps raise awareness at decision-making, policy and technical levels.
FAO's major collaborators in this field include national governments and, among international partners, notably: UNEP, ITTO, ATO, IUFRO and CIFOR. In addition, FAO has also collaborated with a range of other governmental and non-governmental agencies, including industry, academia and international environmental groups.
National action over the past ten years has been developed mainly within the framework of nine major intergovernmental processes: the ITTO, Pan-European, Montreal, Tarapoto/Amazon, Dry Zone Africa, Near East, Lepaterique/Central America, Dry Forest Africa, African Timber Organization initiatives5. Action underpinning research and promoting scientific soundness of approaches have been supported by IUFRO and CIFOR, and some other regional institutions (e.g. CATIE, Costa Rica).
Presently, some 150 countries formally adhere to one, or at times several, of these major criteria and indicators processes. However, the degree and advancement and implementation varies greatly among countries, both at policy and field level.
In general it can be said that the criteria are largely similar, or identical between the processes. Their number varies from six to eight. In regard to the indicators, while all processes have developed a number of identical or similar indicators, the original number of indicators at national level varies from 27 to 67.
Within the framework of many of the processes, countries are in the process of verifying the relevance of the indicators developed within regions or ecological regions, to national institutional, ecological and socio-economic conditions and needs. In this process, and in further field testing, the number of indicators which countries are able and willing to assess, measure and monitor, on a regular basis, is likely to decrease substantially.
An FAO/ITTO/UNEP/CIFOR/IUFRO Expert Consultation on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management was held in Rome in November 2000, just over five years after the first such meeting6, in which experts knowledgeable of the various processes and other related issues had a chance to get together, take stock of the situation, and discuss the way ahead.
The Expert Consultation:
- stressed the need to improve field level forest
management practices, worldwide;
- noted the similarity of the identified
criteria and a number of the indicators developed in the various international
processes; and
- noted the need to further clarify the relationship between criteria and indicators, performance standards and certification.
Based on the above, the Expert Consultation requested that FAO continue to strengthen support to international coordination, development and Implementation of criteria and indicators.
The Expert Consultation recommended that an international conference on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management be organized with broad stakeholder involvement. The need to adequately involve forest-related industry, private forest owners and other stakeholder groups, was highlighted.
It was suggested that such a Consultation discuss and help progress in:
- streamlining concepts and terms, and reporting;
- the sharing of know-how between countries which have advanced considerably and those which are still in the early stages of implementation; and
- reviewing ways to improve compatibility and comparability between the major forestry criteria and indicators processes, and between these and similar programmes in other but related sectors, such as biological diversity, desertification control and climate.
Plans for an international conference on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, on the lines mentioned earlier, are presently being developed.
The conference is tentatively planned to be organized in the first quarter of 2002. A number of national and international partners, notably ITTO, have already expressed willingness to collaborate to make such a meeting a success.
The conference will help raise awareness at all levels about the importance and the need to sustainably manage available forest resources. These resources are, by definition, renewable and, if correctly managed, will provide a range of goods and services in perpetuity.
The conference will facilitate and promote dialogue and understanding among different stakeholder groups and will, ultimately, lead to increased commitment and enthusiasm to further the implementation of sustainable forest management.
We would much appreciate comments and possible expression of support by colleagues present regarding the event.
JIM BOURKE
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Certification of forests and the associated labelling of forest products continues to be a high profile subject in the forestry sector. Despite the considerable attention it has been receiving, it remains a complex subject and there are still many controversial aspects to it. Currently a wide range of actions is under way concerning certification.
This paper provides a brief review of where certification stands at present, and what some of the important recent developments and issues are. Because of the complexity of the subject, the wide range of actions and views that exist, and the lack of strong agreement on many issues, the paper should be seen as an information note rather than a detailed analysis of the subject. It does not attempt to provide details on all individual certification efforts, nor of all the issues that exist, since these are continually changing. Its purpose is to provide a basis for more detailed discussion. Those wishing further details on certification are referred to the many papers, reports, and statements that are available.7
Despite the attention it is receiving, and the substantial promotion given it, certification is still in its infancy. Many certification schemes are being developed8, but only a small number are operational at present, and the volume of timber covered by them, while increasing, is minor. Part of the reason for the proliferation and the lack of overall agreement rests on the fact that the various groups involved have varying interests, values, circumstances, and opinions on what issues should be addressed, what its goals are, and what benefits it may have.
Among major importing countries, attention continues to be greatest in (and largely restricted to) Western Europe, especially the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands. Some areas and some major retailers in the United States of America are also showing increasing interest. Important markets in Asia (such as Japan and China) and Latin America (Brazil) are showing limited interest.
Most interest by the main exporting countries continues to be by those whose main export markets are European countries and to a lesser extent the United States of America, hence the effort that for example important exporters such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Canada, Finland and Sweden have put into developing national certification systems. Domestic consumers in most of these producer countries are not showing any, or only limited, interest in certified products. The attention of the main producers is thus largely because of the interest of some of their export markets, not of their own domestic consumers.
The most obvious sign of the growth in certification is the area of forests certified. Depending on how the term `area certified' is defined, the total global area of forests certified may presently be around 90 million ha.9 Notably, most forest areas certified are in a limited number of temperate countries, primarily in Europe and North America. Little is in tropical countries where deforestation and forest degradation is greatest. The total area certified, while growing rapidly, is therefore not extensive - it represents less than 3 percent of the world's forest area.
The area certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-accredited certifiers has continued to rise and currently stands at 22.2 million ha.10 Most of this area is in Europe and the United States of America. Sweden and Poland alone account for 61 percent of the total, and the United States of America another 13 percent.
The Pan European Forest Certification Scheme (PEFC) has become well established in Europe and is expanding rapidly. PEFC has been established to provide a framework for voluntary forest certification and a mechanism for mutual recognition between different national European systems. National PEFC governing bodies has been established in 15 European countries. Some 32 million ha which are certified to national certification systems are now covered by the PEFC process, with 21.9 million ha in Finland (95 percent of Finland's forest area); 5.6 million ha in Norway, 3.5 million ha in Germany and 1.3 million ha in Sweden under the national certification schemes.11
Some 39 million ha of forest land in Canada has been certified to the ISO 14001 standard. This standard indicates that the companies involved conform to the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System standard. It does not provide forest management certification but can be seen as a step towards gaining certification. Many of the Canadian companies involved are now working towards meeting the additional requirements to achieve the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) certification, which is an ISO-based system that adds, amongst other things, forest management performance requirements. Some 4.2 million ha of the 39 million ha have been certified to the CSA standard.12
The area covered by the American Forest and Papers Association's Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), by which its member companies commit themselves to move towards sustainable forestry, has continued to expand. While not a certification process, the principles and guidelines that companies commit themselves to are now being used as a basis for certification by independent bodies. Some 3 million ha of forest have been verified by third-party auditors and a reported 20 million ha are currently undergoing assessment. Some companies in Canada have also committed to the SFI system.
About 10 million ha have been certified under the American Forest Foundation's Tree Farm System.
An increasing number of large retail `do-it-yourself chains' in Europe and the United States of America, and some major house-builders in the United States of America have announced that they will favour certified wood products in the future. Buyers groups13 have expanded, with notable commitments recently from some large retailers in Brazil. Some of these have also now ceased to specify only FSC-certified products. This reflects the fact that they are unable to obtain sufficient wood certified under the FSC banner to meet their sales needs, and thus acknowledge that many different certification processes have merit and may be acceptable alternatives.
Contrary to many statements, the process is not being driven by demand from concerned consumers. It continues to be pushed, and in some cases forced, by environmental groups, retailers, city and regional councils, and forest owners who see a need to be able to prove their management in order to ensure access to some markets, and/or get a market advantage over other suppliers.
A number of pulp and paper companies have certified their forests and are marketing their products as certified. Changes made to certification rules and procedures allowing products with less than 100 percent certified virgin wood content (i.e. also containing waste, recycled or re-used wood) to be certified, have made this simpler to do.
There is growing interest/attention being given to some form of mutual recognition or recognition or equivalency between the different certification processes. Indications of this include:
- agreement reached by a wide range of interest groups in the United Kingdom, including the United Kingdom Forestry Commission, timber grower associations, the timber-trade, retailers and a number of NGOs, on recognition of the United Kingdom Woodland Assurance Scheme (UKWAS), a certification standard for United Kingdom forests;
- the PEFC is actively encouraging mutual recognition between different national European systems and also has provisions for recognizing non-European certification schemes. Some countries outside Europe have already expressed an interest in being recognized by the PEFC process;
- the International Forest Industry Roundtable (IFIR), an informal international grouping of forest industry associations, is developing an international framework for mutual recognition between different performance standards and certification systems;
- the Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) is supporting mutual recognition efforts through the development of a comparative matrix of different certification systems as an educational tool for its members and pulp and paper customers;
- the American Forest and Paper Association's Sustainable Forestry Initiative and the American Forest Foundation's Tree Farm System have signed a mutual recognition agreement under which they recognize each other's respective standards for sustainable forest management;
- a number of major retail chains, such as the United Kingdom home improvement chain, B&Q, who is a member of FSC and of the United Kingdom WWF1995+Group, recently announced that it will accept Finnish timber certified under the national Finnish Forest Certification System, a certification process which has been developed in competition with the FSC system in that country;
- moves are under way by the European Foundation for the Preservation of African Forest Resources and the African Timber Organization (ATO) to develop a Pan-African Certification Scheme, which would cover some 13 African countries.
Although a degree of consensus has been reached on many of the important issues, there are still many issues to be resolved. Briefly they include:
- What is the market for certified products?
- How will certification contribute to improving forest management where deforestation is greatest - in the developing countries?
- Which system of certification is most appropriate?
- Will certification, intentionally or unintentionally, act as a non-tariff barrier to trade and discriminate against those unable or unwilling to become certified?
- How accurate are the field assessments being made, how to treat composite or reconstituted wood products, how to consider wood from plantations and wood from areas being converted to other land uses?
FAO has continued to maintain a close involvement with certification, both at the forest management level and in relation to trade. Its recent efforts include involvement in various meetings and working groups which have been concerned with various aspects of certification. Examples include:
- participation in two seminars dealing with mutual recognition held in Brussels by PEFC-European Commission (26-27 June 2000) and CEPI (28-29 November 2000);
- discussion of certification at a number of the FAO Regional Forestry Commission meetings held in 2000, and the last meeting of the UN European Commission for Europe (ECE) Timber Committee held jointly with the FAO European Forestry Commission in Rome in October 2000;
- discussion of `Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management and their potential relationship to forest certification' at the recent FAO Committee on Forestry (COFO) meeting (March 2001). COFO recognized the need for further clarification on the actual effects of certification on sustainable forest management and trade, as well as in its relation to criteria and indicators processes, and encouraged FAO to continue working in this area;
- hosting a seminar on `Building Confidence among Forest Certification Schemes and their Supporters', with GTZ and ITTO, in Rome on 19-20 February 2001. This aimed to encourage improved dialogue and linkages between those with an interest in forest certification;
- participation in a workshop in Brussels on 5-6 April 2001 hosted by the European Commission which addressed the issue of `Developing Synergies between Carbon Sinks and Sustainable Development through Forest Certification'.
Since it relates closely to the next two presentations at this meeting, some of the main results from the FAO-GTZ-ITTO seminar on `Building confidence among forest certification schemes and their supporters' are indicated below:
- The seminar sought to assist the process of understanding, by bringing a wide range of stakeholders together to discuss their areas of agreement and of disagreement, in the hope that this would increase the understanding and build confidence between them. It sought to improve dialogue and contact, clarify the positions of the different stakeholder groups, increase understanding, and initiate a broad-based dialogue between those involved with certification. It also sought to extend the discussions that had taken place at earlier meetings to a broader range of stakeholders, especially the developing countries and civil society in order to encourage greater cooperation. A central issue was the comparability and equivalence between various forest certification schemes.
- Participants included: producers (large and small), companies, trade associations, unions, social NGOs, environmental NGOs, buyers, certification schemes, governments, academics, international organizations and certifiers. They came from both developed and developing countries throughout the world. Some of the specific issues discussed were:
- how to improve the comparability of certification
standards/schemes;
- whether mutual recognition between certification
schemes is desirable or not;
- what scope there is for mutual recognition;
- what other mechanisms or actions could be considered for improving the
certification schemes and their compatibility;
- what some of the main
barriers to building confidence among stakeholders are and how these barriers
can be reduced; and
- what follow-up action is desirable or possible.
- There were divergent views on most of these issues, reflecting the rather different interests, values and goals of the various groups. One point noted was that it is important to recognize these similarities and differences if certification is to be made more effective.
- Some participants considered that the proliferation of certification schemes was a problem, while others felt that competition and choice was a very desirable situation. Mutual recognition between schemes, or a variation, was seen by many as one solution to the problem of proliferation, while others felt that it was not appropriate. It was clear that the creation of mutual trust is an important first step if there is to be improved dialogue and cooperation between the different certification processes.
- The seminar highlighted the fact that there is still a considerable distance to go before the different stakeholders reach real consensus on many issues, and that further work is needed to bridge the divide that exists. Participants agreed that further direct dialogue is desirable among stakeholder groups, both at national and international levels, in order to build up the necessary mutual trust. There was a desire to continue the dialogue that had been achieved at this seminar, and agreement that neutral organizations such as FAO, GTZ and ITTO should continue to facilitate this dialogue. COFO also recommended that FAO continue to act as a neutral forum and facilitate dialogue on issues of compatibility, equivalency or mutual recognition between different certification processes.
FAO 2001. `Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management of all types of forests and implications for certification and trade' Secretariat Note, Fifteenth Session, FAO Committee on Forestry (COFO). Doc. COFO-2001/3. Rome, Italy, 12-16 March.
Hansen, E. and Juslin, H. 1999. `The Status of Forest Certification in the ECE Region', Geneva Timber and Forest Discussion Papers, ECE/TIM/DP/14.
Hansen, E., Forsyth, K. and Juslin, H. 2000. `Forest Certification Update for the ECE Region', UN ECE-FAO, ECE/TIM/DP/20.
JAMES V. GRIFFITHS
New Zealand Forest Industries Council
Retailers and consumers want to give preference to wood and wood products from forests that are under sustainable forest management. A programme of forest certification independently verifying that wood products come from sustainably managed sources can provide this assurance.
For a variety of technical, political and legal reasons, a number of alternative forest certification systems have emerged - and it is now unlikely that any single system will establish a monopoly in forest certification. These certification systems, in combination, have the potential to supply large quantities of certified wood products from sustainably managed forests. By working together, through a Mutual Recognition Framework, they could meet expanding market demand for certified wood products. This presents an important opportunity to the forest products industry to continuously improve forest management and guarantee customers that this is being done.
The intent of Mutual Recognition is to provide a critical mass of credibly certified wood products by recognizing that different certification systems can provide substantively equivalent standards of sustainable forest management. The Mutual Recognition Framework would set a high threshold for entry for participating systems, while enabling the use of standards that accommodate local and regional circumstances. By providing a rigorous process to differentiate credible from non-credible certification systems, Mutual Recognition would use market forces to provide a range of certification systems that will assure customers that their wood products purchases contribute to sustainable forest management.
Mutual Recognition is supported by a large cross-section of forestland owners, forest products companies, environmental organizations, labour and other stakeholders. Many governments and intergovernmental agencies also support Mutual Recognition.
The International Forest Industry Roundtable - acting in a catalytic role - is proposing establishment of an International Mutual Recognition Framework for Forest Certification that is open to all systems that can meet its high standards.
Mutual Recognition can:
- provide a mechanism that assures all retailers and their customers that forest certification systems and standards participating within the Framework produce substantively equivalent forest benefits on the ground;
- significantly expand the availability of certified forest products in response to growing market demand;
- allow and encourage customers to adopt inclusive purchasing policies that recognize that different systems deliver substantially equivalent, credible outcomes;
- prevent unfair discrimination against any region or country, including developing or small countries, by providing an open and free market exists for wood products from sustainably managed sources.
An International Mutual Recognition Framework should include:
- a representative management body to administer the Framework on behalf of all stakeholders;
- an independent quality assurance group to assess the quality and credibility of participating systems;
- analytical tools to assess the substantive equivalence of different systems, including:
- an agreed set of Criteria and Indicators (see Appendix) defining the core elements of credible certification systems and standards for sustainably managed forests;
- a questionnaire to measure individual system conformance against the Criteria and Indicators;
- a glossary of forest standards and certification terminology.
WOLFGANG SCHOPFHAUSER
Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI)
2 Forestry Department Information Note on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management, available from FAO, Rome; and on-line at:www.fao.org/forestry/FODA/Infonote/en/t-crit-e.stm
See also Information Note on Sustainable Management of Natural Forests and Woodlands: www.fao.org/forestry/FODA/Infonote/en/t-smnf-e.stm
3 SOFO 2000 will be available from FAO, Forestry Department, Rome (Italy) in mid-2001. See also the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 Web page, at: www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/index.jsp
4 For a more accurate and complete description of FAO's role and key activities in forestry, see: FAO Strategic Plan for Forestry, available from FAO, Rome and, on-line, at: www.fao.org/forestry/fo/strategy/vision-e.stm and the FAO Strategic Framework, adopted by the FAO Council in November 1999- see:www.fao.org/strategicframework/
5 More information on these processes can be found in the Forestry Department Information Note on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management, available from FAO, Rome; and on-line at: www.fao.org/forestry/FODA/Infonote/en/t-crit-e.stm
6 FAO/ITTO Expert Consultation on the Harmonization of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management. Rome, Italy 13-16 February 1995.
7 Some useful references provided by FAO are indicated in the annex to this paper. The FAO Forest Products Trade Web site www.fao.org/forestry/fop/foph/trade/trade-e.stm has a number of papers on certification.
8 Estimates vary, but there may be around 50 schemes in various stages of development.
9 FAO estimate. See FAO "State of the World's Forests 2001" - Forest Resource Assessment Supplement - available June 2001.
10 FSC Web site www.fscoax.org as at 31March 2001.
11 PEFC Web site www.pefc.org as at March 2001. Note - these are only areas covered by the national certification scheme.
12 CSFCC Web site www.sfms.com as at Feb. 22, 2001.
13 Groups of retailers who have committed themselves to trading only in products from (mainly FSC) certified sources.
14 Final statements and secretariat background papers from all the FAO meetings are available on request.