FAO-GTZ-ITO Building Confidence Amog Forest Certification Schemes and Their Supporters

Fern is an NGO which aims to improve European Union activities in order to achieve: conservation and sustainable management of forests; respect for the rights of forest peoples; greater transparency in EU aid to tropical forest countries.

25 April 2001
Saskia Ozinga

Fern -UK

Bullet point for the `intervention' at the GTZ-FA-ITTO seminar on `Confidence Building between different certification schemes' in Rome, 19-29 February 2001.

· Thanking the chairman and organisers for the invitation to speak.

· As the invitation came only a few minutes ago there was obviously not much time for me to prepare

· I do believe it is missed opportunity by the organisers not to have invited an environmental NGOs representative in the panel

· I can only speak on behalf of my organisation: Fern.

· There is a huge difference between different certification schemes currently on the market. Fern is carrying out some research into the similarities and differences of the PEFC, SFI, the CSA and the FSC. A report will be published at the end of March.

· The research so far shows that:

· Some schemes are purely system based, others are performance based, again others are a mixture. The approach is therefore very different

· The schemes that are performance based (or have performance based elements) have different sets of standards.

· In several schemes the social element of the standard is non- existent or weak.

· Before any talk of mutual recognition can continue, a proper analysis of the different schemes is essential. It is not at all clear that the existing schemes are `very similar' as has been stated by some.

· Therefore -I now I can speak on behalf of all the NGOs who have signed the joint statement on mutual recognition- a majority of NGOs feel that we need to take s step back from this debate on mutual recognition.

· The joint NGO statement on mutual recognition (see Fern website: www.fern.org) explains our concerns that a number of programs are prematurely considering broad "mutual recognition" arrangements without sufficient analysis of these disparities.