Certifier Perspectives on Mutual Recognition and Joint Certification Richard Z. Donovan Chief of Forestry and SmartWoodDirector, Rainforest Alliance FAO-GTZ-ITTO Seminar on Building Confidence Among Certification Schemes and Their Supporters Rome, Italy February 20, 2001

Background � 10 years of experience in forest management ( FM) & chain of custody (COC) certification � Experience with FSC, ISO, CSA, LEI, NTCC & PEFC � 18 years of prior experience in logging, environmental advocacy, rural development, forestry consulting, and community forestry � A system is a means to an end; it is not an end in itself. If the system doesn't achieve intended outcome, the system is dysfunctional. � Outcome - Certified products from ecologically viable forest ecosystems and peaceful, productive human communities.

The Difficulties of This MR Conversation � Each of us is vested in our own system. � We have different levels of understanding in this room. � We slip too easily into comfortable dogma... � Our systems are both "top-down" (consistent policy) and "bottom up" (regionally driven). � We don't want to admit our weaknesses, particularly when they are pointed out by our "opponents". � We don't trust each other. Trust is built on experience and there are no shortcuts.

Why is MR important? � It is a vehicle for us to discuss and either resolve or accept our differences. � MR responds to our desire for "order in the universe". � MR offers us an opportunity to re-examine our motives. Our motives are multiple and can be different, e.g. market dynamics vs. attainment of SFM vs. conflict resolution vs. peer respect. � MR can be a useful tool for exploring innovative certification tools & discarding less effective ones...

What do you want to "mutually recognize"? Should we MR: � each other? Do we really want to recognize each other? Wouldn't it be easier if "you" just went away... � each system's strengths and weaknesses � similarities and differences between systems � the different values represented by our systems � that each system has different perspectives on "acceptable" levels of internal difference in performance standards for different regions and countries

The nature of our standards and values In our experience, this type of certification: � requires treatment of social and indigenous issues, with the assumption that the public cares; � questions the primacy of forestry that is driven too often by short-term financial gain and has a negative impact on the ecological value of forests and the quality of life in local communities; � incorporates chain of custody (COC) certification, with the assumption that the public cares "where wood products come from"; and, � attempts to be a fair at international & regional levels.

We are all struggling with... � Inter-country, region & culture notions of equivalency � The practical implications of COC certification � The reality that wood competes with other building materials where certification plays less of a role � The limits of certification as a tool for resolving conflict � Relatively new certification models and systems that are imperfect and need to improve � The fact that we seem to be asking certification to resolve really big philosophical issues, e.g. consumption, our vision for forests in the future, and the role of government vs. corporations vs. civil society

Fundamental Technical Issues Though there may be few technical differences in number, the implications of these "few" differences for MR are huge. � Stakeholder "notification" versus "consultation and resolution" - the public appears to want resolution � Resolution of customary indigenous rights versus modern property rights; but what level of reconciliation is "certifiable"? � When, where and how do we conserve, versus restore, High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) � What is an acceptable philosophy on the use of chemicals; the public seems to prefer use reduction, but at what cost?

The Political Nature of Standards There are political challenges embedded within standards. Example #1: Contrary to "doctrine", COC certification is not a fundamental barrier. There are complicated COC challenges, but if creative COC policies are encouraged, we can address the challenges. Example #2: Standards aren't just science. Science won't solve the issues. Nobody has a monopoly on "good science". Standards represent both the "art and science of tending the forest" (the definition of forestry), e.g. BMPs. Example #3: If region-specific standards don't resolve difficult issues, certifications will not be accepted by the public, e.g. indigenous & group certification issues in British Columbia, Indonesia and Sweden.

What do certifiers need? � "Approximate" technical equivalency within a system (e.g. too much inter-country variation is very risky) � Policy clarification on indigenous issues, HCVF, use of chemicals, forest conversion, etc. - because the public demands it � Procedural equivalency within a system & between countries - stakeholder consultation, public summaries, public statements, labeling, accreditation demands, etc. � Certification systems that consistently make the same demands of each certifier � Orderly, robust systems that allow and foster innovation

A suggested path to MR... � A plea - please, no more new structures or institutions � The UKWAS and LEI examples are extremely useful * resolving conflict and establishing trust takes time * "devil is in the detail"; take the time to do it * MR can only happen with equivalency * standards structure differences shouldn't prohibit equivalency � Joint certification can be a step towards MR

Final Observations � MR conflict generates unacceptable financial and social costs to forests and society � Superficial MR will generate unacceptable future costs � Discuss equivalency mechanisms (accreditation, FM and COC standards and certification processes) in specific terms; generalizations are very frustrating � The foundation for MR must be based on practical, applied experience - not just document analyses. � For MR to have credibility, it must be based on equivalent outcomes in the forest and community.