Working Group 2

Mr Dradjad Wibowo - Chairman

Ms Berit Sanness - Rapporteur

GENERAL COMMENTS

The discussion itself was seen as an important outcome, not only the agreed results.

More time for further discussions would have been valuable and later seminars should take this into consideration.

Some of the participants felt that an international umbrella as moderator is needed. Many participants expressed that MR is desirable. However, a clear consensus was not made on the matter. Some expressed the need for a multilateral recognition, but not mutual recognition.

AGREED

The Working Group 2 agreed on the following important statement:

All scheme owners and stakeholders should avoid the `trible war fair', as this war will only benefit steel, plastic and products from other non-renewable resources. It will not benefit the environment. We have to remind ourselves about the long-term perspective and the right dimensions on the environmental challenges; our concern should be on sustainable forest management, and how we can strengthen the position of wood as coming from a renewable resource.

SOME STATEMENTS

The following is summing up some statements given by one or more members of Working Group 2 concerning mutual recognition (MR).

� The different stakeholders' expectations concerning MR have to be clarified. Probably, different stakeholders have different recognition of MR. There is a need to make the views transparent.

� There is probably a need to find a different term for MR

� We do not have enough knowledge to make a proper solution on MR right now

� We need to clarify differences and distinctions in the field, we do not have enough data points on what the differences are

� Most likely, a single MR solution will not satisfy everybody's expectations

� But if multilateral recognition can not achieve 100% of the expectations, may be it can compromise and provide 80% of the goal. This would still bring us forward.

� The whole certification process is very challenging for the developing countries. It is rather easy for the temperate countries compared to all the complications involved when a developing country is to proceed on the matter. They meet multiple demand. This has to be taken into account. The challenges include costs of the development process and no extra payment for certified timber. The procedures for the process will be important (e.g. to avoid corruption and to get the needed involvement)

� The forest owners are the ones that have to pay for the certification, in the end. They can not distribute the bill to someone else. The small-scale (family) forest owners have now reached the limit of capacity to pay. They can not afford any more costs concerning forest certification. People are also concerned about loosing sovereignty over their forest

� MR agreement can not substitute discussing the details on different levels; international, national and local level

� Stakeholder participation is needed on all levels

FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

The number of important questions and items that were raised within Working Group 2 demonstrate the need for further dialogue and considerations. The limited time available for the working group discussion made it impossible for the working group to conclude on a number of issues. The working group therefore recommends follow up dialogue and further seminar to continue the process on the international level

Working Group 3

Ms Jill Bowling - Chairman

Mr Bill Mankin - Rapporteur

Working Group #3 chose as its topic for discussion:

What are the main barriers to building confidence?

Since the working group did not seek to identify specific areas of consensus, this report will not suggest otherwise. However, the rapporteur has noted various points below (underlined) on which there seemed to be general agreement among members of the working group. Otherwise, all the bullet points are observations or comments made by at least one participant in the group.

COMMON GROUND AND CONFIDENCE-BUILDING

� We should identify areas we have in common and build from there.

� One participant felt we should just identify who is open to mutual recognition and who is not, and those that are not should not be involved in the process. But another participant said that we should not leave anyone out.

� Although one participant felt that we were all united in that we had the same overall goal - "Sustainable Forest Management", another participant indicated that, if everyone has such widely-divergent definitions of SFM, perhaps we are not united on this at all.

� Is it possible to have a healthy competition in the marketplace without the "tribal warfare"? If so, how? It was noted that some actors already have tried to come to an agreement to stop publicly attacking each other.

� We should not focus on broad certification systems but on outcomes, which must be shown to be equivalent.

� Developing-country views have not been well-covered or understood at this meeting. One developing-country participant said that "discussion here has been very far from my reality".

NEED FOR PLAIN TALK, STRAIGHT TO THE POINT

� We still don't have enough plain talk about this issue; people still use too many ill-defined "buzz-words" about which there is still serious misunderstanding; and too much time is spent talking around (i.e., avoiding) some of the key issues rather than getting straight to the point.

� Some examples of terms that still serve more to confuse and divide rather than to enlighten and unite: "Sustainable Forest Management", "Mutual Recognition".

� We need to honestly acknowledge the following facts and simply ask ourselves whether or not we are comfortable with these situations as they currently exist:

_ We still have different visions of how forests should be valued and how they should be managed (e.g., some consider the forests themselves to be the greatest value; others forests primarily as the basis for their livelihoods, subsistence, and cultural and community identity; and others view forests mainly as a source of income and profit). Each of these may lead to a different end-point.

_ Certain certification programs are intentionally in direct competition with each other.

_ Mistrust is the basic barrier.

_ No one can be forced to have confidence in a system they don't trust or feel comfortable with.

HOW TO MOST EFFECTIVELY PROCEED FROM HERE

� Additional dialogue on these issues is still needed.

� If there is another international meeting on this subject, we need fewer presentations and far more practical discussions.

� Overall, the seminar's time was not as well spent as it could have been. The structure of this type of seminar (with a lot of presentations and not much discussion) has outlived its usefulness and is no longer productive.

� The short time we spent in conversation with each other in the working group (about 45 minutes) was more valuable than the rest of the time we spent listening to presentations during the rest of the seminar (a day and a half).

� We also should consider going out in the field and then coming back and discussing what we've seen.

THE MARKETPLACE AND THE PUBLIC

� We should recognize and accept competition; the marketplace will decide.

� The public wants us to resolve the competition and disagreements for them.

� One participant suggested that the common ground we have is "the public"... But another participant noted that this kind of "public" exists only in the major market regions, and if the markets are so different, maybe this is not `common ground' after all. One participant noted that ENGOs might feel they could simply win the mind of the consumer, while another noted that if the public becomes disenchanted with all the arguments between the competitors, consumers might shift to wood substitutes.

Working Group 5

Mr. G. R. Bruford - Chair

Mr. E. Rametsteiner - Rapporteur

Working Group #5 chose as its topic for discussion:

What are the main barriers to building confidence among stakeholders and how can these barriers be reduced?

INTRODUCTION

Group 5 consisted of about 13 participants from different geographical regions world wide and representing different stakeholder groups, including forest owners, forest industry, environmental NGOs, and governments. The task of Group 5 was to discuss the following question: "What are the main barriers to building confidence among stakeholders and how can these barriers be reduced. Identify steps for follow-up action." The discussions were conducted in a very constructive and open informal manner, considering the fact that the range of different opinions expressed was considerable. Due to time constraints, however, many of the lines of thinking by different participants were not further discussed or elaborated. This report will therefore first present the range of issues raised and then try to summarise major aspects.

DISCUSSION

After a short round of introduction by participants the group started to discuss main barriers to building confidence among stakeholders. There was general agreement that a certain lack of confidence or mistrust engulfed different stakeholders on the issue of forest certification, and, indeed forest use. While this was acknowledged, confidence building was seen as highly important. There were, however, different perspectives on which aspect to focus. Some, especially those with a forest industry background, emphasised mutual recognition, others pointed to forest certification in general and again others supported sustainable forest management as the most relevant aspect.

It was re-emphasised in several comments that forest certification has limited potential to enhance the quality of forest management, especially in those areas where it would be most needed, namely in the tropics. It was stated that forest certification is but one tool, and that it is basically only the documentary evidence that other instruments have been effective, and that high quality forest management is perfectly possible without certification. Others raised the concern that this instrument is used for several other purposes, including gaining control over forest owners, industry, or as a non-tariff barrier to trade.

Several participants noted that conditions for forest management, perceptions on forest use, and institutional arrangements are very different across the globe, thus making simple one jacket fits all approaches difficult. It was also highlighted that forestry in its core is a political issue that cannot be reduced to solely technical questions. Furthermore, different participants expressed different views as regards the speed at which progress can happen. Industry representatives were generally pressing ahead, pointing out market requirements, such as the need to serve the demand created and critical mass aspects, and technical difficulties in dealing with several systems in parallel. Forest owners and environmental NGOs see a quick fix largely as not so desirable, given the different views on what constitutes SFM, the complexity of issues involved in forest management and in certification, including different ownership patterns, forest use and the different stage of industrial development world wide.

Given the different values and perceptions that exist in regard to forest management, several participants seemed to confirm the view that forest certification is a battle over the control of the forest resource and its proper management. Environmental NGOs seem to pressurise forestry to take environmental and social stakeholder views more into account. Forest owners or managers on the other hand seem to believe firmly those environmental NGOs disregard property rights and they complain about environmental absolutism. These conflicting views come into the open in the issue of forest certification. Similarly, but more related to the tool of forest certification, environmental NGOs representatives expressed fear that further increasing the influence of industry (to which they obviously count forest owners) in FSC will damage the reputation of credibility of the instrument. The stakeholders behind the two dominant rival systems, namely FSC and PEFC, therefore put pressure on their respective systems representatives. Other participants noted that too much emphasis is given to the two systems, and that other initiatives have to be taken more fully into account. Furthermore, there were several participants that saw a lack of openness and a lack of reliable and timely information as an important barrier.

SUMMARY

In summary, from the discussion in Group 5, the following main barriers were identified:

- different values and perceptions about key areas, especially about what constitutes SFM;

- battle over influence on decisions and control of a system that defines and judges forest management;

- fear on both sides (forest owners - environmental NGOs) to be taken over by the respective rivals, resulting in mistrust;

- stakeholder pressure on the respective main certification systems (FSC and PEFC) to resist concessions to "opponents"; and

- further aggravation by complex political issues and the complexity of technical aspects of various existing certification systems and the lack of resources and time available.

Ways to reduce these barriers

Rather little time remained to discuss ways to reduce these barriers. The proposals made were in general linked to specific barriers identified and of a rather abstract nature. In the group was widespread support to the importance of building confidence in order to reduce mistrust. Strong emphasis was laid by the group on the need for a stronger willingness and commitment to engage in an open process and to listen. One participant noted that it is important to start talking without preconditions.

It was acknowledged that differences in values and perceptions related to forest management have to be taken as given and it is important to attach no strings but engage in an open process to identify common grounds. It was suggested to reduce the complexity of the political and technical issues involved in forest certification by agreeing and focusing on the most important building blocks, e.g. for mutual recognition. Others emphasised that it will not be easy or even possible to dissect technical from political aspects when dealing with forestry, as they are invariably interconnected. It was pointed out that participants will have to accept hard work and compromise in a dialogue, which should be viewed as an ongoing process.

GROUP WORK TASKS
Groups are requested to select one or more topics from the following list, to serve as the focus of their discussions. Groups are requested to select one or more topics from the following list, to serve as the focus of their discussions. Topics that may be addressed

1. How to improve the comparability of certification standards/schemes. What kind of criteria should certification schemes/standards meet. 2. Is mutual recognition between certification schemes desirable. If yes, what could be the scope and procedure of mutual recognition. If not, what other mechanisms or actions could be considered for improving the schemes and their compatibility. 3. What are the main barriers to building confidence among stakeholders and how can these barriers be reduced. Identify steps for follow-up action. 4. Where shall we go from here.

GROUP 1

GROUP 2

GROUP 3

GROUP 4

GROUP 5

India Room A328

Pakistan Room A372

Cuba Room B224

Geen Room Left Side

Green Room Right Side

Chair Mr Chew Lye Teng Mr Dradjad Wibowo Ms Jill Bowling Mr Rob L. Busink Mr Graham R. Bruford

Rapport. Mr Michael Ryan Ms Berit Sanness Mr William Mankin Mr Rupert Oliver Mr Ewald Rametsteiner

Mr Joseph Crochet Mr Christian Brawenz Mr Stefan Czamutzian Mr Franz Maier Mr C. de Oliveira Roxo

Mr Roberto Smeraldi Mr Dieter Schoene Mr Wolfgang Schopfhauser Mr Fernando Aguilar Mr Hernan Verscheure

Mr Karel Neterda Mr P. Mimbimi Esono Mr Emmanuel Pouna Mr Tony Rotherham Mr Sini Harkki

Mr Martin Lillandt Mr Morten Bjorner Mr Jorge Meza Mr Osea Tuinivanua Mr Hannu Valtanen

Ms Gu�naelle Couderc Mr Jean-Jacques Landrot Mr Mikko Ohela Ms G. Nisame-Okwo Ms Rose Ondo

Mr Dietrich Burger Ms Barbara von Kruedener Mr A. Ndoungou Ms Lorenza Colletti Mr Dirk Teegelbekkers

Mr Alhassan Attah Mr Amha Bin Buang Mr Peter Saile Mr G. Franchini Montero Mr Nicolo Giordano

Mr Davide Pettenella Mr U. Myat Thinn Mr Armando Cafiero Mr Christoph Wiedmer Mr Francisco Chapela

Mr Liviu Amariei Mr R.B. McCarthy Mr Ben Gunneberg Mr Peter Wilson Mr Pham Hoai Duc

Mr James V. Griffiths Mr Heiko Liedeker Mr Kees Bosdijk Mr Robert Simpson Mr Carlos Salinas Montes

Mr Dike Kari Mr Stuart Goodall Mr Jos� Manuel Casqueiro Mr Pierre Hauselmann Mr Mikael Eliasson

Mr Christer Segersteen Ms Sheam Satkuru-Granzella Ms Nancy Vallejo Mr Touranchet Mr Albert Fry

Mr Mike Garforth Mr Richard Donovan Mr Neil Judd Mr Eric Thomsson Mr David G. Duke-Evans

Mr Geoffrey Pleydell Mr Michael Virga Mr S.K. Tham Mr Francesco Carbone Ms Saskia Ozinga

Mr Marvin D. Brown Mr Philip McKenzie Mr Nguyan Ngoe Lung Ms Wendy Baer

GROUP WORK TASKS Groups are requested to select one or more topics from the following list, to serve as the focus of their discussions. Groups are requested to select one or more topics from the following list, to serve as the focus of their discussions. Topics that may be addressed
1. How to improve the comparability of certification standards/schemes. What kind of criteria should certification schemes/standards meet. 2. Is mutual recognition between certification schemes desirable. If yes, what could be the scope and procedure of mutual recognition. If not, what other mechanisms or actions could be considered for improving the schemes and their compatibility. 3. What are the main barriers to building confidence among stakeholders and how can these barriers be reduced. Identify steps for follow-up action. 4. Where shall we go from here.
	GROUP 1	GROUP 2	GROUP 3	GROUP 4	GROUP 5
	India Room A328	Pakistan Room A372	Cuba Room B224	Geen Room Left Side	Green Room Right Side

Chair	Mr Chew Lye Teng	Mr Dradjad Wibowo	Ms Jill Bowling	Mr Rob L. Busink	Mr Graham R. Bruford
Rapport.	Mr Michael Ryan	Ms Berit Sanness	Mr William Mankin	Mr Rupert Oliver	Mr Ewald Rametsteiner
	Mr Joseph Crochet	Mr Christian Brawenz	Mr Stefan Czamutzian	Mr Franz Maier	Mr C. de Oliveira Roxo
	Mr Roberto Smeraldi	Mr Dieter Schoene	Mr Wolfgang Schopfhauser	Mr Fernando Aguilar	Mr Hernan Verscheure
	Mr Karel Neterda	Mr P. Mimbimi Esono	Mr Emmanuel Pouna	Mr Tony Rotherham	Mr Sini Harkki
	Mr Martin Lillandt	Mr Morten Bjorner	Mr Jorge Meza	Mr Osea Tuinivanua	Mr Hannu Valtanen
	Ms Gu�naelle Couderc	Mr Jean-Jacques Landrot	Mr Mikko Ohela	Ms G. Nisame-Okwo	Ms Rose Ondo
	Mr Dietrich Burger	Ms Barbara von Kruedener	Mr A. Ndoungou	Ms Lorenza Colletti	Mr Dirk Teegelbekkers
	Mr Alhassan Attah	Mr Amha Bin Buang	Mr Peter Saile	Mr G. Franchini Montero	Mr Nicolo Giordano
	Mr Davide Pettenella	Mr U. Myat Thinn	Mr Armando Cafiero	Mr Christoph Wiedmer	Mr Francisco Chapela
	Mr Liviu Amariei	Mr R.B. McCarthy	Mr Ben Gunneberg	Mr Peter Wilson	Mr Pham Hoai Duc
	Mr James V. Griffiths	Mr Heiko Liedeker	Mr Kees Bosdijk	Mr Robert Simpson	Mr Carlos Salinas Montes
	Mr Dike Kari	Mr Stuart Goodall	Mr Jos� Manuel Casqueiro	Mr Pierre Hauselmann	Mr Mikael Eliasson
	Mr Christer Segersteen	Ms Sheam Satkuru-Granzella	Ms Nancy Vallejo	Mr Touranchet	Mr Albert Fry
	Mr Mike Garforth	Mr Richard Donovan	Mr Neil Judd	Mr Eric Thomsson	Mr David G. Duke-Evans
	Mr Geoffrey Pleydell	Mr Michael Virga	Mr S.K. Tham	Mr Francesco Carbone	Ms Saskia Ozinga
	Mr Marvin D. Brown	Mr Philip McKenzie	Mr Nguyan Ngoe Lung		Ms Wendy Baer