Timber Certification in the Building Industry - Research Proposal Example

Timber Certification in the Building Industry Research Proposal The timber industry itself is normally highly regulated in the sense of large forestry companies being held accountable for where and when logging can take place in an effort to ensure undue deforestation is not taking place. It is now becoming an environmental concern amongst ‘green’ consumer lobbyists as to how much of the environment is being left unsustainable through lack of forest management and demand is being placed on the timber industry to become certified. As written by Rugge (2000) “the development of standards for timber certification is a complex process. Certification standards must be both locally appropriate, so that they can be applied to specific forest management conditions; and , if the timber is to be exported, internationally recognised” and as such there needs to be not only local but international cooperation that must have the standards mutually recognised by all parties. The purpose of this proposal is to not only look into what timber certification is and what its effects would be environmentally, but also the effects timber certification has on manufacturers and wood dealers in general. By looking at the timber certification industry itself on both ends of the spectrum, forestry industry to manufacturing/consumer, this paper will look at how important timber certification is within the marketplace and its environmental importance. Discussion will evolve around statistical information gathered through various consumer stores as to how much certified product has been sold versus uncertified; and, with statistical information gathered through interviews with forestry officials on the timber certification methods and their company history respectful of the sustainable forest management process. These interviews will focus on timber companies who have and have not received timber certification and the impact both have their business relationships with manufacturers and consumers. Primary/Secondary Sources The primary sources are very much dedicated to one of only a few certification groups, TRADA, and the main players. The main players in timber certification include the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), WWF 1995plus, PEFC, and, UKWAS as these groups are all related to the manufacturing side of the forestry industry. There are mainly two forms of primary sources to be used: journals, internet and company interviews in an effort to not only relay what, if any, timber certification has on both the forestry industry as well as on consumer impact. It will be important through interviews to obtain whether certification is fully understood or whether consumer’s and merchant’s tend to take heed of what certification means to them and the forestry industry in general; or, if there is a lack of understanding by both parties of what certification means. Through using questionnaires and interviews with these two parties will provide empirical data to be used in analysing whether timber certification is fully understood by the general public and if this information is being provided adequately by forestry industry officials. Secondary sources are entirely related to building and trade merchants and how timber certification can affect their business relationships with the manufacturing sector. This also includes the processes that have been put forward in developing forest management standards in order to look toward further sustainable forest management. Through using questionnaires and interviews with the manufacturing sector, tertiary empirical data can be gathered in an effort to recognise if timber certification has been effectual in selling more timber or whether sales are generally evenly distributed. Research Project / Methodology Timber certification is generally “regarded as involving a two-stage process, encompassing both forest management certification and wood product and ‘chain of custody’ certification” (McGregor, 2000). As such when a forestry companies that wishes to receive the Forest Management Certification must be assessed through an independent third-party in an effort to review forest management practices through a predetermined set of standards that look at: formal management procedures, a structured long-term management plan which are then measured against active forest field management. The second stage in timber certification involves the ‘chain of custody’ certification. Chain of Custody Certification applies to the “labelling of products for which claims of origin or provenance are being made. It is effectively a traceability process to prove or verify that a product bearing a label lives up to the claims being made on that label. For wood products, in its most common form, Chain of Custody is the process that enables those products to be verified as having come from well-managed forests” (McGregor, 2000). The Chain of Custody Certification is not merely meant to be a stamp of approval in the sense of providing a consumer some misguided notion of having superior products, but, is a much more valuable standard of Certification. It provides the consumer with the knowledge that the timber manufacturer is practicing forest conservation and that the forests are being well-managed. Any product that bears this labelling also shows the consumer and manufacturer that the timber product actually lives up to the name of the label and that all claims that the timber is being made respectful of the label. With wood products, “in its most common form chain of custody is the process that enables those products to be verified as having come from well-managed forests” (McGregor, 2000). It is simple to make this accountability visible for the manufacturer and consumer to view, but, has that accountability behind the label been made a priority of the forestry industry to educate the public on. But, as the public becomes more environmentally savvy and that they are more concerned with how deforestation is affecting many of the forest inhabitants and the environment in general; therefore, it would seem that the consumer needs to become more aware of exactly what process is involved for a forestry company to obtain the certification in the first place. This, therefore, is the problem, which is what this Certification is meant to provide, which identifies the lack of consumer information in order to make a rational and informed decision as to whether or not buy timber products. It may be necessary to engage the consumer and manufacturer/buyer of the certified products as to how the “chain of custody [is] linked to a credible third party forest certification scheme [that] can provide that help because it is the public’s guarantee that timber products which bear the label are derived from well-managed forests” (McGregor, 2000). Through engaging in a consumer based education program, the efforts of obtaining certification and the background processes involved in the entire timber certification process may solidify any questions in the minds of the consumer that they just haven’t been privy to in making an educated choice on the products they choose. This educational process may also help the industry in general to make more forestry companies accountable in this age of environmental concerns and looking at ways to ensure the environment is not unnecessarily infringed upon through poor forestry management protocols. Within the U.K., the only credible form of receiving a chain of custody verification is through the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). The ability to have the FSC certification label transfixed to timber products requires a company “undergo an assessment by a certification body to ensure that they have documented management procedure and process control systems that verify that the wood products bearing the FSC label have been derived from FSC certified forests” (McGregor, 2000). The main players in the timber certification process include: Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), WWF 1995plus, PEFC, and, UKWAS which all have their requirements for certification. The Forest Stewardship Council require that certified organisations must: Comply with local and international laws and the FSC principles Respect tenure and use rights and responsibilities Respect and recognise indigenous peoples’ rights Maintain community relations and workers’ rights Encourage the efficient use of all the forest’s benefits: economic, social and environmental Conserve biological diversity to maintain the ecological functions of the forest Produce and maintain a 20-year management plan – stating the long-term objective for the forest and means of achieving them Undertake ongoing monitoring and assessment of the management plan, chain of custody, management activities and their social and environmental impacts Maintain and conserve primary forests, well-developed secondary forests and areas of major environmental, social or cultural significance Ensure that plantation forest is planned and managed in accordance with Principles 1-9” (McGregor, 2000) The FSC is geared toward the public’s perception that they are in fact purchasing forest products with the confidence that what the consumer is purchasing is not contributing to global forest destruction and as such FSC is in the process of ensuring that any FSC certified forests are not only looking at making the forests self-sustainable for long periods of time; but, there is also the need to protect not only the environment but for forest-dependant indigenous peoples. WWF 1995 plus Group of Companies was formed in 1994 in an effort to promote the concepts of ethical purchasing and what forest certification means. Through the 95 member group they account for 20% of all UK timber purchases with high profile companies including: Sainsbury, Homebase, B&Q, Boots, WH Smith, BBC Publications and major timber companies such as; Meyer International, Kronospan, Timbmet and FW Mason. This process is showing a great deal of acceptance as WWF’s “rationale in forming the 1995plus group was to create market demand for FSC certified wood products to pull the issue forward into the market rather than use the activities of the environmental pressure groups to force certification on a reluctant industry” (McGregor, 2000). This shows that there is a growing concern amongst many advocates of ethical forestry practices and for management processes across the entire industry. Pan-European Forest Initiative (PEFC) launched in 1999 as an “initiative started by a network of European forest owners that believe there is room for more than one label in the marketplace and wishes to offer a framework whereby credible certification schemes can gain mutual recognition” (McGregor, 2000). This means that, for similarity purposes, wood grading from different countries would maintain the equivalency between each other for certain structural conditions. UK Woodland Assurance Scheme (UKWAS) developed in 1998-99 by the “UK forestry community (Industry, Government, social and environmental groups), follows the FSC principles but is not owned or controlled by the FSC. However, FSCUK have deemed that it satisfies all the requirements of the FSC scheme and therefore, pending approval by the international FSC Board, any organisation which applies for the certification under the UKWAS and is certified by an FSC accredited body, will have access to the FSC label” (McGregor, 2000). Timber Certification Schemes There are many terms used to describe timber certification schemes outlined by Rugge (2000) as: Independent Certification: involves certification by third party, usually a certifying company, that is independent both of the supplier (first party) and the purchaser (second party) Country Certification: involves the certification of a country as a whole so that all timber deriving from that country is considered certified National Certification: is sometimes confused with ‘country’ certification, but can, in practice, be very different. In simple terms national certification describes any situation in which the responsibility for certification is retained by the sovereign state”. (Rugge, 2000) There is also schemes that may be applied in all “industrial sectors which include the forestry sector and as such falls under the Generic Certification: Environmental Management System (EMS) Certification: refers to schemes involving the certification of an organisation or company that has been evaluated in terms of its ability to manage all aspects of its business in an environmentally sound manner. EMS certification includes the European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) and ISO14001 Eco-label: generally refers to labels on finished products that are designed to promote the marketing and use of products, which have reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle” (Rugge, 2000) These labelling systems affect how the public views on how a manufacturer or forestry company looks toward “sustainable” forest management and as such “certification standards must be both locally appropriate, so that they can be applied to specific forest management conditions; and, if the timber is to be exported, internationally recognised. There needs to be an elaboration of: (1) internationally agreed ‘principles and criteria’ for sustainable forest management, and, (2) national, regional and/or local forest standards. There have been developments with respect to ensuring global acceptance of forest management standards to ensure that these standards are locally appropriate and applied to specific forest management conditions as well as ensuring that when timber is exported, these locally developed standards are recognised on an international scale. Rugge (2000) points out that this “requires an elaboration of: 1. Internationally Agreed “Principles and Criteria” for Sustainable Forest Management which are applicable to a wide range of forest situations. An extensive on-going inter-governmental process to define such Principles has been underway since the early 1990s, which has gained considerable momentum following the 1992 UNCED Conference. This work has now extended into most areas of the world. Examples include the Guidelines for the Sustainable Management of Tropical Forests drawn up by the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO); The Helsinki Criteria and Indicators for European Forests; and the Santiago Declaration (Montreal Process) criteria and indicators for non-European temperate and boreal forests. Outside the scope of the UNCED process, the Forest Stewardship Council, has developed a set of Principles and Criteria for Good Forest Management. 2. National, Regional and/or Local Forest Standards which are compatible with international principles and criteria, and which are specific to particular forestry situations and may be used for assessment by certifiers. To date, only a limited number of nationally recognised standards for forest certification have been elaborated due to the complex issues involved in developing these standards. However, much work is continuing in this area as the details of the various national and multinational certification schemes set out in the following tables demonstrates. National schemes that are currently operational are those in Bolivia, Canada, Finland, Germany, Indonesia, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America Mutual Recognition Rugge (2000) notes in his report that in “the last few years has seen a proliferation of certification schemes at both the national and international level. Since 1996, the number of certification initiatives has more than doubled and there are now over forty schemes under development in more than thirty different countries”. As such the implementation of “mutual recognition is the reciprocal arrangement under which one standards body or system recognises and accepts other standards and certification systems as being substantively equivalent in intent, outcomes and processes in identified critical elements” (Rugge, 2000). This very meaning puts into light the need for the development of mutual recognition arrangements in order to avoid the “risk of confusion among consumers, and additional costs to the forest industry who would otherwise have to meet the requirements of multiple systems. These initiatives include: Australian Government paper on Establishing comparability and equivalence amongst forest management certification schemes which proposes critical elements for comparability and equivalence, and provides a preliminary assessment of existing comparability and equivalence initiatives and certification schemes against these proposed critical elements Confederation of European Paper Industry’s (CEPI) Comparative Matrix of Forest Certification Schemes which lists summary data of national and multinational forest certification schemes against various criteria and indicators to assess their credibility. The matrix allows ‘at a glance’ comparisons between the various schemes and enables users of the matrix to decide whether in their opinion a particular scheme matches their specification and purchasing criteria or not International Forest Industry Roundtable paper on Proposing an International Mutual Recognition Framework is seeking to develop the basis for formal mutual recognition arrangements between different certification schemes both at the national and multinational level. This industry-based initiative with representatives from North America, New Zealand, Australia, Chile, Brazil, the Nordic countries and the UK is basing its work on the criteria and indicators developed by CEPI” (Rugge, 2000) With standards come the development of international timber certification abbreviations and are recognised as follows inside of textual reference: ATO African Timber Organisation C&I Criteria and Indicators CIFOR Centre for International Forestry Research EMS Environmental Management Systems FSC Forest Stewardship Council IFIA Inter African Forest Industries Association ITTO International Timber Trade Organisation ISO International Standards Organisation NGO Non Governmental Organisation PEFC Pan European Forest Certification P&C Principles and Criteria SFM Sustainable forest management Chain of Custody The Chain of Custody is defined by as1: The chain-of-custody is the path which products take from the forest to the consumer, including all manufacturing, transformation and distribution links. Chain-of-custody certification verifies that products from certified forests are not mixed with products from uncertified forests at any point in the supply chain. Chain-of-custody certification assures your buyers and customers that the certified goods they buy are genuinely the products of a well-managed forest. A secure chain-of-custody requires that certified products are identified, segregated and accompanied by appropriate documentation at all stages. Chain of Custody certification is a requirement whenever a “company carries out any material alteration to the timber/product or whenever they take physical or legal ownership of the timber/product” (Rugge, 2000) and as such, this certification is provided by the assessor who will visit the site where the products are manufactured. This affects the consumer and business owner in such a fashion that it provides a valued sense of security in the products they are receiving a much more viable product. The assessor will look at three areas: 1. Product Identification: all products from certified forests are clearly marked as such. There are documented procedures to control the marking of certified products 2. Product Segregation: all products from certified forests are segregated from other products 3. Records: records are maintained relating to purchase, delivery, shipment, receipt, forwarding and invoicing of certified products. Documented procedures exist to control the record-keeping process” (Rugge, 2002) Certification Under FSC The FSC puts it simply as: if you own the timber or wood product, then you will need to have Chain of Custody certification or the chain of custody will be broken and the next owner will not be able to say that the product is FSC certified and any company making, changing, re-labelling or repackaging products needs to be certified to do so and any company wishing to apply any of the FSC trademarks (their name, their acronym or their logo) to products or their packaging needs to be certified. The importance of FSC certification is also important to pass onto the consumer in their knowledge of two things: 1. That the forest of origin can be proven to be managed responsibly 2. That the piece of wood can be guaranteed to come from a certified forest The certification process by FSC involves “an inspection of the forest management by an independent organisation, such as the Soil Association or SGS Qualifor, to check that it complies with FSC’s internationally agreed Principles and Criteria of good forest management. Requirements include compliance with national legislation, respect for people’s rights, ecological integrity, economic viability, and the need for adequate planning and monitoring of operations” (FSCUK-FS-102, 2006). There are three distinct FSC labels within the chain of custody control which provide the end user with the knowledge that the company has met all necessary requirements. These three labels are: FSC 100%, FSC Mixed Sources and FSC Recycled.2 FSC 100% Requires that the timber is marked and/or separated from uncertified timber through all processing stages form the forest to the retail shelf. FSC 100% products contain only material from FSC certified forests. FSC Mixed Sources Requires that the product either contains a verifiable amount of FSC fibre, or for every product line sold as FSX mixed enough raw materials have been purchased as FSC certified. FSC Mixed Sources products also can contain a high proportion of verified post consumer reclaimed material. The FSC Mixed Sources label also guarantees that all wood comes from legal sources where there are no outstanding disputes with indigenous peoples, not from high conservation value forests and not from genetically modified trees. Buying FSC Mixed Sources products supports the trade in certified forest products and ensures that you are using no forest products from unacceptable sources. FSC Recycled Requires that products contain only verified post consumer reclaimed materials. Chain of Custody Audit Chain of custody is “an unbroken train of acceptability that ensures the physical security of samples, data and records” (ANSI/ASQC E4, 1993). The FSC requires that there “is clear separation or demarcation of certified and non-certified forest products at all stages, including forest sites, processing, shipping, manufacturing, and wholesale distribution stages” (FSC Statutes, 1994). One of the “central parts to the chain of custody is the identification and control of Critical Control Points. These are points in the process where mixing of certified or non-certified material can occur, for example, in a storage yard where both certified and uncertified timber is kept or in a wood turning business where certified and uncertified batches of stair rods are processed. For each CCP identified, uncontrolled mixing should be stopped by segregation, identification and documentation (all three may not be necessary)” FSCUK-FS-101, 2006). Segregation In the above example of the wood yard, the FSC timber would be kept separate for all other uncertified timber, marked out by road cones and “with a sign painted on the corrugated iron wall saying ‘FSC Timber Only’ and in the example of the wood turners, segregation is carried out by doing different batches in time as well as storing the FSC blanks in their own labelled area”. (FSCUK-FS-102, 2006). This basically means that it is imperative that any wood products that are labelled as FSC must be in its own holding area for the consumer to be aware of its distinct certification. Standards Used Within an international context, FSC has developed its own set of Principles and Criteria of sound forest management. This applies to “all forests, temperate, tropical and boreal, natural forests and plantations. Requirements include compliance with national legislation, respect for local use rights, maintenance of the ecological functions of the forest and its biodiversity, economic viability and the need for an adequate management plan and monitoring of operations” (FSCUK-FS-101, 2006). Costs Involved The costs for certification varies by both the size and complexity of the woodland and as such is extremely difficult to generalise based on such. The costs can be “considerably reduced if several forests are being assessed together in a group scheme or if the size of the woodland holding or intensity of management fall within certain thresholds. For large forests costs increase with the size of the holding as the assessment requires more time for the field visit, but costs per hectare will be lower” (FSCUK-FS-101, 2006) Group and Resource Manager Certification Initially, an inspection team would be required to make the first visit and examine all relevant paperwork for each forest to be looked at for certification. To make “certification affordable and streamlined, the certification bodies have developed schemes by which several woodlands can be certified together as a group and as such, group certifications are based on the idea that costs could be reduced considerably for the individual owner if only a sample of sites within a group is visited each year. This would require reasonable consistency of management between different holdings in the group. Ideally, the certificate is issued to an umbrella organisation such as an owners’ or marketing association or management firm, which ensures some level of internal monitoring, as this would further reduce certification costs” (FSUK-FS-101, 2006) The groups that would be considered as suitable for group certification schemes include: “a single owner (individual, trust or company) with scattered holdings, a forest owners association, a forest manager or management firm managing woodlands on behalf of different owners, a timber marketing association, a co-operative of neighbouring owners” (FSCUK-FS-206, 2006). Group Certification has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of group certification is in the reduced sampling rates. “Normally, with individual certificates, each woodland needs to be inspected annually but in a Group scheme only one third of the properties need be visited in any one year; but the disadvantage is in if one member of the Group fails an inspection then the whole Group automatically fails. Also, the Group Co-ordinator may require payment which could offset some of the savings made” (FSCUK-FS-101, 2006). Government’s Position on Timber Procurement The UK government has its own policy division, the Central Point of Expertise in timber (CPET), is currently in the process of developing and implementing its own Sustainable Timber Procurement Policy. TRADA reports that in January, 2004, “DEFRA published a new advice note on purchasing legal and sustainable timber which includes a comprehensive procedure which explains what needs to be considered at each stage of the procurement process, as well as model general conditions of contract, a model variant specification” (TRADA, 2004). There are five forest certification schemes which consultants to “”CPET have recently reviewed include: Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTTC) Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) The view of the consultants was that: Only the CSA and FSC schemes currently satisfy the Government’s contract definition of sustainable forest management The MTTC, PEFC and SFI schemes provide evidence of legal but not sustainable sourcing” (TRADA, 2004) This endorsement of both the CSA and FSC as forest sustainability programs ensures that both the consumer and buyers receive the highest guarantee of quality and environmental consciousness. Present and Evaluate Findings The findings of the research found in Appendix A of the timber certification schemas by country show that there is an effort to ensure certifications are being both developed and maintained; but, there is a need to find out more about how these certifications meet with both the consumer and manufacturing industry. There is a need to develop a spreadsheet comprising of the last three to five-years reflecting the cost to both the manufacturers and forestry companies using the certification versus non-certification; as well as the cost benefits on the consumer/business side with respect to what is sold of certified and non-certified wood products versus the cost to the business owner to have certified and non-certified products. This would also include the cost for stocking each wood product type and its respective percentage of sales to determine if consumers are becoming more savvy in buying their products based on the labelling or not. There is also a need to develop a questionnaire of consumer attitudes and if they have purchased wood products at all and if they have, are there purchases being made based on knowledge of timber certifications or, if they were unaware of the certification prior to taking the survey, would they then look to purchase wood products based on certification standards. Conclusion Timber certification is an important process in the timber manufacturing enterprise. The value of certification provides the consumer with an added incentive to not only purchase these products as a sign from the timber industry of their commitment to not only providing a quality product, but, also the assurance that their company is looking at ensuring forests are being maintained. Standards set by each respective council is a valuable addition to the timber industry as well as it not only sets the standards that timber company should follow, but, also provides accountability to the timber industry and the manufacturers in their efforts to ensuring there is a continued sustainable industry for both the environment and indigenous residents of the areas that logging is taking place in. By providing the public (consumer) with a more concise understanding of how the impact of timber certification plays out within the timber industry, will the importance of maintaining the integrity of forests be fully realised. When the public is impressed upon what certified timber forests means for conservation of not only the actual forests, but, for the indigenous peoples who rely on the forest for its livelihood. The focus of this proposal is to provide an understanding of this certification and the extensive process involved with obtaining it, as well as the effects of this certification has on the manufacturers, buyers and consumers as a whole when purchasing timber and products. Through questionnaires and empirical data collected from sources such as buyers and consumer purchasing habits an analysis will be completed on historical purchases of both certified and non-certified timber products and common attitudes about certification. Recommendations and future research areas will also be looked at with respect to improvements in the current certification methods as well as how to better inform the public about what the certification is and its importance. Appendix A Multinational Timber Certification Source: Rugge, I. (2000).Progress In Timber Certification Schemes World Wide: Summary, December 2000. http://www.ttf.co.uk/forests/responsible/progress.doc. MULTINATIONAL TIMBER CERTIFICATION SCHEMES INSTITUTION COUNTRIES SECTORS STANDARDS ACTIVITIES ISSUES/COMMENTS FUTURE FOREST STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL Last update:4/12/00 Principally NW Europe, North and South America Established primarily with support of social & environmental NGOs. Growing trade & industry involvement. Private forest owners are under-represented. Governments may be consulted during standard setting but are otherwise excluded. Developed own set of International Principles and Criteria for forest management. Working on development of national FSC standards in approx. 20 countries Developed manual to evaluate certifiers. Accredited 9 certifiers. Involved in chain of custody certification. Launched a trademark. FSC accredited certifiers endorsed approx. 200 forest areas in 33 countries totalling 19.5 million hectares (November 2000). FSC has endorsed “National” standards in Bolivia, Sweden, Germany, Belgium, Canada Maritimes and the UK, but with limited support of private forest owners. Certifications in other countries carried out using “interim standards” developed by certifiers. Formal collaboration with NTCC, LEI, UKWAS and Keurhout. Support of environmental groups lends market credibility. Backed by leading retailers. Acceptance by producers continues to be inhibited by apparent bias towards NGOs in decision making. Use of “interim” standards may threaten credibility. FSC group certification procedures may not go far enough to ensure participation of non-industrial owners. FSC certification costs may disadvantage developing world. FSC lacks trained manpower. Develop national standards for certification. Further develop and promote procedures for non-industrial forest owners. Seek to broaden industry support. Demonstrate commercial viability. Develop mutual recognition policy. PAN AFRICAN FOREST CERTIFICATION SCHEME (PAFC) Last update:12/09/00 Inter-African Forest Industry Association (IFIA) Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, Sao Tome, Principe, Tanzania and Zaire Industry led Using set of Principles, Criteria and Indicators (PC&I) developed by CIFOR based on ITTO guidelines to develop a Pan-African Forest Certification Scheme to be adapted on a regional basis. Pilot tests of ATO and CIFOR Criteria and Indicators in Cameroon, CAR, Congo, Gabon & Cote d'Ivoire completed. Working group established with support from IFIA, EFPRA, EC & France to further develop PCI and establish accreditation panel. Examining the prospects of mutual recognition by assessing experiences of other international/regional schemes. Audits against C+I rather than forest management & performance standards. Further developments may therefore be necessary. Need to gain market acceptance. No chain of custody or product label. Prepare conceptual proposal for standard development, certification, accreditation and institutional arrangements. Aim to audit first concessions in beginning 2001. INSTITUTION COUNTRIES SECTORS STANDARDS ACTIVITIES ISSUES/COMMENTS FUTURE INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION FOR STANDARDISATION Last update:29/09/00 Represented in over 100 countries. Initial support for forest certification under ISO derived from industry primarily in developed countries, but more recently support in developing countries has grown. Industry and forest owner led. Scope for all interests to be involved in decision making on equal terms. Developed generic management standard ISO14001 for application in all sectors. ISO has published guidance material on implementation of 14001 in forest sector. ISO 14001 does not set performance requirements or specific criteria & indicators for sustainable forestry. Evolved 14000 standards series to provide companies in all industrial sectors with a set of tools for managing environmental impacts and risks. ISO 14001 is a specification and the only standard in the ISO 14000 series that is certifiable. ISO 14061 is a Forestry technical report that outlines how forestry organisations can integrate the objective of sustainable forest management (SFM) into the management system elements of ISO 14000. ISO14001 provides an assurance that an organisation has implemented a management system to ensure conformance with a stated environmental policy. It does not measure forest practices (performance) directly. The specific SFM criteria and indicators adopted are at the discretion of the organisation. Makes no provision for chain of custody and does not provide a product label. The standard is well adapted to industrial systems. It may not be appropriate to small-scale producers, particularly in the developing world. ISO 14001 certified EMS can be a useful intermediary step for implementing performance-based forest management certification. No further technical work targeted at forest sector planned by ISO. However, ISO14001 is being integrated into many national forest certification schemes. Use of ISO14001 in the sector is expected to increase. PAN-EUROPEAN CERTIFICATION SCHEME Last update: 25/10/00 Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland. Led by non industrial forest owners In line with Helsinki Pan-European Criteria for Sustainable Forest Management General Council comprising representatives from participating countries has developed standards and institutional framework. A product label has also been developed. Standards from Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria and Germany have been endorsed. 23.5 million ha (October 2000) certified in 4 different countries, where standards have been endorsed by PEFC. First use of PEFC label on products from Finish forests (October 2000). Based on the mutual recognition of national standards. Proposed that certification will be carried out on a regional, group or individual forest level. Systems will involve independent third party auditing using national accreditation services. Need to gain market acceptance. Increased participation of environmental groups to be sought. Market promotion of the label needed. NATIONAL TIMBER CERTIFICATION SCHEMES COUNTRY INSTITUTION SECTORS STANDARDS ACTIVITIES ISSUES/COMMENTS FUTURE AUSTRIA Last update: 22/09/00 Ministry for Environment, Youth and Family (MEYF) Government led. Advisory board with wide representation of interest groups. Developed by MEYF. Based on all relevant national and international agreements such as Helsinki, Montreal and ITTO guidelines. Federal law requiring development of voluntary certification scheme. Criteria and indicators tested in the field by CIFOR in 1995. Standards finalised and tested to examine applicability and cost-efficiency in typical Austrian forest owner categories. Feasibility study considering institutional framework and chain of custody completed. Study on standards for certification body, principles for single/group certification completed. Strong government support for certification. Government very interested in debate on mutual recognition. Numerous small non-industrial forest owners do not favour forest unit certification. Presently not committed to any multinational timber certification schemes. Following mutual recognition debate. AUSTRIA Last update: 12/9/00 PEFC Austria Forest owners and Industry with wide participation of interest groups. Criteria and Indicators developed in line with Helsinki guidelines. Standard developed to be compatible with PEFC requirements. Operational. Standards and chain of custody finalised and endorsed by PEFC September 2000. Nine regions defined that can apply for PEFC certification. In the first region certification has started. Strong support from small forest owners who will have access to label through group certifications. Group model for chain of custody verification. Aim to start certifying by end 2000. BELGIUM Last update: 18/09/00 FSC National Working Group NGO led, notably WWF Belgium. Some forest owner and industry involvement Being developed using FSC Principles as starting point Operational. Standards finalised and endorsed by FSC. WWF pilot project for certification of small-scale timber processing industry. Currently 4,342 ha (August 1999) certified. Numerous small forest owners. Considerable variations in perceptions of need for certification. Mostly in Flemish region. Attempt to reach consensus between various groups. Harmonise standards with Flemish government subsidisation schemes BELGIUM Last update: 15/5/00 (ASBL) Woodnet, a co-operative of all the representative organisations of the region of Walloon timber sector Forest owners, industry and professional foresters Relies on regional Government forestry Legislation drawn up to be compatible with Helsinki Criteria. Developed chain of custody procedures to provide independent assurance that timber derives from Walloon region of Belgium and is therefore subject to Walloon legislation. A certificate of origin is being marketed. The certificate is awarded by the Walloon Chambers of Commerce. Certificate of origin rather than timber certification scheme. Numerous small forest owners. Strong resistance to the concept of certification at the level of the individual forest unit for reasons of cost. Working towards endorsement by PEFC. BOLIVIA Last update: 13/09/00 National Standards Committee. Bolivian Council for Voluntary Forest Certification (BCFV) Private sector led, broad involvement of all interests. Strong government backing. Standards developed using FSC Principles as starting point Operational. Standards based on FSC framework prepared by BCVC, endorsed by the FSC. Aim to ensure credibility of certification and to seek approval from ISO and ITTO. Supported by WWF, USAID. 7 forests totalling 660,133 ha (August 2000) certified by FSC certifier (Smartwood). 1996 National Forest Law requires independent compliance audits. Most developed South American scheme. Chain of custody and product labelling included. Aim to have 25% Bolivian forests certified in 7 years. 1 Million ha by end of 2000. BRAZIL Last update: 13/09/00 CERFLOR (national forest certification scheme Brazil) developed by ABNT (Brazilian national standards body) & Brazilian Society for Silviculture ABNT Technical Committee comprising standards experts, industry assocs., research institutes, NGOs, government. Standards developed through participatory process governed by ABNT, based largely on ISO procedures, ITTO guidelines and FSC Certification criteria for plantation forests produced. Natural forests to be covered later on. Field testing of standards currently undertaken. Procedures for establishing and monitoring chain of custody and product labelling are being developed. Scheme emphasises voluntarism, self-regulation and independence. Aim is to positively differentiate Brazilian products. Discussions with various interest groups suggest standards are considered broadly acceptable. Develop standards for natural forests. Finalise chain of custody criteria. Establish policy for % based claims for certified products. Aim to be operational by end 2000 BRAZIL Last update: 13/09/00 FSC National Working Group NGO led, participation from academic institutions and some industry associations (e.g. AIMEX) To be compatible with FSC Principles Two sets of standards, developed by 2 subgroups for Amazonian forest and plantation, in the process of completion. Standards have been tested for both types of forests. Promotional activities. FSC accredited certifiers already operating in Brazil – 7 forests totalling 665,558 (August 2000) ha have been certified using interim standards. Funding provided by Ford Foundation. Local certifiers not sought FSC accreditation due to lack of funds. Uncertainty over foreign certifiers ability to assess Brazilian forests. Tracing logs problematic. Potential for linkage with CERFLOR. Final documents to be submitted to FSC for endorsement during 2000. Develop local capacity. Tackle chain of custody. Harmonisation process with other countries with similar forests. CAMEROON Last update: 13/09/00 FSC National Working Group Broad based participation from all interested sectors Based on FSC and ATO Principles and Criteria and ITTO guidelines Draft national standards produced December 1996, subsequently tested by CIFOR. Results of pilot test and comments from other interested parties incorporated into second draft reviewed in 1997. A number of training workshops have been held. Pilot certifications. Initiative supported by WWF Belgium. Major problems faced include lack of official recognition by government, and lack of funding. Existing arrangements for allocation of concessions have complicated pilot testing. Total lack of FSC certifiers based in Africa. Obtain more funds, improve co-operation with Government, ATO, CIFOR etc. Wider consultation on standards. Training of auditors by Smartwood. CANADA Last update: 13/09/00 Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Fully participatory process involving all sectors. Some environmental groups chose not to participate. Developed by multi-stakeholder group compatible with ISO Standards, Montreal Process, national forest laws Scheme now fully operational. Developed two detailed standards documents subjected to nation-wide review: Z808 Guidance Document provides a general description of the Sustainable Forest Management Standard; Z809 Document provides detailed requirements for certification. Institutional framework finalised. 2 975 000 ha (Sept 2000) certified. Any combination of owners may be certified. ISO 14001 is prerequisite for CSA. It can be considered as a hybrid system combining both management system and performance requirements. Compulsory 3rd party certification and measurable improvements. NGO backing has been limited to date. Does not provide for chain of custody or product labelling. Promote implementation of the standard by Canadian companies. Raise awareness of the system in major markets. Encourage international harmonisation through ISO. CANADA Last update 13/09/00 FSC Regional Working Groups NGO led Seeking to develop regional standards consistent with FSC Principles Draft standards for British Columbia & Great Lakes/St Lawrence complete. Standards for Maritimes endorsed by FSC. 21 299 ha (August 2000) certified against interim standards drawn up by FSC accredited certifiers. Limited industry and owner participation. A number of Canadian companies have committed to FSC certification in response to customer demand. Continue work on regional standards. Standards for British Columbia to be ready in August 2001. CHILE Last update: 3/10/00 Instituto Forestal (INFOR) Government FSC, ISO Certification draft proposal prepared by INFOR is being studied by working group IV (comprising government, industry, academia) and is carrying out a survey of interested parties and their perceptions/attitudes towards certification. Promoted by government and supported by EU. Participation of NGO's and national standards institute. Project hopes to develop certification process appropriate to Chile. Low level of interest for certification by forest owners and companies CHILE Last update: 15/09/00 FSC National working group Forestry consultancy, NGO's Preliminary pilot testing of criteria in line with FSC P&C Pilot studies carried out by UK consultants on certification standards. Promotional activities to introduce certification. Preliminary work with limited participation. Independent certification has not proved popular and main large forest owners and companies do not trust or fully comprehend independent forest certification such as FSC. FSC certification is perceived as expensive and a threat to forest industry. Current certification interest oriented to ISO. No demand for certification from main markets (Asian). Conduct a process of consultation of forest certification. Develop national standards for natural forests and plantations. Develop consultation and reference program for undertaking certification and accreditation for FSC. COLOMBIA Last update: 13/09/00 Interim FSC working group NGO led Planned to be in line with FSC P&C Workshops held to raise awareness of FSC and promote certification. Draft national standards complete. Formation of full national working group. COSTA RICA Last update: 18/09/00 National Commission on Forest Certification Government-led Based on FSC principles and Criteria Commission has developed standards and procedures for accreditation of certifiers. Workshop on C&I for plantations held. Testing of standards by CIFOR. Drafting standards for secondary growth forests. 40,153 Hectares (August 2000) certified by FSC certifiers using interim standards. No formal collaboration between this government initiative and FSC, but they are looking for FSC recognition of the standards. Certification not attractive for small forest owners. Training of stakeholders and a program of extension and awareness raising. Looking for FSC recognition of standards. Collaboration with Finland. COUNTRY INSTITUTION SECTORS STANDARDS ACTIVITIES ISSUES/COMMENTS FUTURE CZECH REPUBLIC Last update: 20/09/00 National Certification Centre (NCC) Government-led Based on primarily Czech national forestry Act and laws, Pan European Principles and Montreal principles, FSC 1 Million ha (November 1999) of forests certified by NCC. Draft documents describing the forest certification scheme and criteria and indicators submitted to Czech Society for quality for conformity assessment to ensure. The scheme is promoted through seminars and workshops and direct contact with main stakeholders. NCC is preparing its system to meet the conditions of the PEFC, including separating the power of the certifying and auditing organs, accreditation of certification bodies by the Czech Institute of Accreditation, implementation of ISO 14000. Certification will be free of charge and voluntary. Develop final draft of criteria and indicators. Working towards full endorsement by PEFC DENMARK Last update: 19/09/00 PEFC Denmark Non industrial forest owners Guidelines for sustainable forest management One working group for designing certification system and one for formulating standards. Guidelines developed during a national process involving a range of stakeholders. Scheme accommodates all relevant forest types and ownership. Group or regional certification procedures are being developed to cover smaller owners. No institutional arrangements for accreditation of certifiers. Working towards full endorsement by PEFC DENMARK Last update: 19/09/00 FSC National Working Group NGO-Led To be in line with FSC Principles Final draft standards formulated and sent to FSC for endorsement and sent for comment to stakeholders. 36 Ha (August 2000) certified by FSC certifiers using interim standards. Forest certification and chain of custody certification. Waiting for FSC endorsement of national standard. FSC promotional campaign. Harmonisation of standards and initiatives with neighbouring countries. ESTONIA Last update: 19/10/00 National Forest certification Working Group NGO-led. May have some government support To be in line with FSC Principles Plans being made for institutionalising the relationship with FSC. Work in very early stages. Establish FSC Working Group to draw up certification standard. Test standards. COUNTRY INSTITUTION SECTORS STANDARDS ACTIVITIES ISSUES/COMMENTS FUTURE FINLAND Last update: 16/10/00 Finnish Forest Certification System working group Broad range of interests facilitated by government Certification standard in line with Helsinki Principles and refined for regional application. Broadly compatible with FSC and ISO14001. Endorsed by PEFC. Operational. 15 Million ha (October 2000) forests certified. First certifications on the chain of custody verification system issued in April 2000. Uses certifiers accredited to ISO 14000. Well-advanced certification programme developed outside FSC framework. Regional level approach has been developed due to high proportion of small private owners. The certification is therefore in the form of regional group certificates. Most companies already certified to ISO14001 and EMAS for manufacturing and forestry operations. Chain of custody approved by PEFC and will use PEFC label by October 2000. Scheme accepted by major UK retailer B&Q. Aim to have 90% of country certified by end 2000 - certified area would then be 23 million ha. Development of specific accreditation procedures for the standard. FINLAND Last update: 18/09/00 FSC National Working Group (not endorsed) Environmental NGOs To be in line with FSC P&C Intend to rewrite certification criteria agreed by the National Working Group to better reflect ENGO views The group has received no formal endorsement from FSC and has very limited participation. Negotiations between NGO's and forest industry to develop FSC standard FRANCE Last update: 18/09/00 PEFC Working group Federation of private forest owners, French Pulp and Paper Federation & NGO Based on ISO 9000 and ISO 14001. Agreed a standard in line with PEFC criteria. Certification of ISO 14000 is required for forest management organisations at the regional level. Promotion of benefits of certification to forest owners. Field tests completed December 1999. Preliminary application of standards submitted to PEFC for assessment. Developing chain of custody. Slow progress in disseminating information. December 99 storms have set back forest owners. Forest owners have strong reservations on certification, particularly about international competitiveness of small forest owners. Endorsement by PEFC. First certified wood expected in 2001. GABON Last update: 13/09/00 National Working Group (under development) NGO-led FSC framework Initiative supported by WWF-Belgium and Austrian government. Attended training course in Cameroon. Scheme in very early stages. Establish FSC national working group GERMANY Last update: 16/10/00 PEFC Germany and German Forest Certification Council Industry Relies on existing German forestry legislation and standards, FSC and Pan European standards Operational and endorsed by PEFC. Chain of custody monitoring to guarantee timber derives from a German forest. Wood promoted under claim “Timber from Sustainable Forestry, Grown in German Forest” 2.3 Million hectares certified (October 2000) according to the German forest certification scheme. Scheme applies to all forest ownership and both plantation and natural forests. Certification bodies certifying against PEFC Germany must be accredited by the German national accreditation agency. Includes chain of custody and product labelling. Market promotion, particularly German domestic markets. Compare PEFC and FSC in practice. Estimated 7.5 million hectares (70%) certified within 2 years. COUNTRY INSTITUTION SECTORS STANDARDS ACTIVITIES ISSUES/COMMENTS FUTURE GERMANY Last update: 13/09/00 FSC National Working Group ENGO-led To be in line with FSC Principles Standards completed and endorsed by FSC. Standards have been field-tested. 124,264 ha (August 2000) Certified. Major challenge will be to overcome considerable resistance of German forest owners towards FSC certification. GHANA Last update: 18/09/00 National Certification Committee Government led with broad representation Draft standards developed based on ISO14001 & bridging document, FSC, ITTO Guidelines, ATO C&I Draft certification standards documents have been developed setting out both minimum performance criteria and management specifications. Field-testing completed. Gaps identified have been closed. Dialogue with FSC. Seeking harmonisation and mutual recognition with other schemes. Working with SGS and Dutch government (Keurhout) on chain of custody log-tracking systems. Progress has been rapid due to existence of well-developed regulatory framework. Now most developed scheme in Africa. Auditors may be accredited by any credible local or international organisation. Scheme to be applied to reserve and off reserve forests. Scheme will include chain of custody and product labelling. Pilot testing and finalisation of standards. Develop local certifier & accreditation capacity. Consider ways of ensuring market acceptance INDONESIA Last update: 18/09/00 LEI Eco-labelling Institute Fully participatory process involving all sectors. Involvement of all interests has ensured broad support Standards developed based on national policy, ITTO Guidelines, ISO, FSC and public consultation Operational. Developed a set of national criteria and indicators for both natural and plantation forests. Considerable work on effective institutional structure and on chain of custody. Memorandum of understanding between LEI and FSC to ensure international recognition in which FSC agreed that FSC accredited certifiers should use LEI standards. Interim provision for Joint Certification Program between LEI and FSC-accredited certifiers, whereby certified timber will carry both labels One of the most highly developed national schemes anywhere in the world. National Standardisation Institute will accredit certifiers. Certifiers will be locally trained and paid by LEI rather than the applicant. Presently LEI is the only certifier. Has suffered from lack of funds. Developing local capacity remains major challenge. Stumbling block has been to have standards accepted in marketplace, however now accepted by major UK retailer (B&Q). Scheme includes chain of custody and labelling. Refine standards to comply with FSC and acceptable to national stakeholders. Aim towards mutual recognition. Continue capacity building. Assessor training. LEI heading towards being an accreditor for certifiers of ecolabeling programs in Indonesia. IRELAND Last update: 25/09/00 FSC National Working Group NGO-led Standards in line with FSC Principles Two draft national standards have been submitted. Seminars/public meetings on independent forest certification. Close involvement of Coillte, which owns the state's forest resource. Coillte not prepared to wait for national standards to be completed and will use interim standards to certify forests if needed. Finalise standards and submit to FSC for endorsement. COUNTRY INSTITUTION SECTORS STANDARDS ACTIVITIES ISSUES/COMMENTS FUTURE LATVIA Last update: 19/09/00 PEFC Latvia Latvian Forest Owners Association Pan European principles Develop certification scheme. Extension and training in certification and chain of custody to all those involved in certification process. Necessary infrastructure for forest certification is under development. Government supports certification, but says that final decision on which certification scheme will depend on market demands. Organising regional groups. Working towards endorsement of standards by PEFC towards end 2000. LATVIA Last update: 19/09/00 FSC National working group Principally NGOs, Latvian forest certification bureau Standards in line with FSC Principles Draft standard completed in April 1999. Field audit of standards by SGS with funding from World Bank. JSC Latvijas has resolved to certify 50% of its forests under FSC in two years time. Latvian forest interests are cautious due to costs & difficulties of chain of custody. Latvia is also undergoing extensive privatisation and reform programmes. Refine standards, address industry concerns MALAYSIA Last update: 28/09/00 National Timber Certification Council (NTCC) Run by an independent Council including representatives from all sectors. Firm government backing. Standards based on national policy and ITTO Criteria. Consideration given to ISO procedures. Discussions with FSC re compatibility with FSC Principles & Criteria and mutual recognition. Certification standard (MC&I) for natural forests developed by a national task force. Pilot certifications by SGS and chain of custody shipments carried out in association with Keurhout scheme in Holland. Guidelines for chain of custody being reviewed. Assessor training program on forest certification with SmartWood. Guide for assessors produced and field-tested. Collaborating with WWF and FSC to form working group to formulate FSC-compatible standard. Well-developed scheme that currently covers the whole of Malaysia. Development may be constrained by lack of trained manpower. Increased public and NGO participation in the scheme and mutual recognition should enhance market credibility. Economic problems of region may reduce priority given to certification. Domestic and regional markets are not demanding certification. Target to have fully operational scheme by early 2001. Training of assessors. Independent study on comparison of scheme with FSC Principles & Criteria to propose amendments to MC&I and endorsement by FSC. Mutual recognition with PEFC. MEXICO Last update: 18/09/00 Mexican Council for Sustainable Forestry. NGO led, participation from forestry organisations Standards to be consistent with FSC Principles and Criteria and ITTO guidelines and forest laws Draft standards available. Some co-operation with Smartwood (FSC accredited certifiers). 169,215 ha (August 2000) have been certified by FSC accredited certifiers using interim standards. Certification to be primarily directed at domestic market. Prohibitively high fees for small producers. Lack of market incentive. Submit draft standards to FSC. Institution building. Awareness campaigns THE NETHERLANDS Last update: 3/10/00 National Forest Accord Government led with broad participation of other interests Standards to be consistent with Pan European C&I Commitment of all interest groups to implement national forest policy and develop certification through National Forest Accord. Produced national criteria and indicators for SFM in the Netherlands. COUNTRY INSTITUTION SECTORS STANDARDS ACTIVITIES ISSUES/COMMENTS FUTURE THE NETHERLANDS Last update: 29/09/00 Keurhout Government and industry Dutch government developed “minimum requirements” for certificates entering the Dutch market (applies to domestic and imported timber). Reference to ISO standards and guides. Derived from ITTO guidelines and FSC Principles. Keurhout is operating a hallmark (labelling) system guaranteeing the sustainable origin of timber by verifying certificates of origin and sustainable production through 3rd party assessment, against Dutch government criteria. Monitors chain of custody of imported and local timber from point of entry into Holland for hallmarking. Promotes all valid certificates, including FSC & national certificates. Has verified and accepted certificates from Brazil (FSC), Canada (CSA), Finland (FFCS), Solomon Islands (FSC) Sweden (family certification & FSC). Keurhout has accepted a phased approach to certification of timber sources from forests scheduled for certification in the year 2000 (Malaysia). Collaboration with FSC to allow 3rd party chain of custody of certificates and/or reports in the Netherlands, to be endorsed by both systems. NGO's only support FSC certificates. The Dutch timber trade supports the hallmark system. Keur Hout does not itself certify forest operations. Bilateral discussions with exporters and pilot operation of scheme in association with Malaysia. Timber tracking system developed by Coopers and Lybrand and being tested in Ghana. Develop bilateral arrangements with other exporting countries, such as Ghana, Finland, Indonesia where timber tracking is currently being tested. Increase market awareness. THE NETHERLANDS Last update: 3/10/00 FSC National Working Group is endorsed by FSC under preconditions that are not yet fully met. Broad participation of NGO's government, industry and trade unions. Good Wood Foundation facilitates the work of the FSC contact person. In line with FSC Principles. Standard submitted for endorsement to the FSC secretariat and likely to be presented to the board in January 2001. Group certification schemes are under development by Face Foundation and the small forest owners association Unie van Bosgroepen. 69,064 Hectare (August 2000) certified using interim standards. FSC is promoted by a wide range of NGO’s and industry. The Good Wood foundation has the objective of promoting an exchange of knowledge between companies with regard to forest management practices and certification and promotes FSC timber. There is one FSC-accredited certification body operating in the Netherlands. FSC endorsement of National Standard in the beginning of 2001. NEW ZEALAND Last update: 27/09/00 New Zealand Forest Industries Council Verification of Environmental Performance (VEP) project team Industry with broad participation National performance standard for NZ plantation forestry. Compatible with FSC P&C at national level. Based on ISO 14001 EMS. Establishing multi-stakeholder group for developing National Performance standard for NZ plantation forestry. National standard will codify requirements for environmental standards that are set at local government level through Resource Management Act. These are performance standards in terms of soil disturbance, water quality, air, noise, waste treatment. Developing draft report cards and audit guidelines for sawmilling operations. Using UKWAS as a model. Hope to differentiate NZ standards as higher than other national standards. VEP composes report cards which provides a verifiable statement of an organisations environmental and social performance. This includes forestry, processing and chain of custody. Auditing by a 3rd party to provide a certificate of compliance. Aim to have working group in place by late 2000. Final standard available for use by mid 2001. Intend to develop performance standards for processing operations. Mutual recognition with other schemes. NORWAY Last update: 16/10/00 Living Forest Project Forest owner and Industry led with broad-based participation of other interests. Standards are consistent with the Helsinki Criteria, FSC Principles and criteria and ISO14001 Operational and endorsed by PEFC May 2000. Extensive process of consensus building, research and testing to develop SFM standards. 5 Million hectares (October 2000) certified. Program original aim was to reach a national consensus on SFM in Norway’s forests. Plans for certification developed later. Small owners are involved in the Pan European programme. Norway’s only large industrial owner seems to favour closer links with FSC. Promoting market acceptance PAPUA NEW GUINEA Last update: 18/09/00 FSC National Working Group NGO-led In line with FSC Principles and national forest regulation Operational. Working towards full endorsement by FSC. Lack of input from forestry industry. Lack of publicity. Circulate and finalise draft standards. Field test standards. POLAND Last update: 20/10/00 Polish State Forest Service, SGS Government, FSC accredited certifier Standards based on FSC Principles drawn up by SGS following expert review & stakeholder consultation SGS development of checklist for certification of Polish state forests using FSC Principles and based on expert review. Issue of FSC certificate following assessment of forest practices by SGS. Total area certified amounts to 2.7 million hectares (August 2000) using interim standards. Credibility has been questioned due to over-reliance on interim standards and lack of FSC National Working Group in Poland. RUSSIA Last update: 10/10/00 Federal Forest Service & the All Russian Research and Information Centre for Forest Resources Government led Sustainable forest management standards based on national forest laws Established ad-hoc expert committee of foresters, forest scientists and ecologists. Analysed scope of certification program. Preliminary consideration of institutional framework. Drafted a list of certification requirements. Narrow group of forest experts in the federal service has developed C+I of SFM that form core of certification. No recent reports of activity or status of scheme. System will encompass certification at forest management unit level, chain of custody audits and labelling. Will involve co-operation between Federal Government, local administrations and forest owners. Mandatory certification to show compliance with forest laws is proposed by article 71 of forest code. Buyers groups are not likely to look favourably upon goods certified under a mandatory system and may be seen as a potential trade barrier under WTO. Draw up sustainability criteria. Develop institutional framework. COUNTRY INSTITUTION SECTORS STANDARDS ACTIVITIES ISSUES/COMMENTS FUTURE RUSSIA Last update: 10/10/00 National FSC working group. NGO led Standards based on FSC principles Creation of four regional working groups. FSC approved regional C&I of SFM, at the forest management unit level, in central and southern parts of Khabararovski Kray region. First certification using interim FSC standards certified (32,800 ha). Association of Environmentally Responsible Producers of Russia aims to connect members with Western companies committed to buying certified timber. Barriers to certification are a lack of information and the lack of an economic incentive and heavy bureaucratic systems in the country. WWF and World Bank are focussing their efforts here and there should be a significant increase in activity. Voluntary certification is used here as a mechanism for generating better access to European markets. First regional standards to be endorsed by FSC at end 2000. SWEDEN Last update: 13/9/00 FSC National Working Group Participation from NGOs, large forest industry companies, trade unions, and the Lapps. Non industrial forest owners withdrew. FSC Principles, Helsinki Criteria, and ISO 14000 series provided starting point. Operational. Partial consensus (omitting non- industrial forest owners) reached on certification standard, subsequently endorsed as FSC National standard. Following FSC endorsement of the standard, certification by FSC accredited certifiers has been rapid. Total area certified (Sept 2000) 9.1 million hectares. Failure of FSC “National” Standard to accommodate non- industrial owners means it covers only 50% of forest area and 40% of timber production. Creates chain of custody monitoring difficulties due to high reliance of many mills on wood from non-industrial lands. FSC certification for “off product” communication seen as important as marketing a label. Swedish industry views FSC as compatible with ISO14001. Extend FSC certification to all industry lands in Sweden. SWEDEN Last update: 13/09/00 Forest Owners Associations (Family Forest Certification) Non industrial forest owners ISO14001, National Legislation, Pan European principles Operational and endorsed by PEFC. “Green Balance Sheets” for conservation monitoring and public disclosure of performance in place. Total area certified (October 2000) 1.2million ha. Accreditation practices have been elaborated in close contact with the Swedish accreditation institute. Represent around 200,000 forest owners that manage 50% of forest land and account for 60% of wood production. Criteria developed by small, non-industrial private holdings. Based on group certification. Full compatibility with ISO 14001 standard on EMS. Does not provide own label, will use PEFC label. Aim to have 2 million ha certified by end 2000 SWITZERLAND Last update: 18/09/00 PEFC and HWK-Zertifizierungsstelle Pan European (Helsinki) principles, ISO 14000, national forest regulations Operational. Q labelling system covers the whole supply chain from forest through processing to clients. Applicable for all sizes of organisations. Independent 3rd party verification operating under European standards for accreditation bodies. Valid for 5 years. Works on basis of continual improvement. Working towards endorsement by PEFC COUNTRY INSTITUTION SECTORS STANDARDS ACTIVITIES ISSUES/COMMENTS FUTURE SWITZERLAND Last update: 19/09/00 FSC Core Group Participation from NGOs and forest industry. To be consistent with FSC Principles. FSC Core group produced proposals for design of national certification framework and drawn up draft standards. Standards tested in a single Canton, not acceptable to NGO's. 11,490 Ha certified using interim FSC national standards. Strong government backing for certification. Small size of Swiss forest holdings has meant that owners are concerned about cost implications. No progress made since NGO objection on certification project (1996). NGO activity towards working group formation. UNITED KINGDOM Last update: 5/10/00 FSC National Working Group NGO led, participation of certifiers, institutional landowners. Government acted as consultants Consistent with FSC Principles and Criteria. Operational and endorsed as FSC “national” standard October 1998. Working group is facilitating development of group chain of custody. Promotional activities. Forest owner and industry participation in development of FSC national standard was limited. FSC certification in the UK now requires full compliance with FSC national standard. Scheme now linked to development of Woodland Assurance Scheme (see below) UNITED KINGDOM Last update: 02/10/00 UKWAS steering group Broad participation of all sectors, including industry, forest owners, NGOs, government, FSC, certifiers, standards experts. “UK Woodland Assurance Standard” (UKWAS) developed by consensus to be compatible with both UK Government’s National Standard and FSC GB National Standard Became operational in November 1999. Standard recognised as equivalent to FSC-GB standard. UKWAS is currently accepted by all interests to be compatible with both the UK Regulatory Standard and FSC National Standard. Certification under UKWAS by an FSC accredited certifier will therefore entitle forest area to a FSC certificate. UKWAS does not offer its own label. Forest sector is examining potential to develop national accreditation procedures to facilitate endorsement by PEFC. Approximately 1 million hectares certified against UKWAS standard. On-going efforts to develop and update UKWAS. Development of national accreditation arrangements to provide certification options in addition to FSC. Market the scheme. Possibility of submitting UKWAS for endorsement by PEFC. Aim to have 80% of the UK's timber harvest certified. COUNTRY INSTITUTION SECTORS STANDARDS ACTIVITIES ISSUES/COMMENTS FUTURE UNITED STATES Last update: 19/10/00 American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) Self-regulatory industrial mechanism. State Best Management Practices as minimum. Principles objectives and performance indicators drawn up by AF&PA following public consultation. Fully compatible with ISO14001. Operational. Established Sustainable Forestry Board with broad representation that manages the standard, verification procedures and compliance. New performance measures on harvesting levels developed. Increased stakeholder participation. Annual report produced and endorsed by Advisory Group with broad representation. Established Implementation Committees and Policies in 31 states which aim to extend sustainable practices to all forest lands. Expanded SFI to Canada. Developed auditing procedures based on ISO14001. Third party verification option developed. Mutual recognition agreement between SFI and American Tree Farm System. Heavy reliance on large numbers of small private forest owners for timber supply means chain of custody certification difficult. Management systems approach coupled with education activities for forest owners seen as more workable in the US. All AF&PA members required to comply. Scheme can be applied to non-AF&PA members, including non-industrial owners. Auditing procedures based on ISO14001 to provide added assurances to the market. Third party certification not required, however approximately 21.87 million (October 00) ha of forests have voluntary third party verification. Verifiers require accreditation by national standards body. No chain of custody or product label. Expand SFI program licensees. Extensions of programme to non-AF&PA members, including moving program to Central and South America. Increase public awareness. Establish credible system for international mutual recognition. Planning a product label for 2001. UNITED STATES Last update 18/09/00 FSC Regional Working Groups NGO and certifier led. To be consistent with FSC Principles. Various regionally based activities aimed at drawing up certification standards in line with FSC Principles. FSC accredited certifiers are already operating in the States using interim standards. 2,122,243 ha (August 00) certified. Limited participation from forest owners and industry. Finalise regional FSC standards by 2001, and apply for endorsement. References Primary Sources: General sources on certification schemes/initiatives http://www.efi.fi/cis/english/background/schemes.html http://www.forestworld.com/certif/initiatives/initiatives_frame.html http://www.affa.gov.au/corporate_docs/publications/pdf/forestry/certification/cert_label_review.pdf Multinational initiatives PEFC http://www.pefc.org/ FSC http://www.fsc-uk.demon.co.uk/ ISO http://www.iso.ch/ National initiatives FSC countries http://www.fscoax.org/html/5-1-2.html PEFC countries http://www.pefc.org/ Belgium http://www.woodnet.com/NL/framecertif.htm Canada http://www.sfms.com/decade.htm Finland http://www.smy.fi/certification/eng/index.htm Indonesia http://www.lei.or.id/htme/eng.html Malaysia http://www.ntcc.com.my/ Netherlands http://www.goedhout.nl/indexeng.htm Netherlands http://www.stichtingkeurhout.nl/English.htm Norway http://www.levendeskog.no/Engelsk_Default.asp Russia http://www.forest.ru/club.html United Kingdom http://www.forestry.gov.uk/UKWAS/ukwas.html United States http://www.afandpa.org/Forestry/forestry.html DEFRA. DEFRA Timber Procurement Advice Note DEFRA. DEFRA Action Sheet: Wood - a guide for buyers and users (PDF) McGregor, A. (2000). Timber Certification. TRADA timber Industry. http://www.trada.co.uk/topics/environmental/forestry_cert.html?hl=timber+certification%2Ctimber%2Ctimbers%2Ccertification%2Ccertifications Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). http://www.fsc-uk.org Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). (2006). Chain of Custody. Article FSCUK-FS-102. http://www.fsc-uk.org/documents/ Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). (2006). Forest Management. Article FSCUK-FS-101. http://www.fsc-uk.org/documents/ Rugge, I. (2000). Progress in Timber Certification Schemes World-Wide: Summary. http://www.ttf.co.uk/forests/responsible/progress.doc Trada. (2002). The UK government’s position in timber procurement. http://www.trada.co.uk/topics/environmental/government.html?hl=timber+certification%2Ctimber%2Ctimbers%2Ccertification%2Ccertifications Rugge, I. (2002). TTF. Responsible Timber Purchasing http://www.ttf.co.uk/forests/responsible/chain_of_custody.asp Read More