REPORT OF INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS WORKING GROUP MEETING ON TRADE, LABELLING OF FOREST PRODUCTS AND CERTIFICATION OF SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT Joint German-Indonesian Initiative 12-16 August 1996, Bonn I. PREAMBLE In support of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), an International Experts' Working Group Meeting on "Trade, Labelling of Forest Products and Certification of Sustainable Forest Management" was organized in Bonn, Germany 12-16 August 1996 as a joint initiative of the Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Indonesia. At its third session, CSD requested IPF, under its Programme Element of Category IV Trade and Environment Relating to Forest Goods and Services, to "Examine relevant factors affecting trade in forest products and other forest- trade issues in an integrated and holistic approach that promotes a supportive relationship between trade and environment. In this connection, identify opportunities and recommend measures for improving market access for forest products on a non-discriminatory basis, examine the issue of voluntary certification and labelling of forest products to contribute to a better understanding of the role of voluntary certification with regard to the sustainable management of forests including the impact of certification on developing countries." The Meeting sought to build on the results of the International Conference on Certification and Labelling of Products from Sustainably Managed Forests held in Brisbane, Australia 26-31 May 1996. The sponsoring governments organized a preparatory meeting in Jakarta 25-26 January 1996 where representatives of eight countries and international non- governmental organizations (NGOs) defined the scope of work for the Experts■ Meeting. The participants expressed their gratitude to the Government of Germany and the German people for their warm and generous hospitality. Definitions Voluntary certification, as defined in this meeting, entails certification of FMUs against a standard and, in some cases certification of chain-of-custody. It was understood that forest products from certified forests may, or may not, be labelled. II. OBJECTIVES The purpose of the Experts Working Group Meeting was to contribute to the IPF■s work on examining further the potential role of labelling of forest products and certification of forest management as a tool to promote trade in timber coming from sustainably managed forests and thereby contributing to sustainable forest management. Four main issues had been identified as priorities for the consideration of the meeting: (i) Market aspects focusing on the impact of certification of timber from sustainable forest management (SFM), on demand for timber products, and to what extent markets exist for labelled timber. (ii) Trade aspects with emphasis on certification and labelling as instruments within the framework of free trade and necessary measures to ensure that they do not create non-tariff trade barriers. (iii) Forestry aspects studying the impacts of certification on SFM and the existence of globally accepted criteria and indicators for certification. (iv) Implementation aspects: learning from experience of existing schemes and identifying their commonalities. III. ORGANIZATION OF WORK The Meeting in Bonn was attended by 70 participants in their personal capacity as experts coming from 37 countries, international organizations and NGOs. The outcome of the Meeting is this report of the participants. The Meeting was co-chaired by Mr. Hagen Frost and Dr. Toga Silitonga. In the opening session statements were made by the two Co-Chairs and Dr. Jagmohan Maini, Coordinator of the IPF Secretariat. The work of the Meeting was principally carried out in four working groups: 1. Impact of labelling of timber from SFM on demand Co-Chairs: Dr. Gunther Merz and Dr. Toga Silitonga, Rapporteur: Markku Simula 2. Certification/labelling within the framework of free trade Co-Chairs: Mr. Gerhard Schmok and Dr. I.M.G. Tantra, Rapporteur: Geoffrey Pleydell 3. Impacts of certification on SFM Co-Chairs: Prof. Jochen Heuveldop and Prof. Achmad Sumitro, Rapporteur: Erik Lammerts van Bueren 4. Lessons learned from existing schemes Co-Chairs: Dr. Ulrich Hoenisch and Dr. Benni H. Sormin, Rapporteur: Dr. Jrgen Blaser Each working group sought to identify and discuss the key issues and to draw conclusions leading to Options for Action. A considerable amount of time was allocated for comprehensive discussion to allow all participants to express their views. Groups 1 and 2 worked in parallel as did groups 3 and 4. The findings and options for action were discussed in plenary sessions. The list of the papers presented in the Working Groups is given in Annex. IV. OPTIONS FOR ACTION The following represents the agreed consensus of participants attending the conference. 1. Recognising that there is limited experience of certification as one of the possible tools which can potentially contribute to sustainable forest management and improved market access, IPF may wish to consider that there is nonetheless evidence to support its further examination. 2. At the international level, IPF may wish to consider that arrangements should be made for a continuous exchange of information and experience on certification and labelling in appropriate fora to ensure transparency and to facilitate further development of this instrument. 3. IPF may wish to stimulate the policy dialogue by focusing on the international, regional and national levels with respect to the following: international accreditation body(ies); mutual recognition, harmonisation and/or co-ordination of certification systems; mechanisms which are capable of resolving conflicts and conflicts of interest and so assure credibility of schemes; the special needs of small forest owners and community-based forest activities and their integration into forest certification schemes; increased international development co-operation for: - improved forest management to meet certification standards; - human resource development in certification issues, including policy development, standard-setting, and training of competent local assessors for forest management; - market promotion of certified forest products. - exchange of experiences and information - encouragement and support of weaker parties interested in active involvement in certification - establishing consultation processes that seek to involve all interested parties - assessment and monitoring, including chain-of-custody tracking 4. Noting that processes seeking to involve all interested parties in the development of voluntary certification schemes enhance the credibility and effectiveness of such schemes, the IPF may wish to consider the role of governments in relation to market access and the development, implementation, promotion, harmonisation, and mutual recognition of certification and labelling schemes. 5. Recognising that voluntary certification may have impacts at and beyond the forest unit being certified (e.g. international), the IPF may wish to note the need to monitor practical experience of certification. 6. Wherever possible, voluntary certification schemes should take account of C & I frameworks at national, regional, and international levels and the need to maintain relevance and practicability. At the same time, this may enhance the credibility of such schemes. 7. The IPF may wish to consider the outcome of the CIFOR Project and other similar projects insofar as they may provide tools and guidelines to improve credibility, effectiveness, comparability and thus facilitate mutual recognition of C & I frameworks at the FMU level. 8. Recognising the need to identify the preconditions required so that certification and labelling schemes can be seen to be in alignment with the principles of WTO, IPF may wish to bring to the attention of the WTO the potential positive relationship between sustainable forest management and voluntary certification and labelling systems. There is also a possible need to clarify the relationship between WTO provisions and such voluntary systems. 9. Recognising the need to minimise tension between certification schemes and open trade and competition, IPF should highlight the principal concepts of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, which may be of relevance to proposals for certification and labelling and which include: I. non-discriminatory treatment II. avoidance of unnecessary barriers to trade III. transparency IV. encouragement to use international standards and to develop harmonisation V. encouragement for the acceptance of "equivalent" standards and mutual recognition In addition, the Working Group identified the following (non-exhaustive) criteria: - open access and non-discrimination in respect of all types of forest, forest owners, managers and operators - proportionality: not more trade-restrictive than necessary to achieve the environmental objectives - credibility - non-deceptive - cost-effective - a participatory process that seeks to involve all interested parties - implementable and practical - related to sustainable forest management 10. Noting that labelling can help to provide the consumer with information to make buying decisions and to offer the consumer opportunities for choice, and noting the suggestion that there might be a place for a working group, IPF may wish to request that an international organisation should set up such a group to examine, through a process involving all interested parties, the interrelationship between trade, environment and consumer concern relating to forest certification and labelling. 11. Recognising limited knowledge of potential markets for products from certified forests, IPF may wish to note the need to continue to collect and analyse data, and to carry out research on: consumer behaviour, consumption, and end-users; impacts on demand, supply, and substitution, both at national and international levels; price premium and price structure; certification as a policy instrument, including the potential and limitations of market-based certification in relation to other policy instruments for achieving SFM; role of certification as a marketing instrument. V. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS The following is a summary of discussions which took place in four separate Working Groups. It is not intended to represent a consensus of the participants. 1. Market Aspects 1.1 Demand for Certified Products Wood and non-wood products, coming from a renewable natural resource, are inherently environmentally friendly, provided that they are produced in a sustainable manner. This is not fully recognized in the marketplace and, in addition, several forces (bans, boycotts, etc.) have emerged to limit consumption. This represents a constraint on efforts to achieve sustainable forest management (SFM) contributing to undervaluation of forest resources. Certification and labelling (C&L) form a market-based instrument which has been recognized as one of the potentially useful tools among many others to achieve the goal of sustainable management of the world's forest resources. For suppliers and traders, C&L offer an instrument to implement their environmental policies and to promote their commercial interests through increased market shares and higher prices. For consumers, labelling provides quality assurance for the environmental characteristics of the production methods for forest products, allowing consumers to consider this criterion in their purchasing decisions between different materials and different suppliers, and offering them a possibility to convert their environmental awareness into action. C&L thereby offer a two-way channel of communication between producers and consumers where the feedback information is transmitted through purchasing decisions. There are major differences between countries in terms of their market characteristics and forestry situations, which influence the possible application of C&L as instruments: - General environmental preference of consumers is high to medium in many industrialized countries, while it is low or non-existent in many developing countries. - There appears to be less variation in the overall awareness of the environmental issues related to forestry, at least among countries with relatively high forest cover per capita where this awareness is generally significant. - The main driving forces for certification in exporting countries tend to be NGOs but governments are also active in some developing countries, being concerned about their market access in importing countries. In importing countries, NGOs are quoted as the most important force; in a number of cases, retailers and industrial users of forest products have recently become the main driving force. The markets for forest products are differentiated, ranging from commodity to niche markets. From the viewpoint of certification, the following segments may be observed: (i) markets which are indifferent to certification (ii) markets where certified products enjoy a preference among buyers or consumers (iii) markets where voluntary certification is in fact a precondition for purchasing decisions The vast majority of the world's markets for forest products belong to category (i), while the current demand for certified products is mostly confined to a small number of European countries, which, however, are major importers of forest products. There are a significant number of buyers who are committed to buy only certified wood products, and a number of local governments require that tropical timber used in their projects be certified. Wood-based products have ready substitutes and in commodity markets substitution is easily induced even by small price differentials. There is evidence in some markets (e.g. Germany) that timber markets, and in particular tropical timber markets, have decreased dramatically in favour of non-wood substitutes, but this has not been due to price differentials. Some markets have been lost for tropical timber because of anti-tropical timber campaigns, and it is expected that some of these markets could be regained through C&L. Consumer preferences between different types of timbers and substituting materials are not adequately known. C&L is a tool which can positively influence purchasing decisions towards sustainably produced forest products. This, however, requires that the criteria and indicators used in the assessment of forest management and the certification scheme are credible. Demand and supply for certified products are closely interrelated. On both sides elasticities regulate volumes and prices and therefore a balanced development would be desirable. The size of the market for certified products is an important indicator for demonstrating how effective C&L can be in promoting SFM. Knowledge on the volume of this demand is limited. Such information is needed for policy analysis to assess the impacts of certification on demand and supply. These impacts should be assessed both at national and global levels. There is a need to carry out further study on market impacts of certification which should cover all types of timber. 1.2 Price of Certified Products There are some small market segments where a price premium may be expected for certified products (e.g. visible high-value uses in environmentally sensitive markets), while in commodity markets such benefits cannot be foreseen. Experience on eco-labelling schemes for other products suggests that, even if a possible price premium is obtained, it tends to remain a short-term phenomenon. The main market benefit will therefore be measured in terms of market share. If demand expands as a result of certification (e.g. regaining of lost markets), this tends to be reflected in price increases. The bulk of demand for forest products is derived demand. The processing and distribution chain can be long where ownership of goods changes several times. This makes it difficult to transfer a possible price increase in the market for end products to the stumpage value. Certification is a marketing instrument which will be exploited by all the members of the distribution chain. Substitution possibilities represent limitations for pricing decisions. However, in the long run, suppliers have to transfer cost increases, including those due to certification, to their sales prices in the absence of windfall profits, or if they have no other measures to absorb additional costs, such as e.g. improved efficiency. 1.3 Costs and Benefits Certification involves both direct and indirect costs. The former are fixed costs due to the certification operation, while the latter result from the structural changes involved in the management system and technology to meet certification criteria. Incremental costs of sustainable forest management cannot be considered as due to certification as all the countries are committed to achieve sustainable forest management. However, if the criteria and indicators used in certification exceed those of the normative framework already representing sustainability, incremental costs would occur. In many instances, the time distribution of incremental management costs may, however, be influenced by certification. Measurement of incremental management costs is complicated by the fact that sustainability is a dynamic concept and it is understood that the respective criteria and indicators change over time. Incremental management costs may often be recovered through cost savings resulting from reduced damage and waste, improved efficiency, and prevention of illicit logging. In the long run, a higher accumulated yield would also often result from SFM. To achieve these benefits, investments are often needed, including those due to reduced output levels (foregone short-term benefits) to restore the forest's productive capacity which has been lost due to overlogging. The introduction of improvements in forest management is not limited by knowledge on technical solutions or even economic considerations, and the fundamental constraints are often political and social in character. As certification represents a fixed cost, small-scale forest owners are disadvantaged. They are also less equipped to reap possible benefits from certification. However, the occurrence of net benefits for producers is considered a precondition for any enterprise to embark on certification. In large forest properties the direct certification costs will account for a small share of the total and can therefore be absorbed by producers. In the case of small-scale forest owners, the situation is different as the impact on total costs of direct certification costs can be significant, becoming an obstacle. Certification schemes should specifically consider appropriate cost-effective ways for the certification of small-scale forest owners. 1.4 Diversity of Situations Different interested parties have different views on C&L as an instrument since the current state-of-the-art on certification and labelling of forest products is inadequate to assess its effectiveness in promoting SFM, and because the national situations vary in terms of possibilities to make use of this tool. Those countries which depend on markets where C&L are preferred or required, are seeking ways as to how this instrument could be made effective and cost-efficient. The second group of countries see some benefit in some instances in applying C&L, but more information is needed on market demand and possible effectiveness of the instrument. The third group of countries view C&L as being of minor relevance due to their particular national situations. This diversity of situations needs to be duly considered when C&L arrangements are considered at the international level. Continuous exchange of information and experience would also be useful. 2 Trade Aspects In relation to international trade, governments have obligations through WTO mechanisms to develop a framework for open trade. Labelling is being addressed in the WTO. WTO is considering Production and Processing Methods (PPM) and environmental issues but this may take time. The principal concepts of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) which may be of relevance to proposals for certification and labelling include: - non-discriminatory treatment - avoidance of unnecessary barriers to trade - transparency - encouragement to use international standards and to develop harmonization - encouragement for the acceptance of "equivalent" standards and mutual recognition Also of significance is the potential confusion which might be caused by a proliferation of schemes in the market. It is noted that no trade provisions in Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA's) have been challenged. It may be useful to identify the preconditions needed so that certification schemes can be seen to be in alignment with the principles of WTO. It is noted that the TBT agreement contains provisions for certification systems of non-governmental bodies. The International Organization for Standardisation (ISO) has evolved principles for preparing standards which have influenced WTO requirements for TBT's. It was noted that some participants expressed their concern about the appropriateness of ISO in certification and labelling in the environmental field. Developing international agreements takes a long time and therefore it is important to note existing and prospective systems and their potential for contributing to the process for achieving certification and labelling. Labelling can help to provide the consumer with information to make buying decisions and to offer opportunities for choice. To relieve tension between certification schemes and free trade, it is essential to examine and clarify, inter alia, the following criteria: a. Open access and non-discrimination in respect of all types of forest, forest owners, managers and operators b. Proportionality: not more trade-restrictiveness than necessary to achieve the environmental objective c. Transparency d. Credible e. Non-deceptive f. Related to Sustainable Forest Management g Cost-effective h. A participatory process which seeks to involve all interested parties i. Be implementable and practical j. Needs of interested parties, particularly weaker members It was suggested that there might be a place for a working group within an appropriate forum to identify some of the issues in relation to forestry trade. 3. Impacts of Certification on Sustainable ForestManagement The impact of certification on SFM is expressed in two components: - Improvement of the quality of forest policy and management, and the state of the eco-system - Expansion of the size of the area where improvement takes place. The demand for wood from sustainably managed forest can encourage supply through the mechanism of certification. Certification is both a tool for identification of the source of the wood and the establishment of a threshold for the quality of forest management. Certification may serve other functions such as satisfying environmental concerns about forest management and provides independent third party audit of forest management. Many countries are making progress towards sustainable forest management following their commitments to the UNCED Forest Principles. 3.1 Criteria and Indicators for Certification An important element of a certification scheme is the standard used for the assessment of the sustainability of the forest. A standard is a set of principles of criteria and indicators, (C and I) placed in a hierarchical framework. C and I are tools to conceptualize, evaluate and implement sustainable forest management. C and I may be formulated to serve at international, national and local levels (FMU). Sets of C and I for use at the FMU level have been developed to assess the quality of management and the ecosystem. C and I have been developed for use at the international and national levels mainly to facilitate reporting and monitoring and represent an additional instrument of forest policy. Sets of C and I developed for different purposes and for application at different levels may not be fully compatible without adjustments. Internationally agreed C and I for SFM require further evaluation and adjustment at national level and FMU level before the implementation of a certification system. There is a set of P and C, developed by FSC which serves as a reference standard for the assessments of the FMU. So far 26 FMU's have been certified and others are in the process of being assessed. Those forests which have been certified had initially a high quality of management. The credibility of certification schemes rest on the participation of all interested parties in the evolution of standards (P, C and I). The importance of bringing indigenous knowledge into the process of formulating and assessing C and I is emphasized. Certification schemes need to be further developed and improved, by learning from practical experience and from further research. Evaluation by different CIFOR test teams showed important commonalities in the preferred ecological C and I and, to a lesser extent, in social C and I's. Nevertheless consistency of the sets of P, C and I and the assessment procedures need to be improved. Further work should be undertaken in the development of C and I for the social components of sustainable forest management, and for biodiversity. Also the hierarchical framework needs improvement to facilitate the development of consistent sets of P, C and, I. Linkages between the formulation of C and I at the various levels - international, national, and the FMU - should be established. A study has shown that it is feasible to apply and adjust a globally developed standard to regional vonditions. Adjustments of criteria and indicators should be aimed to match the specific conditions pertinent to the region. Such specific conditions may comprise history of forest management, land-use planning procedures and the structure of forest ownership. Studies of the relevance and applicability for regional or national conditions of existing international sets of C and I and of adjustments which may be necessary would contribute to the use of the standard at FMU level. 3.2 Impact on Forest Management The impacts of certification are both direct and indirect. They are most direct on each individual forest which is assessed for certification purposes. The assessment may be related to the production of timber or non timber products. It may also be related to forest management not directed at production. The potential limits of the impact of certification of timber products originating from sustainably managed forest are determined by the size of the productive forest area and the volume of the produced wood. Certification is considered to be a market-based instrument at present focussed principally on timber which is traded internationally. Out of the total amount of timber harvested worldwide, about 10 % (350 million m3) enters the international market every year. It is estimated that only 5.5 % of the timber produced in tropical countries is traded internationally. At present the demand for timber from sustainably managed forest is evident mainly in environmentally sensitive markets including Western Europe, which absorbs less than 2 % of the volume of exported tropical timber. Potential impacts of certification may vary between forest regions. There could be a significant influence on boreal forest management as a result of environmental requirements imposed by European buyers and users of pulp and paper. Due to the relatively high standard of forest management in temperate forest regions impacts of certification may be less spectacular but none the less may result in adaptions of forest regimes. Impacts of certification on tropical forests may appear limited in relation to the vast entire area of tropical forests. Impacts of certification may be positive or negative. Potential benefits include access to specific markets, prestige for the forest manager and the local community, increased motivation of forest managers and policy-makers, the element of additional technical advice as a result of the inspection and monitoring activities, catalyst for innovation, strengthened consultation processes, potential for mobilizing new financial resources, improved recognition of increasingly valuable non-timber products and services, creating increased understanding of SFM, contributing to land use and forest policy formulation at the national level. Negative impacts include the costs of implementing certification and the incremental costs of improving forest management. Possibly the process of improving forest management might be seen as a national obligation. Also benefits in the long-term such as reinstalled productive capacity may be expected. Forest managers may react against certification during the transition period. Countries which have at present little capacity to step up the quality of forest management may feel that they are discriminated against and anticipate a loss of access to some markets. This may result in overcutting in the short term and loss of forest to other land use in the long term. Possible contradictions between requirements imposed by external certification standards and national legislation may be an obstacle to certification, but this should be resolvable through consultative processes. Certification of small forest lots and small forest holdings might be achieved if owners grouped themselves into associations or other appropriate groupings. Ecological criteria and indicators for small forest units should be established through a consultative process involving relevant interest groups. Air pollution poses stress problems for sustainability of some forests and other forests may be faced with special problems which affect sustainability and certification. 4. Implementation Aspects In order to get an overview of the state of the art of C&L, six examples covering different levels of developing and on-going certification schemes were presented. The examples were representative of the main existing environmental management systems, standards, and certificates or labels. 4.1 Standards and Certification Process Standards (including performance standards and management system standards) are used as a basis for the assessment of applicants to a certification scheme. Performance standards are derived from the principles, criteria and indicators (C&I) for certification of sustainable forest management. Existing forest management certification programmes generally share similar common principles. FSC provides international certification principles and criteria for forest management, which include performance standards and management system standards. Due to the heterogeneity of forest situations, international standards are adjusted regionally, nationally and locally. The ISO 14000 Series framework does not contain performance standards and leaves it to the applicant to define the measures to be taken to achieve improvement in environmental performance. Certification processes are in different stages of development by the various certification bodies and contain as main phases: (i) pre-assessment; (ii) adjustments of standards to local conditions, (iii) assessment, (iv) peer review, (v) certification decision, and (vi) periodic review of compliance. It is generally recognised that the process for drafting standards and implementation procedures should seek to involve all interested parties. 4.2 Institutional and Organisational Arrangements Existing schemes are organised according to a large variety of different institutional arrangements. A certification body (private, semi-governmental or governmental) can be responsible for the assessment of applicants, establish certification standards and procedures, and establish the rules for the use of a certificate or label. Other important questions in this context are the separation of different functions, e.g. assessment and issuance of the certificate/label, the grouping of several certifiers under a governing body of a certification scheme, and/or the existence of a standard-setting body which is not involved in certification. Accreditation is required for all certification bodies to give credibility with regard to their procedures and quality of assessment. Accreditation bodies can be national (e.g. National Standard Institutes/Councils) or international (e.g. FSC). In the presentation, the need for a strong international accreditation agency was expressed, in order to provide the basis for mutual recognition of national certification schemes. 4.3 Procedures for Forest Management Certification Credibility: Separation of actors' roles. A major concern of forest management certification is the question of credibility, in particular, independence and reliability. A certification body may face a conflicting situation if it assesses the performance of an applicant and, at the same time, issues the certificate. Considering that the applicant has to pay the certifier for the certification process, strict professionalism must prevail to maintain independence. Reliability. The question of reliability of forest management certification is closely linked with the recent development suggesting that certification will expand. The actual human resource base in field assessment and managing certified forests is very narrow. Considering that the assessment of forest management is a complex task, the scarcity of qualified human resources for certification might cause serious problems and represent an important risk factor for the long-term reliability of certifications. However, capacity building in certification has not yet been widely undertaken. Benchmarks. Considering that certification at forest management unit level is voluntary, criteria and indicators may be set above those defined in national forest legislation. A crucial issue is the definition of these benchmarks which should be achieved or exceeded. However, preliminary experiences in some tropical countries (e.g. Indonesia) have shown that forest management certification facilitates the process of achieving sustainability of forest management. Economic Aspects. The costs for certification, which may vary by country and local conditions, are a major concern for small forest owners or concessionaires, for whom certification might even become an obstacle to market access. Incremental costs might also be higher in tropical forests, considering the specific ecological and economic situations and the fact that forest management practices have still to be further developed. Concrete experiences in economic benefits are scarce. 4.4 Chain-of-custody A major concern, which is only partially resolved, is the monitoring of the chain-of-custody from the producer to the consumer, in both the exporting and importing countries. The chain-of-custody for forest products is a highly complex issue that could have substantial cost implications and should be further studied. 4.5 Credibility of Labelling Experience has shown that recognising the need for consumer confidence is necessary for any successful labelling scheme. Consumer confusion is created by the proliferation of certification initiatives. Furthermore, measures to deal with false or misleading claims need to be clarified and examined in the national and international context. In addition, effective promotion of certified forest products requires the education of consumers. 4.6 International Issues Although some cooperation and coordination between initiatives and different levels of certification bodies exists, it has, to date, been at an informal level. In view of the proliferation of certification initiatives, the existence of an adequate international framework was considered desirable to enable mutual recognition of certification systems. Closer collaboration and cooperation between the different actors is considered to be of utmost importance. The approaches and standards of FSC and ISO which perform different functions, are independent, complementary and not contradictory. However, both institutions are perceived by some to have problems of representation. The Working Group discussed the potential and constraints of FSC and ISO, as well as other organisations dealing with certification, including the issue of representation and participation. Developing countries have limited capacity and resources to achieve sustainable forest management and they also face the risk of being disadvantaged with regard to meeting the emerging demand for certification. Stronger development assistance is necessary to reduce the gap between developing and developed countries in this regard. 4.7 Conclusions on Implementation Despite considerable progress made during the past years, certification of forest management and labelling of forest products are still in the initial operational stages and will require time and experience before well-defined and broadly accepted procedures are fully developed and operational. It is therefore still too early to assess the effectiveness of this instrument in achieving its two main goals: improved forest management and improved market access. The degree of acceptance for certification schemes is increasing in spite of continuing differences of opinion as to the need and value of the tool. Certification and labelling are now evolving from conceptualization to commercial implementation. Bonn, 16 August 1996 ANNEX Experts' Working Group Meeting (German-Indonesian Initiative) "Trade, Labelling of Forest Products and Certification of Sustainable Forest Management" Bonn, Germany, 12 - 16 August 1996 LIST OF PAPERS Working Group 1: 1. "Certified Tropical Timber and Consumer Behaviour" by K. L. Brockmann 2. "Cost and Benefit of Sustainability in Forestry" by Prof. Dr. E. F. Bruenig 3. "Costs and Benefits of Forest Certification" by Guido Fuchs Working Group 2: 4. "Trade and Labelling of Timber and Timber Products" by A. Michaelowa 5. "Trade and Labelling" by S. Vaughan Working Group 3: 6. "Assessment of the FSC Catalogue for the Certification of Sustainable Forest Management under Central European Conditions" by Anke Firnhaber and Prof. Dr. Karl-Reinhard Volz 7. "Developing Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management" by Dr. Prabhu 8. "Impacts of Timber Certification on Sustainable Forest Management", Part 1 and 2, by H. J. Droste 9. "Impacts of Certification on Sustainable Forest Management" by Guido Fuchs 10. "Case Study Quintana Roo, Mexico" by Mr. Henning Flachsenberg 11. "Principles for Certification & Accreditation" by Dr. Timothy Synnott 12. "Programme of the Certification of Forest Products as a Tool for Sustainable Management of Russian Forests" by Valentin V. Strakhov Working Group 4: 13. "Timber Certification, Goals, Limitations and Possibilities" by Stefan Schardt 14. "The FSC Accreditation Programme: Introduction and Overview" by Dr. T. Synnott and M. Wenban-Smith 15. "Assessment of Forest Concessions in Indonesia for the Review of Their Preparedness Toward Year 2000 Objective for Sustainable Forest Management" by Prof. Achmed Sumitro 16. "ISO 14000 Environmental Management Standards" by Ken Shirley 17. "The Development of Certification for Sustainable Forest Management, Case Study in Indonesia" by Mr. Boedijono 18. "Principles, Criteria and Indicators for the Sustainable Management of African Tropical Forests" by the African Timber Organization (ATO) 19. "Forest Certification and Timber Product Eco-Labelling Scheme of the African Timber Organization" by the African Timber Organization 20. Indonesian Ecolabel Institute Certification Scheme of Sustainable Forest Management Practices by Riga Adiwoso Suprapto, PhD.
This document has been posted online by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Reproduction and dissemination of the document - in electronic and/or printed format - is encouraged, provided acknowledgement is made of the role of the United Nations in making it available.
Date last posted: 7 December 1999 12:45:30