FOREST CERTIFICATION:
PENDING CHALLENGES FOR
TROPICAL TIMBEROCTOBER 2002

ITTO
INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATIONITTO

Forest certification:
pending challenges fortropical timberRichard Eba’a Atyi and Markku Simula

ITTO Technical Series No 19
International Tropical Timber Organization
October 2002

1

ITTO

Forest certification: pending challenges
for tropical timber
ITTO Technical Series No 19
by Richard Eba’a Atyi1 and Markku Simula2
1CRESA, BP 8114, Yaoundé, Cameroon; Tel 237–981

658; Fax 237–238 915; ebaa.atyi@caramail.com
2Indufor Oy, Töölönkatu 11 A, FIN-00100 Helsinki,

Finland; Tel 358–9–684 0110; Fax 358–9–135 2552;
indufor@indufor.fi; www.indufor.fi© International Tropical Timber Organization 2002
This work is copyright. Except for the ITTO logo,
graphical and textual information in this publication
may be reproduced in whole or in part provided that it
is not sold or put to commercial use and its source isacknowledged. This report was commissioned by theInternational Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO).
However, ITTO does not necessarily endorse or
support the findings or recommendations presented
herein.
ISBN 4 902045 00 1

2

ITTO

Foreword
ITTO was one of the first international intergovernmental organizations to address the issue offorest and timber certification. Intense andprotracted policy discussion within theInternational Tropical Timber Council in the early
1990s led ITTO to commission its first study ofthe issue in 1993. Since then it has: conducted
several more studies; developed guidelines, criteria
and indicators and auditing systems for sustainable
forest management; financed projects to assist
producing member countries to develop
approaches to certification and to progress towards
sustainable forest management; participated in andsponsored and jointly organised internationalseminars; and, in April 2002, convened its own
international workshop on the subject.
This present report was originally commissioned
for the April 2002 workshop and formed a very
useful basis for discussions. In the fast-moving fieldof tropical forest certification it provides an
excellent analysis of the state of play and, importantly, identifies the key challenges for tropical
producers in their efforts to increase the area ofcertified forest and the volume of certified timberthey are able to put onto the market.

ITTO work on forest and timber certification ismade more urgent by the fact that certification andlabelling are making great strides in developed
countries while tropical and other developing
countries are lagging behind. There is thus a clear
need to support the efforts of those developing
countries that want to engage in certification andlabelling to promote sustainable forest management
and to enhance market acceptance of their forest
products.
ITTO will continue to play a constructive role inthe development of tropical forest certification,
through both policy and project work.
Certification has the potential to be a usefulcatalyst for sustainable forest management, butmuch work still needs to be done if this potential is
to be fully realized.
Manoel Sobral Filho
Executive Director
International Tropical Timber Organization

3

ITTO

Acronyms
ABNT
AF&PA
ATFS
ATO
C&I
CEF
CEPI
CERFLOR
CFFP
CFV
CIFOR
CNCC

CoC
CSA
EC
ECE
EMAS
ENGO
EU
FAO

FFCC
FMU
FSC
GFTN
GTZ
IAF
IEC
IFF
IFIR
IMAZON
IMO
IPF

4Associação Brasileira de Normas
Técnicas
American Forest & Paper
Association
American Tree Farm System
African Timber Organization
Criteria and indicators
Certification Española Forestal
Confederation of European
Paper Industries
Programa de Certificação deFlorestas (Brazil)
Conselho da Fileira Forestal
Portuguesa
Consejo Boliviano para laCertificación Forestal Voluntaria
Center for International Forest
Research
Council of the National
Certification Center, Czech
Republic
Chain-of-custody
Canadian Standards Association
European Commission
Economic Commission for
EuropeEnvironmental Management
and Auditing System
Environmental non-governmental organization
European Union
Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United
Nations
Finnish Forest Certification
Council
Forest management unit
Forest Stewardship Council
Global Forest and Trade
Network
Gesellschaft für Technische
Zusammenarbeit
International Accreditation
Forum
International ElectrotechnicalCommission
Intergovernmental Forum on
Forests
International Forest Industry
Roundtable
Instituto do Homem e Meio
Ambiente de Amazônia
Institut für Marktökologie
Intergovernmental Panel ofForests

ISO
ITTA
ITTC
ITTO
JCP
LEI
MC&I
MR
MRA
MTCC
NGO
NSC
NTCC
NWG
OFI
P&C
PCI
PEFC
PEFCC
PPM
RIL
SA
SCC
SCS
SFI
SFM
SGS
TBT
TRDA
UK
UKWAS
UN
UNCED
UN-ECEWB
WTO
WWF

International Organization forStandardization
International Tropical Timber
AgreementInternational Tropical Timber
CouncilInternational Tropical Timber
Organization
Joint Certification Program
Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute
Malaysian Criteria andIndicators
Mutual recognition
Mutual recognition agreement
Malaysian Timber Certification
Council
Non-governmental organization
National Steering Committee
National Timber Certification
Council, Malaysia
National Working Group
Oxford Forestry InstitutePrinciples and criteria
Principles, criteria and indicators
Pan-European Forest
Certification
Pan-European Forest
Certification Council
Process and production method
Reduced impact logging
Soil Association
Standards Council of Canada
Scientific Certification Systems
Sustainable Forestry Initiative
Sustainable forest management
Société Générale de SurveillanceTechnical Barriers to Trade
Timber Research andDevelopment Associates
United Kingdom
UK Woodland AssuranceStandard
United Nations
United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development
United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe
World BankWorld Trade Organization
World Wide Fund for Nature

ITTO

Table of contents
FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Background and objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Status of international dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT SITUATION IN FOREST CERTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Certified forests and certification schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Demand and supply of certified products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SCHEMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Forest certification standards and programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Chain of custody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND VALIDATION MECHANISMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Certification standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Certification systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Mutual recognition and related options for international-level validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Bottom-up approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5. IMPACTS AND ISSUES FOR TROPICAL TIMBER-PRODUCING COUNTRIES . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Impacts on SFM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Issues related to certification standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Impacts on the benefits and costs of tropical forest management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Impacts on forest-related social issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6. OPTIONS FOR TROPICAL TIMBER PRODUCERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Certification standards and systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Stepwise approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
International support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
ANNEXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Annex1:
Annex 2:Annex 3Annex 4:

ITTO International Workshop on Comparability andEquivalence of Forest Certification Schemes – Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Summary of CEPI comparative matrix of forest certification schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Similarities and differences between the certification programs of FSC and SFI . . . . . . . . . . 62
International Tropical Timber Council Decision 11 (XXXII) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

5

ITTO

List of Tables
Table 2.1
Table 3.1
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3

National certification systems in ITTO producing member countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Comparison of chain-of-custody certification requirements of PEFC and FSC . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Main international references for specific attributes on forest certification schemes . . . . . . . . 24
Options for international recognition of certification schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Assessment of options for the recognition and validation of certification systems . . . . . . . . . 27

List of boxes
Box 2.1
Box 4.1
Box 4.2
Box 4.3
Box 4.4
Box 4.5
Box 4.6
Box 4.7
Box 6.1
Box 6.2

Examples of buyers’ policy statements related to certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Seven globally applicable criteria for SFM identified by inter-governmental
processes for C&I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Common requirements for the setting of SFM standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Possible elements to be covered by an international
validation/evaluation system of forest certification schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Mutual recognition bottom-up approach: United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Mutual recognition bottom-up approach: Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Mutual recognition: stepwise bottom-up approach in Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Mutual recognition: joint certification protocol between
certification bodies accredited by LEI and the FSC in Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Promotion of forest certification through national working groups: the Cameroon case . . . . 36
Verification system of progress towards SFM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

List of Figures
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5
Figure 2.6
Figure 2.7
Figure 2.8
Figure 2.9

6

The world’s certified forests in 1994–2002 and World Bank/WWF
Alliance Target 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Certified forests by region, January 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Progress in achieving the WB/WWF Target 2005, January 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Certified forests by system, January 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Market shares of certification systems by region, January 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
FSC-certified forests by certification body by region, January 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
FSC-certified area by size of forest holding, January 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Share of certified forest of the total forest area by region, January 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Certified forest as a percentage of the total forest area – top 15 countries, January 2002 . . . . 16

ITTO

1 Introduction
Background and objectives
The International Tropical Timber Organization(ITTO) has been involved in forest certification
since 1991. The work focused first on international-level analyses of the potential contribution ofthis new instrument to sustainable management of
tropical forests through a series of studies1. It wasrecognized – as was later affirmed by theIntergovernmental Panel of Forests (IPF) and theIntergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) – thatcertification is a potentially useful tool forcontributing to the achievement of sustainable
forest management (SFM), a key objective of theInternational Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA).
However, many hurdles had to be overcome before
the Organization’s producing member countries
could be fit for forest certification.
ITTO has a particularly important role in building
up local capacity to implement SFM, and thereby
the certificability of tropical forests. This work hastaken place through support of various forms(establishment of permanent forest estates, forest
inventories, staff training, improved logging
practices, development of silvicultural systems, etc).
However, further efforts will be necessary, because
only a fraction of the world’s currently certified
forests are located in ITTO producing member
countries.
Certification involves the external verification offorest management quality, which raises the needfor adequate auditing systems and local auditing
capacity. In this field, ITTO has developed acommon framework for auditing guidelines2 for
ITTO's Criteria and Indicators (C&I) for
Sustainable Management of Natural Tropical
Forests, which can be used by enterprises andcountries in setting up their own arrangements.
The respective decision of the International
Tropical Timber Council (ITTC (XXI/19)) also
makes provisions for assistance to establish credible
auditing systems for ITTO’s C&I; ITTO has
already provided such assistance by supporting thetraining of auditors in Indonesia (LEI 2001).
Demand for such training is large and support inthis field is needed in most producing member
countries.
ITTO’s role in the policy debate related to forest
certification has been important, and in the mid-

1990s the Organization was the only intergovernmental forum dealing with this issue. The results of
ITTO’s policy debate were fed into other fora andprocesses, notably IPF and IFF, but also events suchas the workshop on mutual recognition between
certification systems sponsored by ITTO, FAO andGTZ held in Rome on 19–20 February 2001.
At its Thirtieth Session, the ITTC recognized thatfurther work in the area of policy development wasneeded and decided to convene a workshop withbroad-based participation on the progress maderegarding the comparability and equivalence ofcertification schemes. To facilitate the dialogue, it
was further decided that an overview paper would
be prepared on the current situation.
This paper was subsequently prepared by thepresent authors and served as background information for an ITTO workshop on certification
held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on 3–4 April
2002, updating the current situation and clarifying
the issues of comparability and equivalence. The
paper has been edited to form the basis of thisreport, with the inclusion of the recommendationsof the ITTO workshop. Recent international
efforts and initiatives on mutual recognition havebeen taken into account.

Status of international dialogue
Certification is driven by a variety of interests. For
industry and trade, it is an instrument for environmental marketing. For buyers and consumers, it
provides information on the impacts of products
they purchase. For forest owners and managers, it isa tool for gaining market access or market
advantage, or perhaps for capturing pricepremiums. It also serves to demonstrate responsible
forest management through independent thirdparty certification regardless of what the market
wants. For the environmental movement, it is a
way of influencing how production forests aremanaged. For governments, it is a soft policy
instrument to promote SFM, sustainableconsumption patterns and a variety of otherenvironmental and social goals. For investors, it canhelp in risk mitigation. Others may see additional
benefits or interests in forest certification(Rametsteiner & Simula 2001).
Forest certification remains one of the mostcontentious issues in international forest policy
because it is a trade-related instrument and count-

1 OFI & TRDA (1991), Baharuddin & Simula (1994, 1996 and 1998)
2 Baharuddin & Simula (2001)

7

1

ITTO

ries feel that it could influence their competitivenessand market access. In particular, tropical timber
producers are concerned about their difficulties inachieving certification status and the expected
increase in production costs, while market benefits
look uncertain and distant. Developing countries
are in a quite different situation compared todeveloped countries with regard to their needs,
possibilities and resources for making use of certification. In developing countries, certification isoften perceived as yet another market requirement
imposed by importers which is difficult to meet
and which may constitute a barrier to trade rather
than help these countries to promote their exports.
As long as the certification system of the Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC), which started operations in 1993, was the only operational scheme, theinternational debate focused on the FSC’s general
acceptability and its implications for forest owners,
managers, industry and trade. The emergence ofother schemes has raised the issue of comparability
and eventual mutual recognition between
individual schemes. The crux of the international
debate centres on credibility criteria for certification schemes, and whether or how cooperation
between individual schemes should be arranged.
More deeply, it is a question about who should
define forest management standards and how thistakes place (Rametsteiner & Simula 2001).
Boycotts of or discrimination against tropicaltimber loom constantly. Some local governments in
Europe require that timber products can only be
used in their projects if they are certified, whilemore blunt measures to restrict tropical timber use
have also been taken (eg in Belgium, Denmark,Germany, the Netherlands and the United
Kingdom). There is a pressing need for clarity
about which certificates and labels related to forest
management quality can be considered‘reliable’/‘credible’/‘acceptable’ to assure consumers
that certified forest products are sourced from areas
which are managed in an environmentally andsocially sound way.
If each scheme was to use its own label inmarketing it would be difficult for producers,
buyers and consumers to establish which should beconsidered reliable. Buyers cannot be expected tomake an assessment of the credibility of eachcertificate; the task is complex and requires
expertise and information they do not usually have.

8

Mutual recognition has been proposed as one of
the solutions to the problem of proliferation ofnational certification schemes.
Four international seminars/workshops have beenorganized during the last two years on the issue ofmutual recognition. These were:(i)

Mutual Recognition Technical Seminarorganized by the Pan-European Forest
Certification Council (PEFCC) in Brussels,
26–27 June 2000;(ii)

Second International Seminar on the Mutual
Recognition of Credible Forest Certification
Systems organized by the Confederation ofEuropean Paper Industries (CEPI) in
Brussels, 28–29 November 2000;(iii) FAO-GTZ-ITTO Seminar on Building
Confidence among Forest Certification
Schemes and Their Supporters held in Rome,
19–20 February 2001; and(iv) European Commission (EC) Workshop on
Forest Certification: Forging Novel
Incentives for Environment and Sustainable
Forest Management held in Brussels, 6–7
September 2001.
While all these events reiterated the potential usefulrole that certification can play in SFM and that the
proliferation of schemes should be addressed, theyalso revealed differing views and a lack of trust
between key stakeholders. FSC supporters appear
to see little merit in other schemes and, therefore,
their recognition of such schemes through mutualor other arrangements is not considered desirable
or possible. The supporters of national certification
schemes would like to find a mechanism by which
their certificates could be accepted by the market
and eventually linked to a label or trademark. As
the Pan-European Forest Certification (PEFC)
scheme provides the only alternative to the FSC at
the international level, the debate has become very
polarized; the fact that the two schemes arecompeting with each other in the marketplace
doesn’t help, either.
The FAO-GTZ-ITTO seminar called for, among
other things, further analytical work on the similarities and differences between schemes, including
the development of common definitions andindicators. This was taken up by participants at theEC workshop, who suggested that there was a needITTO

or desire to have an agreed set of clearly definedevaluation criteria to assess forest certification
standards and systems. The most sensitive issues
were found to be related to the procedures ofstandards-setting and the certification process,transparency and governance. All four seminars/
workshops listed above called for the continuationof the dialogue at the international level.

9

ITTO

Figure 2.2 Certified forests by region,
January 2002

Certified forests and certification
schemes
Forest certification is expanding rapidly; growthhas been exponential during the last two years. In
January 2002 the area of certified forest wasestimated at 109 million hectares. This is almost
four times higher than two years ago and twice thelevel of a year ago (Figure 2.1). The total figure
includes third-party audited areas under the twointernational systems (FSC and PEFC), national
schemes (Canada, Malaysia and the United States),
and those forests for which a Keurhout declaration
has been issued.
Figure 2.1 The world’s certified forests in
1994–2002 and the World Bank/WWF AllianceTarget 2005

Latin
America
3%

AsiaPacific2%Africa3%

North
America38%

Europe
54%
Other
ITTO
developed
producers
4%6% Othertropical
2%

200

150
millions of hectares

100
ITTO
consumers
88%
Total area 109.1 million hectares

2005

2001

1999

2000

1998

1997

1996

0

1995

50

1994

2

2 Overview of the current
situation in forest
certification

Geographically, the total area is distributed
unevenly: more than half is located in Europe andalmost 40% in North America (Figure 2.2).
Developing countries account for no more than
8% of the total, of which three-quarters(6.7 million hectares) are in ITTO producing
member countries. The imbalance has changed
over time; for example, in 1996 the share of developing countries in the total was 70% (Baharuddin& Simula 1996).

10

The World Bank (WB)/WWF Alliance target for
the world’s certified forest area is 200 million
hectares by 2005, evenly shared between developed
and developing countries. For the former, the levelhas already been reached, while in the latter groupthe current area represents only 6.4% of the target(Figure 2.3). It appears unlikely that this part of thetarget can be achieved by 2005 without new
approaches. The situation is a cause for concern,
particularly since certification was originally introduced as an instrument to promote the sustainable
management of tropical forests.

ITTO

Figure 2.3 Progress in achieving the WB/WWF
Target 2005, January 2002

Figure 2.4 Certified forests by system,
January 2002

120

CSA
8%
100.1
ATFS
10%

100

Other
4%
FSC
23%

80

%

60
SFI
17%

40

PEFC
38%
20
6.4

Keurhout (1)
28%

FSC
36%

0
Developed

Developing

The market share between the schemes has alsochanged. A few years ago, all the world’s certified
forests were registered under the FSC; the scheme’scurrent market share is 23%, falling well behindthat of the PEFC (38%) (Figure 2.4). The national
schemes in North America (Sustainable Forestry
Initiative – SFI, The American Tree Farm System –ATFS, and the Canadian Standards Association –CSA) account for a quarter of the world total.
With the exception of Malaysia and certifications
approved by Keurhout, all the forests certified
under national systems are located in the North. In
the case of the FSC, the developing world accounts
for 19% of the certified area, which is more thandouble the world average.
Several ITTO producing member countries havebeen actively developing their own national certification schemes. The most advanced are found inIndonesia (Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute –LEI), Malaysia (Malaysian Timber Certification
Council – MTCC), Brazil and Ghana (Table 2.1);
however, only the first two are currently operational. The Brazilian scheme, Programa deCertificação de Florestas – CERFLOR, has
finalized its standard for plantations and was
expected to become operational in the first half of
2002.
In ITTO producing member countries, the area
covered by certificates that have been accepted by

MTCC
36%
(1)

Area covered by certificates
accepted by Keurhout

Keurhout is currently 4.2 million hectares,
followed by the FSC (2.6 million hectares). The
Keurhout figure includes 2.3 million hectares ofcertified forests in Malaysia that have also beenregistered under the national MTCC system.
Fifteen ITTO producing member countries havecertified forests totalling 6.7 million hectares, withthe largest areas found in:
Malaysia (MTCC,
Keurhout)
Congo (Keurhout)
Brazil (FSC)
Bolivia (FSC)andGabon (Keurhout)2.37 million hectares;
1.15 million hectares;
1.05 million hectares;
0.98 million hectares;
0.62 million hectares.

The regional market shares between schemes arequite different (Figure 2.5). While the FSC has
been the only system applied in Latin America, its

11

ITTO

Table 2.1 National certification systems in ITTO producing member countries 3Country

SystemStandards
elements

Other relevant

Accreditation
systemStatus of therecognition

International

Brazil

CERFLOR

Five standards
covering all theelements of thesystemAuditing
procedures

National
accreditationbody INMETRO

Preparations in
the final phase,
operational in
2002

Open forvarious options

Ghana

National
SchemeForestmanagement
standards draft:seven principles,
criteria andindicators basedon the ITTO C&I

Log-tracking
projectIndonesia

LEI

Seven standards• natural andplantation
forestry• non-wood
products• timbertracking• labelling

Development ofa certification
system forcommunity-based
forestmanagement
under way

Malaysia

MTCC

3 standards• C&I• standards ofperformance• assessment
procedures

Log audits toestablish
legality
Auditing
procedure

share in Africa and Asia-Pacific is low. A significant
share of FSC-certified forests in developing
countries is located in non-ITTO-member
countries (notably the Republic of South Africa,
Mexico and Chile).
In the developing countries, a large share of FSCcertified forests is plantation. For example, 73% of
the Brazilian FSC-certified forests (0.77 million
hectares) are plantations located in the south,
southeast and central-west of the country.
According to Roda (2002), about a third of tropicalforests certified under the FSC are plantations.
MTCC and Keurhout certifications are solely fornatural forests.
The forest certification industry is in relatively few
hands. Only a handful of recognized or accredited
certification bodies tend to be working under thenational schemes in each country. In North
3 As of March 2002

12

Under
development

LEI acts as
accreditationbody forindependent
assessors and is
responsible forsystemdevelopment
and supervisionand monitoring
MTCC engages
assessors, noreference toaccreditation

Operational
Eleven FMUs
assessed by theend of 2001;
one forest
certificate issued

Operational
2 310 567
hectares certified
Three forest and
16 chain-ofcustodycertificates

LEI-FSC Joint
Certification
Programme
under implementation

In the third
phase, mutual
recognition of
FSC is foreseen
MTCC
standards havebeen used in
Keurhout
auditsAmerica and Europe, these bodies are often also
involved in certification work against the
ISO 9000/14000 series of standards. In the case of
the globally operating FSC scheme, SGS accounts
for 57% of the total certified area, followed byRainforest Alliance/SmartWood, SCS and the Soil
Association (Figure 2.6). The FSC has a total of ten
accredited certification bodies but the six
newcomers have made little impact; their
combined share of the FSC market is only 3%.
The market shares vary by region: SGS dominatesin the African and Asia-Pacific markets while in
Latin America the Rainforest Alliance accounts forthree-quarters of the total. The Rainforest Alliancesubcontracts the auditing work to local partners,
which has improved its cost-competitiveness. It
follows a similar approach in other regions,
including Europe.

ITTO

EuropeNorth America
ATFS
27%

FSC
29%

FSC
8%

SFI
44%
PEFC
71%

CSA
21%

Total 58.7 million hectares

Total 42.0 million hectares

AfricaAsia-Pacific
FSC
11%

FSC
36%

Keurhout
64%

MTCC
89%

Total 2.7 million hectares

Total 2.6 million hectares

Latin America

FSC
100%
Total 3.6 million hectares

Figure 2.5 Market shares of certification systems
by region, January 2002

13

ITTO

EuropeSoil
Association
12%
Others4%

North America

SCS
9%

SCS
48%

Rainforest
Alliance
52%

SGS
75%

AfricaSoil
Association
8%

Asia-PacificRainforest
Alliance
28%

Soil
Association
14%

SGS
58%

SGS
92%

Latin America
SCS
11%

World
SGS
16%
Rainforest
Alliance
17%

SCS
15%

Soil
Association
8%
IMO
2%
Others1%

Rainforest
Alliance
73%

Figure 2.6 FSC-certified forests by certification bodyby region, January 2002

14

SGS
56%

ITTO

100
85

Number of cetificates

80

75

73

60
51

50

36

40

20

0
<1

1–5

5–10

10–50

50–100>100'000 hectares

Figure 2.7 FSC-certified area by size of forest
holding, January 2002

10

8.7

% of total forest area

8

6

5.7

4
2.8

2

0.5

0.4

0.5

0.4

ITTO
producers

Latin
America(1)

Asia-Pacific(1)

Africa
(1)

0
World

North
America

Europe(1) Including countries not members of ITTO

Figure 2.8 Share of certified forest of the total forest
area by region, January 2002

15

ITTO

100

80

% of total forest

60

40

20

ria
Fin
lan
d(
1)

Au
st

and
No
rwa
y (2
)

Irel

n
Ge
rm
any

Sw
ede

nd
Pol
a

ati
a
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m

Cro

sia
lay
Ma

s
Sta
e

la

ed

ma

Un
it

rlan

ate
Gu

itze
Sw

Lat

via

d

0

(1) Including scrub and wasteland (other woodland)(2) Including scrub land

Figure 2.9 Certified forest as a percentage of thetotal forest area – top 15 countries, January 2002

Most of the certified forests under the PEFC andATFS schemes are relatively small holdings andthese systems were specifically developed for suchland owners. However, comprehensive data on the
distribution of the size of certified holdings of theseschemes are not yet available. The US-based SFI
and the Canadian CSA scheme are mainly appliedby relatively large industrial land owners orconcession holders.
Group certification of smallholdings is included inalmost all the schemes. In the case of the PEFC, it
can be done through (a) a grouping of individualowners, or (b) a regional grouping drawing on localorganizations of forest owners. The FSC applies
only the former approach, which has made progress
relatively slow in this market segment. More than
90% of the FSC-certified area is covered by 86
certificates only (Figure 2.7). The FSC presently

16

has only 284 valid certificates for holdings of lessthan 50 hectares. It is difficult to see how it canmake fast progress in terms of certified area inthose countries where small-scale private forest
ownership is predominant. For example,
Thornber’s (1999) analysis of FSC certificatesrevealed that relatively few had been issued forcommunal or community forests (29 certificates in1999). It is not known how many community
forests have been certified under other schemes but
at least national PEFC schemes have issued group
certificates which cover communal lands.
As a whole, less than 3% of the world’s forest area
is presently certified (Figure 2.8). In ITTO
producing member countries, the share is less thanhalf a percent, contrasting with North America’s
9%, the highest regional average in the world. The
top 15 countries in terms of relative certified forest

ITTO

area include only two ITTO producing members,
Malaysia and Guatemala (Figure 2.9), while Bolivia
is another positive example. It appears that existingcertification schemes have not been designed in a
way that allows developing countries to make fast
progress in this field. As a market promotion tool,
certification has been clearly more important forthe developed than developing countries. The
support provided to tropical timber producers has
not been sufficient to help them remove theprevailing hurdles to forest management, particularly in the natural forests.

created by the WWF Global Forest and Trade
Network (GFTN), which operates in almost 20
countries. As many member companies of the
Network have announced their commitment tobuy only FSC-certified products, more than twothirds of the total demand is estimated to be for
FSC-labelled products. Despite the potential
demand and the fairly large number of certified
product lines that are claimed to exist, the actual
consumption of wood and paper products sold ascertified or labelled is estimated at less than 5% of
the total in the European market.

Demand and supply of certified
products

Buyers have expressed their commitments to certification in differing ways, where nuances are
sometimes important. Box 2.1 provides two
examples: a simple one (IKEA) and a more
complex one (B&Q). The first case calls for FSC or
equivalent systems; this is common in many otherbuyer policies as well. However, no guidance isprovided on what equivalence means and how it
should be established (other than through formal
endorsement by the FSC). The B&Q policy ismore detailed; it makes it clear that in the long run
only FSC certification will be good enough, but,due to the current shortage of certified supply, anumber of exceptions are provided. The policy
interestingly prejudges the (mutual) recognition ofcertain national schemes by the FSC which,however, may be uncertain. ‘Sources under development’, a category applicable to many tropicaltimber producers, should apply to the SGS
Certification Support Program or the UK-based
Tropical Forest Trust. No room appears to be left
for developing local solutions or associating withother certification bodies or agencies which could
have an interest in supporting tropical countries toachieve certification. The B&Q policy can beassumed to have not only environmental but alsocommercial objectives promoting a strong link withpotential qualified suppliers.

The available data on demand/consumption andsupply/production of certified forest products do
not allow accurate estimations. The generalperception is that demand exceeds supply in somemajor markets (the United Kingdom, theNetherlands, Germany and Belgium) where manybuyers are committed to certification. However, thepotential timber supply from the world’s certified
forests is large, estimated at about 234 million m3
on an annual basis. Most of this production ismarketed without reference to certification status
and only a small share is labelled.
However, a shortage of supply is perceived in somemajor markets. This has led some buyers to support
their suppliers in achieving certification status. The
first certifications achieved in a number ofcountries (eg Poland, Croatia) have been paid forby buyers or other external parties. This has
resulted in a situation where state forest organizations have wanted to expand the certified area inorder to support the local processing industry
involved in export trade. On the other hand, theseorganizations have found it difficult to discontinue
certification despite high costs because of the riskthat negative publicity could emerge if certificatesare not renewed.
A recent study carried out by UN-ECE and FAO(Vilhunen et al. 2001) revealed that the demandfor certified products is mainly driven by marketing
factors: competitive advantage, image risk aversion,and offering options for consumers. On the other
hand, market development is constrained bylimited demand, lack of supply, lack of premiums,
and limited industry involvement. The study
estimated that more than half of the demand isRametsteiner (2001) assumed that there was little
reason to expect any significant increases in the
total demand for forest products as a result of certification. However, in the tropical timber markets ofsome European countries, especially Germany,
consumer behaviour could be positively influenced,
but possible substitution would be by other timbers
rather than by non-timber materials.
While most of the demand for certified products
has originated from the members of the WWF-

17

ITTO

Box 2.1 Examples of buyers’ policy statements related to certification

IKEA“Our long-term goal is to ensure that all the wood raw material used in IKEA products originates fromindependently verified well-managed forests, i.e. forests certified according to FSC or equivalent.
“By 1st January, 2000, any high-value tropical tree species used in IKEA products must originate fromforests certified according to FSC or equivalent systems.”

B&Q
B&Q Timber Buying Policy – Revised August 2000 (extract):“All virgin wood bought by B&Q will come from forests of known location where the supplier has given us
sufficient reassurance that the forest is well managed and independently certified as such.
“B&Q recognizes that FSC currently has the best available standards and certification procedures and so
will only buy products certified under the FSC scheme.
“The following exceptions do however apply, at present:• Products certified by other schemes, which in our judgement are likely to achieve mutual recognitionor accreditation by the FSC: currently LEI (Indonesian) scheme and NTTC (Malaysian) scheme• Products certified by other schemes, which in our judgement require improvement before they arelikely to achieve mutual recognition or accreditation by the FSC: the Finnish Forestry Certification
Scheme• Products which are on very limited sales trial• Products with a verifiable post-consumer recycled content exceeding 82.5%
In addition B&Q will, on a very limited basis, consider buying timber from sources still underdevelopment, but only when there is an independently verifiable action plan. To qualify the sources must
either be registered under the Certification Support Programme organized by SGS or be members of theTropical Forest Trust.”
Sources: www.ikea.com, www.diy.com

coordinated GFTN, a new factor is also coming
into play: public procurement. In the United
Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium
and Austria, as well as several states of the UnitedStates, administrations have introduced ‘green’
procurement policies also covering wood and paper
products. The most far-reaching government
procurement decisions relating to SFM have so far
been taken in the United Kingdom. The UK policy
is to require, as far as possible, that government
bodies purchase ‘sustainably produced timber’, forexample by specifying in orders and contracts that
suppliers must provide documentary evidence thatthe timber derives from lawful and sustainably
managed sources. This documentary evidence may
take the form of a certificate issued under acredible, preferably independent, verification
scheme or other documents that demonstrate thattimber producers are conforming to internationallyrecognized principles (for Europe, these principles
should correspond to those elaborated under the
4 Approved 1 June 2001

18

Pan-European Process; outside Europe, the
UNCED Forest Principles and regional C&I
processes, ecosystem approach, precautionary
principle). However, the policy is new and there islittle experience in its operation in practice.
Another example is the Danish government’s recent
decision4 to recognize the FSC label as an example
of an instrument providing credible assurance thattimber is legally and sustainably produced.
In business-to-business trade, where there is lessdirect exposure to consumers, there are various
ways of communicating the environmental qualityof products. The European paper industry, facing
alternative certification requirements and often
experiencing difficulties in achieving the certified
fibre thresholds of parallel schemes, has introduced
a new instrument to communicate its environmental performance (www.paperprofile.com). This
Environmental Product Declaration is a voluntary,internationally harmonized means of providing

ITTO

information to guide the buyer. Under the section
on environmental aspects of wood procurement,
companies can report the certification status of
their fibrous raw material (including the type ofsystem) as well as on ISO 14001 or Environmental
Management and Auditing System (EMAS) certification/registration of their wood procurement
operations.
From the tropical timber producers’ point of view,
demand for certified products is often derived: ie
through clients (further processors, traders) who
are directly faced with customer requirements
related to certification. The complex web of timberand fibre flows and the diverse forms in whichthese are combined in end-products have made itdifficult for tropical timber producers to manage
their sales when certified demand often concerns
only part of production (some exported species andgrades). Success stories have been reported where
further processing takes place in the producer
country in an integrated operation, using one or a
few species only, for products like garden furniture
which are sold directly to retailers.

Local imbalances in demand and supply have also
led to new trade flows. For example, demand
exceeds certified supply in Brazil’s Pará state. This
has led some traders to look into the possibility ofimporting certified timber from Bolivia andprocessing it in Brazil. Such cases may not,however, be sustainable in the long run and arelikely to disappear if the local supply of certified
timber expands.
The market for certified products is very dynamic
and not very transparent, as no official statistical
data collection system differentiates between
certified and uncertified products. This shouldchange to enable forest owners and managers,
industry and government to make informed
decisions on certification.

Another development is the interest of further
processors and traders in chain-of-custody (CoC)
certification. There are perhaps about 2000 CoC
certificates in the world, a relatively small number
considering the complexity of the wood and fibre
flows at national and international levels. Somecompanies which have only token access tocertified supplies have been active in getting CoC
certificates for use in general market communication. The credibility of CoC certification is likely
to become an issue in the future, not only becauseof possible malpractices in the control of certified
and uncertified materials, but also because CoC
certificates may be used by companies for broader
publicity purposes even though their other businesspractices may be subject to criticism (eg purchasing
illegal timber, inappropriate transfer pricing, tax
evasion, corruption, etc).

19

ITTO

3

3 Substantive differences
between the schemes
Forest certification standards andprograms
A substantial effort has been made during the last
few years to compare certification standards andschemes. Most comparisons have been based on aquestionnaire technique or assessment by
individual specialists or teams using available
documentation. The CEPI Comparative Matrix(CEPI 2001) has been compiled three times andprobably provides the most comprehensive andfrequently used source of information for thispurpose (Annex 2). CEPI’s approach is based on aquestionnaire; it has been claimed that replies havebeen misinterpreted in the compilation of theresults. For example, the FSC has asked to bewithdrawn from the comparison for this reason5.
Another approach has been applied by Fern, aEuropean NGO, which has made analyses of thePEFC and some of the national standards andsystems it has endorsed (Fern 2001a,b). Diverse
sources were used, including correspondence andinterviews with scheme representatives and somestakeholders. WWF has also commissioned ananalysis of the PEFC based apparently on a
documentary review (Vallejo & Hauselmann2001). However, the objectivity of these assessments has been challenged.
A more participatory and comprehensive approach
was recently taken in the United States to compare
the FSC and SFI certification programs (Meridian
Institute 2001). The results of this in-depth workon ‘salient similarities and differences between thetwo programs’ were passed through a panel on
which all the relevant stakeholders were represented, and the document reflects a consensus view
between them (Annex 3).
It may be concluded that many certification
programs and standards share common elements,
but there are also important differences. Some ofthese differences could be bridged through adjustments in the requirements and rules. Some are
more fundamental, be they perceived or real, andestablishing equivalence may need changes in thevalues or philosophies underlying the standards andschemes. Such a change process is gradually taking
place, the policy impacts of certification being one
channel of influence. According to Rametsteiner
5 The FSC is therefore not included in Annex 2

20(2000), these impacts include (but are not limited
to):•improved definitions of SFM through thedevelopment of a wide range of standards,
guidelines, etc. Efforts have also been made totest and refine the developed standards, criteria
and indicators and their measurement. This has
also improved policy coherence between thegovernmental, academic and voluntary
approaches;•

forest policy dialogue between stakeholders
from the government, private sector, NGOs
and the civil society has received contributions
from the concept of forest certification;•

improved forest legislation. In some cases forest
certification has had an impact on the means
for implementing existing laws, rather thanchanging the content of the law itself; and•international policy impacts. Internationalorganizations such as IPF/IFF/UNFF, ITTO
and FAO have been engaged in reflections onforest certification.

Chain of custody
While differences in forestry standards may taketime to bridge, it could be expected that there arefewer problems in achieving equivalence in CoC
verification requirements. Mutual recognition
between FSC and Keurhout CoC certificates showsthat this is possible and highly desirable from thetrade’s point of view.
The FSC Policy for Percentage-based Claims is in
its third edition (dated 15 May 2000). This policy
has become clearer and more accurate, indicatingthat there has been a learning-by-doing process andthe rules have been adjusted to better meet theneeds of the industry and trade. Along the way, the
FSC has slackened its requirements on the certified
content of chip and fibre products and has allowed
percentage-based claims on ‘collections of solid
wood products’. The PEFC rules on CoC and logo
usage are given in PEFC (2001).
The CoC certification requirements of the FSC
and PEFC are compared in Table 3.1. The majordifference is that only wood certified according to
the requirements of the certification scheme inquestion is endorsed. Other differences are related
to the maximum batch length of production to bemonitored, the impartiality of the accreditation

ITTO

Table 3.1 Comparison of chain-of-custody certification requirements of PEFC and FSC
FeaturePEFC

FSC

Number of product categories

1

3

Number of categories of materials

44

Minimum average percentage system++

Input/output system+–

Physical separation system++

Batch calculation++

Maximum batch length, days

365

60

PEFC-certified wood and products approved+–

FSC-certified wood and products approved–+

Verification by an external body++On-product claims++

Off-product claims++

Additional information on label++

Maximum content of recycled fibre, %

..

82.5

70 (1)
70 (1)
70 (1)

70
30 (2)
70

Minimum content of certified wood or fibre (excl. recovered wood/recycled fibre), %- collection of solid wood products- chip and fibre products- assembled products+ provided; – not provided; .. no limit set.
(1) In the minimum average percentage system. (2) Actually, 30–100% depending on therecycled content.
Sources: www.fscoax.org, PEFC 2001

body, allowance for recycled fibre, and theminimum content of certified fibre in chip andfibre products. In the latter respect, PEFC is moredemanding than the FSC. Table 3.1 shows thatthese elements are common in both schemes, witha few differences. In most cases, verification procedures at the company level are similar across thetwo schemes.
In conclusion, CoC verification is a technicalexercise that could be relatively easily harmonizedat the international level. The problem arises fromthe lack of recognition of other schemes’ forest
certificates, and different minimum requirements
for certified raw materials in assembled or mixed
products and related claims. The latter could,
however, be harmonized without major implications for the credibility of schemes. However, theissue of recognition of certification and accreditation between schemes would still need to beresolved.

21

ITTO

4

Requirements

cation audits (ATO 2001). Another approach was
adopted by the FSC, which developed its own
principles and criteria (P&C) for well-managed
forests independently of any other international
sets through a consultative process.

What constitutes a ‘credible’/‘acceptable’/‘reliable’
certification standard or scheme still remains
undefined through an inclusive process at the international level. Several parties have attempted todefine such requirements but there is no consensus
on them, and there is no identified forum with amandate to undertake this task (Rametsteiner &Simula 2001).

The international/regional sets of C&I share anumber of common elements (Box 4.1) and theyalso largely cover nine of the FSC principles6.
Despite this compatibility, it needs to be emphasized that C&I for SFM are neutral assessment tools
for monitoring trends and therefore cannot be used as
substitutes for minimum agreed-upon forest
management standards which underpin certification.

4 International
requirements andvalidation mechanisms

Certification standards
In the World Trade Organization (WTO) context,
forest certification standards fall into the categoryof process and production methods (PPM)
standards, which specify in this case how natural
resources are managed and how harvesting iscarried out for raw materials which are used in endproducts. Both performance and management
system quality aspects are covered by SFM
standards. They define those measures or outcomesof forestry interventions that are acceptable andwhat kind of management system should be inplace before a certificate can be issued.
Another important feature of SFM standards is thatthey must be specific for the national or local
conditions prevailing in different types of forests
with regard to their ecosystem functions andsocioeconomic values. The diversity of forest
management makes uniform standards difficult toapply and therefore only general requirements for
SFM may be agreed upon at an international level.
Such an agreement exists in the various sets ofregional C&I for SFM, among which the ITTO
C&I have played a pioneering role (Castañeda
2000). These C&I were originally developed formonitoring forest management (ex post), but they
have started to affect the setting of objectives andperformance requirements (ex ante) (Rametsteiner& Simula 2001). Examples of the latter include the
Pan-European Operational Level Guidelines(PEOLG), which are used by the PEFC as areference basis and are related to the Pan-European
C&I for SFM.
The principles, criteria and indicators (PCI) of theAfrican Timber Organization (ATO), recently
harmonized with the ITTO C&I, include subindicators which are directly applicable to certifi6 The remaining FSC principles related to the management plan are

defined for the FMU level.

22

Box 4.1 Seven globally applicable criteria for SFM
identified by inter-governmental processes for C&I(1) Extent of forest resources(2) Forest health and vitality(3) Productive functions of forests(4) Biological diversity(5) Protective functions of forest(6) Socio-economic benefits and needs(7) Legal, policy and institutionalframework
Source: Rametsteiner & Simula 2001

It may be concluded that there is a fairly consistentunderstanding of the essential elements of SFM.
There is also a common general view of what
constitutes an appropriate management system toachieve SFM through the ISO 14000/9000 seriesof standards and the guidance on how the former
could be applied by forestry organizations(ISO 1998). An adequate degree of harmonization
between national or locally applicable forest certification standards can be achieved if:•they are developed through a process whichmeets a set of minimum requirements; and•they adequately cover all the relevant aspects of
SFM, including performance requirements.

Generic guidance for the standard development
process is provided in the WTO Code of Good
Practice for the Preparation, Adoption andApplication of Standards, which is annexed to theAgreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT).
Rametsteiner & Simula (2001) compared theITTOprovisions for standard-setting of the FSC and thePEFC and detected seven common criteria (Box4.2), but these may not be adequate or sufficiently
specific for reaching an international consensus.
The second requirement – that the standards ofdifferent schemes adequately cover all the relevant
Box 4.2 Common requirements for the setting of
SFM standards(1) Use of internationally accepted standards
and references, accordance with national
legislation(2) Non discrimination(3) Transparency, adequate participation andrepresentation(4) Clear rules for decision-making process,including adequate consultative process(5) Clear complaints procedures(6) Public access to results
Source: Rametsteiner & Simula 2001

aspects of SFM – appears to be more difficult, notleast because it is closely linked to the first. The
FSC’s approach is to apply a globally applicablegeneric standard (P&C) under which verifiers aredeveloped for specific conditions (ie national FSC
standards). This global approach has the following
advantages and disadvantages:
Advantages•

uniform minimum requirements are applied
everywhere;•

national standards can be developed within the
FSC P&C, reducing the scope for differing
views on many issues; and•the FSC offers a single-scheme solution for all
interested parties with clearly defined rules formany aspects of the scheme.

Disadvantages•

uniform minimum requirements may not beapplicable in local forestry conditions;•

uniform minimum requirements may not be
acceptable to all stakeholders as they sometimes
lead to rigidities and irrelevancies in application; and•uniform requirements may be too high fordeveloping countries to start with.

The other approach relies on (i) a generalframework which defines the scope of the SFM
elements to be covered by national certification
standards and respective general principles, and (ii)common rules for standard-setting. It can beassessed as follows:
Advantages•

performance requirements can be tailored tocountry conditions and are set at what isachievable;•

the development of standards is country-driven;and•differing ‘starting levels’ in performancerequirements allow developing countries tomake use of certification in their own
conditions.

Disadvantages•

common guidance to the development process
is still lacking;•there are difficulties in comparing national
standards between countries as their structures
may be different; and•performance requirements may be too lax toensure SFM.

Certification systems
In addition to standard-setting, comparability (orequivalence) is also required for the other elementsof the certification system, including: (i) certification body; (ii) accreditation body; (iii)
conformity assessment procedures; and, if labellingis included, (iv) labelling rules and trademarkowning body. For each of these bodies or functions,international standards have been developed forstructures and procedures. Most existing forest
certification schemes have been developed outside
the ISO framework but are gradually changing
their systems and procedures towards higher
quality in terms of transparency, reliability, etc: ie
towards a higher degree of conformity with theexisting ISO standards or guides (Rametsteiner &Simula 2001).
Specific guidance regarding the key attributes of aforest certification system is available from anumber of sources (Table 4.1)7:7 In addition to the sources indicated in Table 4.1, various authors orindividual parties have made their own contributions (eg Baharuddin &Simula 1994, Nsenkyiere & Simula 2000, AFFA 2000, Elliott 2001,
Vallejo & Hauselmann 2000, etc).

23

ITTO

•

IPF Proposals for Action (IPF Proposal 133c);•

Confederation of European Paper Industry
Matrix (CEPI 2001);•

International Forest Industry Roundtable(IFIR) Criteria and Indicators for Credible
SFM Certification Systems and Standards(IFIR 2001); and•

WB/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservationand Sustainable Use.

The wording used to express the various attributes
can vary between sources, which means that theirinterpretations are not necessarily the same. In
addition, some requirements have been expressedin general terms and some are more specific.
For group certification, the procedures are basicallythe same as for individual forest management units(FMUs) where assessment and surveillance on the
ground are based on sampling. Regional group
certification, however, poses a number of additional
challenges, such as in the establishment of thecommitment of participants to adhere to the certification standards, the maintenance of thiscommitment over ownership changes, and the useof claims by participating owners in a certified
region. These issues could be resolved if the groupcan establish itself as a legal entity and build up aquality or environmental management system.
International reference material for CoC standards
is not available beyond what is provided by the
FSC and the PEFC. However, the ISO 9000 seriesof standards for quality management systems
provides relevant guidance on the necessary
documentation, material flows, etc, for monitoring
and control.

Table 4.1 Main international references for specific attributes on forest certification schemes
Attribute

IPF

CEPI

IFIR

WB/WWF

Operate in accordance with national legislation/
institutionally and politically adapted to local
conditions

✔

✔

✔

✔

Non-protectionist✔

Open equitable access

✔

✔

✔

Non-discrimination✔

Credibility and non-deceptiveness✔

✔

Cost-effectiveness✔

v

Participation

✔

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

Acceptable to all involved parties
Sustainable forest management

✔

✔

✔

✔*

Transparency

✔

✔

✔

✔

Use of international standards✔

✔

Aim at consensus✔

✔
✔

Objective and measurable criteria
Aim at performance standards✔

✔

Scientifically supported✔

Continual improvement✔

Independence, reliability and competence

✔

✔

✔
✔

Free from conflict of interest✔

Wood-flow accounting system
Accreditation procedures✔

Complaints procedure✔

Adaptive✔

Product labelling✔

*‘well-managed forests’
Sources: IPF Proposals for Action, CEPI (2001), IFIR (2001) and the WB /WWF Alliance; adjusted from
Rametsteiner & Simula (2001)

24

ITTO

Conclusions
Even though there is a relatively high degree ofcommonality between many forest certification
standards and schemes, it is clear that there are also
differences. For some stakeholders, these differences
appear to be fundamental – as the past international dialogue has shown (see Section 1). Differing
views have been expressed by organizations representing private forest owners, industry and trade,and social and environmental NGOs.
It appears to be broadly accepted8 that because
forests and forest management vary so widely,
forest management standards have to be based on,
and adapted to, the respective regional or local
ecological and socio-economic conditions.
Establishing equal, globally applicable standards for
SFM appears, therefore, to be neither possible nor
desirable. A general and broadly acceptedframework for identifying elements of SFM, suchas the ITTO C&I for SFM for tropical countries,
would be helpful in this context. The SFM
elements can be considered and covered, as appropriate, by locally applicable certification standards
developed through a process which follows
commonly agreed principles.
As regards to conformity assessment bodies, theirminimum requirements could be relatively easily
defined based on the existing agreed, well-estab-lished reference material. The requirements andpossibilities of developing countries need special
consideration to establish adequate conformity
assessment bodies. While some adaptation of thegeneral quality requirements seems to be inevitablein these countries, the basic system quality should
always meet the defined minimum standards(Rametsteiner & Simula 2001).

Mutual recognition and related
options for international-levelvalidation
Mutual recognition has been proposed as a solution
to the proliferation of forest certification schemes
and is a common practice in other fields ofstandardization and conformity assessment. Whilemutual recognition requires the consent of theparties, unilateral recognition depends on thedecision of one party only. Any recognition
arrangement requires the definition of theminimum criteria that a certification system shouldmeet and appropriate arrangements for assessment
and recognition. Rametsteiner & Simula (2001)
identified and described six existing models which
could be applied to the evaluation, validation andeventually formal recognition of forest certification
standards and systems (Table 4.2).
The International Accreditation Forum (IAF) andTable 4.2 Options for the international recognition of certification schemes
Options

Scope of recognition

Basis of recognition/endorsement

IAF model

Conformity assessments (certificates issued) byaccredited certification bodies participating in a
multilateral mutual recognition agreement• Defined standards (eg ISO 9000/14000)
used in certification• Accreditation rules

FSC model• Forest management standards developed
under common rules• Private certification bodies applying the
FSC scheme• Other schemes meeting the FSC requirements• FSC National Initiatives Manual• FSC Accreditation Manual• Policy under development

IFIR model

Mutual recognition between schemes

Criteria identified in the IFIR Mutual
Recognition Framework Document

PEFC model

National certification schemes

PEFC Technical Document Annex 5

Keurhout model

Forest management certificates• Minimum requirements of the Dutch
Government• Keurhout's other requirements

Users’ assessment model

Labels or certificates entering markets

Toolkit offering necessary elements foreach type of user and purpose

Source: Rametsteiner & Simula (2001)

8 But not by all stakeholders

25

ITTO

FSC models draw on accreditation as the
instrument for linking certification programs; theunderlying generic standards also need to becommon (IAF) or harmonized (FSC). The IFIR
and PEFC approaches address the recognition ofentire schemes, the former based on generic criteria
and the latter applying specific criteria for applicants. The Keurhout model is quite near these two
options as it addresses all the key elements of acertification scheme (standards, certification body,
CoC).
The users’ assessment model may address all theelements for validating/evaluating a scheme but it
does not provide an institutional arrangement forthe process, leaving it to the users to pick theirassessment criteria and carry out the work individually (or in a group). A tentative practical guide has
been developed for this purpose by Nussbaum et al.
(2002).
Three of the options make a provision for
trademark/logo (FSC, PEFC, Keurhout), and the
IFIR Mutual Recognition Framework makes
reference to a possible single trademark which
could be used globally. When labelling is covered,
the CoC requirements have to be included as well.
While the IAF, IFIR and PEFC models are targetedat mutual multilateral recognition, the Keurhout
model is unilateral in the sense that the Foundation
arranges the assessment of certificates fromindividual producers. The users’ assessment
approach would be applied unilaterally but it could
also form part of a mutual multilateralarrangement.
The first five options in Table 4.2 apply a set ofpredetermined requirements which define the basis
for substantive equivalence, while in the last option
users define their own criteria for assessment.
PEFC and Keurhout require external experts tocarry out assessments while the FSC has set up
internal procedures for this purpose. Table 4.3
summarizes the main strengths and weaknesses ofeach option.
All the options except the FSC and Keurhout can
provide a framework for the mutual recognition ofnational certification schemes. In the case of the
FSC, the global accreditation facility allows
individual private certification bodies to use acommon label.

9 A working group is reported to be preparing a policy on this issue.

26

The two international schemes (FSC and PEFC)
are competing in the marketplace because theircertificates and labels are used for marketing
communication. While all the other schemes
appear to be interested in developing some sort ofmutual recognition, the FSC has not yet established clear rules for this purpose9.
Another approach, as identified by Rametsteiner &Simula (2001), would be to establish a validation
arrangement through an identified body which
would apply a set of minimum requirements for
performance standards, the standard-setting
process, conformity assessment, CoC verification,and conformity assessment bodies (certification
and accreditation) in its assessment work (Box 4.3).
Application for validation assessments could bemade by certification schemes or by users of certificates. An international arrangement to build
towards the mutual recognition or validation offorest certification schemes would be possible basedon the existing elements. However, broad stakeholder support would have to be mobilized tosupport such a process. This has not been possible
for a number of reasons:•stakeholders have different objectives inpromoting certification which have not yet
been aligned; in particular, minimum requirements and mutual recognition remain issues on
which views differ (FAO/GTZ/ITTO 2001);•

there is a great gulf of trust between the
supporters of various schemes (Synnott 2000,
Ozinga 2001);•

there has apparently been insufficient impartial
effort to identify detailed substantive differences among individual schemes and future
stakeholder discussion on their implications
and importance is required (FAO/GTZ/ITTO
2001);•

competition between internationally operating
schemes (FSC and PEFC) and concerns ofnational schemes not participating or having
access to international schemes; and•general concerns related to cost impacts due tocertification, particularly among developing
country producers and small-scale private forest
owners.

ITTO

Table 4.3 Assessment of options for the recognition and validation of certification systems
Model

Strengths

Weaknesses

IAF• Commonly agreed criteria for forest management
standards• Operating under current ISO accreditation standards• Established procedures• The arrangement is between national accreditation
bodies, which do not exist in all countries• Uncertain if sector-specific arrangements
may have priority within IAF

FSC• Single scheme which can provide clear rules• Support from NGOs and part of trade and industry• Current visibility in the marketplace of the common
trademark• Monopoly if the only scheme in the world• High level of requirements leads to limitedaccess to the scheme in practice• No other scheme formally recognized as yet

IFIR• Comprehensive approach addressing all elements andall kinds of schemes• Quality assurance provisions• Support from industry and some other stakeholder
representatives• Still at conceptual stage• Assumes schemes wish to get mutually recognized

PEFC• Comprehensive approach addressing all elements• Established mechanisms for endorsing national schemes• Common trademark• Regional application only for the timebeing• Lack of ENGO support• Accreditation arrangements not yet fully completed• Low perceived performance requirements by somestakeholders

Keurhout• Comprehensive approach• Can be applied to both certification systems orindividual certificates• No need for own label by applicant schemes• Unilateral mechanism• Certain level of ambiguity in the role of therecognition body

Users’
assessment• Flexible, meets the needs of users• Possibility of linking with other models• Different evaluation criteria by users createsproblems for schemes• Not directly aimed at reducing proliferation

Source: Compiled based on Rametsteiner & Simula 2001

Box 4.3 Possible elements to be covered by an international validation/evaluation system of forest
certification schemes
1. Forest management standard– common/regional framework for locally applicable performance standards and management system– minimum requirements for procedures for developing such a standard
2. Conformity assessment– requirements for assessment procedures– requirements for third-party certification body
3. Chain-of-custody verification– harmonized CoC standards– verification procedures– requirements for independent third-party certification body
4. Accreditation– accreditation standards– accreditation bodies
Source: Rametsteiner & Simula 2001

27

ITTO

Bottom-up approaches
Many countries in which parallel standards havebeen developed under the FSC and national initiatives have made efforts to harmonize these (boxes
4.4 and 4.5 describe approaches in the United
Kingdom and Sweden). These kinds of bottom-up
approach have been successful in reaching a
consensus on what a good forestry standard in thelocal conditions should be. The problem is that theinternational schemes do not have provisions to
consider such amalgamated standards if these are
not formally submitted for their endorsement.
In situations where a harmonized standard is usedin the assessment, the forest owners can (must)choose which certificate they want to be issued.
However, it is necessary that the certification bodyused has been accredited to work under the chosen
system. This has caused some confusion in the
United Kingdom, for example, where some forest
owners assumed that they had been certified to thenational UKWAS standard even though that was
not the case because the certifier had (only) FSC
accreditation.
Another situation has arisen in countries where anational standard has been developed and thereafter measures have been taken to make itcompatible with the international requirements.
This has been the case for the Malaysian Timber
Certification Council scheme (Box 4.6) and LEI in
Indonesia. The lessons to be learned from the
Malaysian process with regard to the recognition ofnational schemes or standards by the FSC appear
to be that:•

the FSC can only accept other standards which
fully meet the structure of the FSC P&C; and•the FSC may only accept other standards ifthey are developed strictly under FSC rules,
particularly with regard to the balance ofinterests.

In the Indonesian case, joint field assessments werecarried out to establish compatibility with the FSC.
The resulting agreement between the two bodies(Box 4.7) means that the two programs are fullycompatible with each other and, for LEI, theagreement will provide recognition by the FSC of
the LEI standards. So far, only a few successful
certification assessments have been made under thejoint protocol between LEI and the FSC.

Box 4.4 Mutual recognition bottom-up approach: United Kingdom
An independent forest management standard for the UK was developed in order to gain the support of all
stakeholders in the United Kingdom. The UK Woodland Assurance Standard (UKWAS) is recognized by
the FSC and has been submitted by PEFC UK for recognition by the PEFCC (Goodall 2001).
The current forest area certified in the UK against UKWAS is 1.1 million hectares (40% of the forest area),
including all the government-owned forest holdings of the Forestry Commission. All certifications havebeen carried out by FSC-accredited certifiers and, therefore, all these forests are considered ‘FSC-certified’.
According to FSC rules, certificates do not mention the standard used by name but they ensure that forest
management meets the FSC’s requirements.
FSC UK participated in the development of UKWAS and amended its own UK standard to make it
equivalent with UKWAS. The FSC has recognized the FSC UK standard and UKWAS as being equivalent.
UKWAS does not provide a label; its purpose is to provide a credible and widely supported compromise
standard for the audit of UK forest management. Schemes using UKWAS will provide their own labels.
A national body for the PEFC has recently been established in the UK and has made an application to get
the UKWAS standard recognized by the PEFCC. This would allow producers to make use of the PEFC
trademark if they chose to do so.
As the PEFCC endorsed the UKWAS standard on 6 March 2002, PEFC claims can be made on UK
products produced from forests certified against UKWAS by an accredited certification body. The UK
Accreditation Services will be the accreditation body for certifiers using the UKWAS standard.
As both the FSC and nationally accredited certification bodies use the same standard (UKWAS), thechoice for forest owners and managers is on the certificate they want to have – FSC or PEFC.
The FSC has a Working Group on Recognition Agreements. It may, if so requested, form an opinion onreferring to UKWAS or similar standards on FSC certificates.

28

ITTO

Box 4.5 Mutual recognition bottom-up approach: Sweden
Sweden has been applying two different concepts to forest certification: FSC and PEFC. This has made itdifficult to implement certification in the country and, even more important, it has reduced thepossibilities for producing labelled products.
In order to facilitate labelling, improve market communication and rationalize efforts to achievecertification in the Swedish forest sector, a bridging document between the two national standards was
agreed upon by forest owners, forest industries and two leading ENGOs in December 2001.
The bridging document (Forest Dove) shows what is required from a forest owner applying one standard
to achieve the other. The document identified 50 differences between the FSC and PEFC standards among
the total of 100 criteria and made definitive proposals for overcoming them. Of the differences, 30 wereminor, 13 major, and for seven the degree of difference was not indicated.
Four additions have been proposed to the FSC standard and 18 to the PEFC standard. This was due to thefact that the FSC standard has a broader coverage and is richer in detail.
The criterion on reindeer husbandry by Sami people could not be agreed upon and was left open to beclarified through further work and discussion between the involved parties.
The bridging document will be revisited annually to establish its continuous validity.
The document has been submitted to the Swedish FSC Council and the Swedish PEFC Council to serve
as a bridge between the two forestry standards in order to increase the amount of certified wood.
It is to be noted, however, that neither of the national bodies is competent to make a decision related to
the formal status of the bridging document without submitting the revised standards for approval by therespective parent body.
An amendment to the PEFC Swedish scheme has been sent to the PEFCC as a result of the Forest Dovefor possible endorsement after the amendment has been duly assessed.
Source: Aulén & Bleckert 2001

Box 4.6 Mutual recognition: stepwise bottom-up approach in Malaysia
Malaysia expressed its desire to develop its own certification scheme based on standards that are specificallydesigned for Malaysia and in 1998 the Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC, originally called
the National Timber Certification Council, Malaysia) was established to develop an appropriate
certification system. Over a 14-month process, the MTCC identified and finalized its certification criteria,
indicators, activities and standards of performance in consultation with a number of stakeholder
organizations. The Malaysian Criteria, Indicators, Activities and Standards of Performance (MC&I) for Forest
Management Certification (Forest Management Unit Level) were published in December 1999.
The MC&I have been developed through many drafts. Although they are based on the ITTO structureand guidelines for SFM, they also incorporate substantial elements of national legislation. They include
standards of performance that are based on a considerable history of silvicultural and management
experience and some of the most detailed research in the world.
The national-level criteria and indicators for SFM were tested and further adopted to apply to regional
conditions. Malaysia has been spearheading the development and application of national C&I for SFM
among the ITTO producing member countries, both at the national and FMU levels.
To further improve the criteria and certification procedures and to ensure the international recognition ofits standards and certification scheme, the MTCC and the FSC agreed to conduct a joint study to compare
the MC&I for Forest Management Certification with the FSC’s P&C. The study concluded that thenational standard could be made compatible with the FSC requirements by further action with regard to
the standard development process and adjustment to the contents of the standard.
The national timber certification scheme was officially launched on 31 January 2002; this made it
operational. By February 2002 a total of 2.3 million hectares of permanent forest estate had beensuccessfully audited under the scheme.
As part of the collaborative efforts between the MTCC and the FSC, a multi-stakeholder national steering

29

ITTO

committee (NSC) has been formed to determine the terms and conditions of further cooperation and torevise the MC&I to make them compatible with the FSC P&C. In doing its work, the NSC has
endeavoured to comply with the FSC process requirements in determining the membership of the NSC
and in the election of members by the stakeholder groups. The NSC has also decided to follow thestructure and format of the FSC P&C in developing the FSC-compatible MC&I. In July 2001, fivemembers representing certain social stakeholders including some local communities decided to withdraw
from further involvement with the NSC.
An action plan has been adopted towards the formation of an FSC National Working Group (NWG) as a
new body to advance the work of the NSC. There will be a fresh election process to determine therepresentatives of the stakeholders in the NWG to represent all parties interested and involved in SFM in
Malaysia. The NWG will further develop the FSC-compatible MC&I before submitting them for the
FSC’s endorsement. The MTCC will use this FSC-endorsed standard for the third phase of its certification
scheme.
Sources: Thang 2000, NTCC 2000, Sandom & Simula 2001, MTCC 2002

Box 4.7 Mutual recognition: joint certification protocol between certification bodies accredited by LEI and
the FSC in Indonesia
In order to obtain public and international confidence as a credible system and to refine field assessment
methods, LEI has undertaken improvements of its data collection and field analysis method throughworkshops in cooperation with the FSC. The result was the protocol of a joint certification program (JCP)in accordance with the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA). The JCP is still ongoing with the purposeof strengthening the bargaining position of LEI in facing other forest certification initiatives, FSC among
others. This action was taken to convince foreign interests of the high degree of credibility of the nationalbased system. The LEI system intends to gain status as a compatible certification system to aninternationally recognized system as well as being acceptable to local views.
The JCP protocol was signed between LEI and FSC and their accredited certification bodies operating inIndonesia in September 200010. The salient elements include:• the JCP meets all requirements under both the FSC and LEI certification systems;• the C&I of LEI will be used by all certification bodies operating in the country; the FSC’s certification
bodies will use all LEI C&I, including those exceeding the requirements of the FSC as well as any
additional requirements not included in the LEI C&I;
• only FMUs that pass both LEI and FSC system requirements will be certified (both certificates will be
issued and both logos can be used);• FSC scoping is not compulsory and will be determined by the FSC’s certification bodies;• public consultation is a fundamental component of the JCP;
• public summaries of the certification decision will be made available in Bahasa and English; and• surveillance visits and the appeal process will be according to each system’s requirements.
Source: LEI 2002

In conclusion, experience in bottom-up approaches
has shown that without clear rules on how
national-level efforts can be incorporated under therules of international certification programs, theprocess of mutual recognition is likely to becomplex and tedious and the results uncertain.
Stakeholders should be aware of the possible
outcomes of various types of harmonization
10 The protocol was also signed by GTZ, which facilitated the process.

30

processes. Expectations have been high when aconsensus has been achieved at a national level.
However, local stakeholders will become frustrated
if such expectations cannot be met or duly
addressed by the international schemes that aresupposed to endorse or formally recognize theoutcomes; this may, in turn, undermine the role ofcertification as a tool for promoting SFM.

ITTO

5 Impacts and issues fortropical timber-producing
countries
In contradiction to its initial focus, which was on“distinguishing between tropical deforestation andgood tropical forest management” (Bass et al.
2001), the overall direct impact of certification intimber-producing tropical countries has remained
very low. As shown in Section 2, less than 10% of
the currently certified forests are located in tropicalcountries. The figure becomes even lower if only
natural tropical forests are considered. Therefore,
the following assessment of the impacts of certification in tropical timber-producing countries isbased on a very small sample of cases and thediscussion is mostly based on potential impacts
rather than on current field effects.

Impacts on SFM
In tropical countries, as in other regions, most
now-certified forest concessions already had betterthan-average forest management practices before
certification took place. Therefore, the impact ofcertification on forest management practices can beassumed to have been rather limited. A goodnumber of certified concessions in natural forests
are managed by state forest services or aresupported by donor funding or pilot projects.
However, private firms have also made efforts on
their own to achieve certification. The following
aspects have been affected by efforts to meet certification requirements (cf Bass et al. 2001).
Planning of all forest management operations: in allcases, forestry organizations have put a great deal ofeffort into planning forest management operations
covering both strategic and operational planning.
Adequate forest inventories and elaboration ofmanagement plans have been the first activities
which forestry enterprises seeking certification havecarried out. This is an important point; in most
tropical countries, the quality and implementationof forest management plans have left a lot to be
desired and SFM plans are still an innovation.
Adoption of scientific methods and improved conservation: forest certification has encouraged forest
managers to include silvicultural methods in theiroperations. In some cases, permanent sample plots
have been established to improve growth estimatesand production projections in forest management
planning. All certified forest concessions haveincluded measures for biodiversity conservationand environmental protection in their plans.
Examples include the protection of riparian zones,
water catchments and wildlife. In some cases theemphasis has been on regulating the use ofchemicals.
Adoption of reduced impact logging (RIL) techniques:most certified forest concessions have received agreat deal of attention concerning the carefulplanning of the road infrastructure, operational
logging plans, directional felling and otherelements of RIL. In some cases, detailed guidelines
for the implementation of logging operations in
respect of RIL techniques have been developed.
The work carried out by IMAZON, supported by
the Tropical Forest Foundation, in Brazil to
improve planning methods and train staff is asalient example. Most certified natural forests in
Brazil have benefited from IMAZON’s programs.
Monitoring of forest management practices anddocumentation: one of the most important obstacles
to SFM is the low level of knowledge about thefunctioning of the forest ecosystem and a lack ofproven techniques and methods to manage theseecosystems sustainably. To improve on these
aspects, effective monitoring and documentation of
all forest operations and the forest ecosystem
response to change are crucial. Perhaps one of themost important contributions of certification to
SFM in tropical timber-producing countries has
been the careful documentation of field operations
and management procedures. This impact is
especially beneficial as it also allows improved
reporting. The ITTO projects to implement C&I
in all the three tropical regions have contributed tocapacity-building in this area.

Issues related to certification
standards
Inflexibility of standards: one of the reasons that so
few natural tropical forests have been certified overthe last nine years is the inflexibility of standards ofperformance. Tropical forests, where efforts toimplement SFM are recent and often far fromdefinitive, are disadvantaged because certification
standards tend to focus on the end-results of SFM
practices. Certification standards do not recognize
successive steps to go through when moving
towards SFM. In addition, certification standards
that specify particular types of inputs and

31

5

ITTO

technologies can impose a greater cost burden intropical situations than in developed countries, oreven exclude producers without access to therequired inputs (Markopoulos 2000).
Lack of recognition of broader local land use issues:certification primarily focuses on FMUs and often
fails to take into account other land use issues –such as the development of agriculture – which canhave a significant impact on forests. For example,
comprehensive land-use planning at the landscapeor regional level may include delineating
permanent forests and designating forested areas
where the development of agriculture will beallowed. In such a case, only permanent forest
would be concerned by certification, which would
not recognize efforts to sustain land use practices
on a larger scale. Certification is not able to address
the root causes of deforestation, which is not its
purpose, either.
Conflicts and/or incompatibility between legal settingsand certification standards: in some cases there may
be conflicts between national laws and forest certification standards. For example, the ownership ofland, usufruct rights of forest products and services,and the sharing of responsibilities between thegovernment, the local people and the forest concessionaire may be locally defined in a way which does
not correspond to the requirements of voluntary
certification. What may be considered “illegal”
based on public law or unacceptable for voluntary
certification standards may still be part ofcustomary law and the traditional rights of local
people living in and around forests.
The above points are just a few examples of
constraints which may need to be addressed before
certification can work in practice. Locallydeveloped standards through an inclusive participatory process within an appropriate internationalframework should result in performance requirements which are relevant to and achievable byconcession holders, communities and other forest
owners in specific country conditions.

Impacts on the benefits and costs oftropical forest management
Benefits of certification: although certified suppliers
have occasionally obtained some price premiums,
the overall trend suggests that there is no pricepremium to be expected from certification in thelong run. However, as the current demand for

32

certified tropical timber exceeds supply in some
export markets (see Section 2), some suppliers
report price premiums ranging from 5% to 65% insawnwood and plywood. The higher figures refer tospecial products (decorative and others) soldthrough retail outlets, but their share of the total
production of the mill is generally low in tropicalcountries. In integrated operations, part of thesebenefits go to pay for the increased costs of forest
management but there is not even anecdotal
evidence that they would have translated into
significantly higher log prices for non-integrated
producers. Benefits are likely to be mostly related
to market share and access. Some tropical timber
producers have been able to enter new markets as aresult of certification, others have been able toprotect markets which would otherwise have beenlost. Several certified producers of tropical timber
are reported to have obtained access to newmarkets and customers in Europe (mainly in the
United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany)and the United States. Some of these customers
have been retailers belonging to buyers’ groups,
which in turn have gained in terms of reputation.
While certification is becoming a baseline
requirement for suppliers of temperate and boreal
timbers in some markets and market segments,
buyers cannot be expected to pay any extra for
certification, even though certification adds value
to the product in the sense that it provides information on the environmental quality of the
product. The slow progress of certification in thenatural tropical forests means that the current
shortage of supply will remain for some years tocome, enabling advanced exporters to benefit froma price premium, which varies by product, market
and end-use segment. With increasing supply, thepremium is likely to disappear as in the case ofother types of timber.
Costs of forest certification: the costs of certification
can be divided into direct and indirect costs. The
main direct costs include the costs of forest
management certification and the costs of CoC
certification. They tend to be higher for tropicalforests than for temperate forests, most certifiers
being located in temperate countries. This becomes
more apparent as the size of the forest to certify
decreases.
Indirect costs are those related to efforts to upgrade
the whole forest management and/or wood

ITTO

processing systems in order to meet the requirements of the certification system desired. Suchefforts can be relatively small in cases where forest
management was already good enough before certification, which is the case in many temperate situations. In contrast, the indirect costs of forest certification become very high if the company is a longway from good forest stewardship, as is the case inmany forest concessions in tropical countries.
The costs of CoC depend on the management
system of the enterprise, particularly control
measures and records. Many timber-processing
companies produce both certified and non-certified
products, implying additional costs related to theseparation of the two types of raw materials andproducts. Some companies are certified under two
systems (eg FSC and ISO 14001), which also has
an impact on the costs. As a whole, CoC certification tends to be more costly in tropical countries
than in developed countries because industry
management systems are less developed.
Sharing the costs and benefits of forest certification: ingeneral, certification costs tend to be much heavier
for primary producers than for processors. On thecontrary, the benefits of certification, which relate
mainly to market access, tend to be realized byactors further down the supply chain. Therefore, atpresent, the main winners from forest certification
appear to be far from the forest, particularly in thecase of tropical forests.

social benefits. Such local benefits may not besustainable if forestry is an economically marginalactivity. For example, the public summary of thecertification report of PT Diamond Raya inIndonesia indicates that there is little interest
among community members in forestry because
the local economy is based on fishing and there isno tradition of working in the forests.
Concerning workers’ rights, the impact of forest
certification depends on national legal rules, which
are often minimal in tropical countries. However,in most cases of certified forests, concessionaires
have put in place health and safety standards thatare above the national norms. Similarly, certification can be expected to improve the ability ofworkers to organize and result in stronger tradeunions. In the tropical countries such impacts may
be larger than in temperate and boreal zone
countries where legislation is more advanced andworkers are already relatively well organized.
Another dimension of social impacts is related tocommunities and, in particular, to whether
community forests can benefit from certification.
Some examples of certified community forests
include (Bass et al. 2001):•

the Lomerío community management projectin Bolivia (Markopoulos 1998) certified in
1996 by the Rainforest Alliance’s Smart Wood
program (FSC) for an area of 52 000 hectares;•

the campesino forestry groups in Honduras(Markopoulos 2000) certified by Smartwood in1997 for an area of 13 978 hectares;•

the Union of Zapotec and Chinantec Forestry
communities in Mexico (Markopoulos 2000)
certified in 1996 by SmartWood for an area of
24 996 hectares;•

the Bainings Ecoforestry Project in Papua New
Guinea (Thornber 1999), certified in 1994 by
SGS (FSC certificate) for an area of 12 500
hectares; and•Muzuma Craft Limited in Zambia (Thornber
2000), certified by Woodmark (FSC) for a total
area of 1.27 million hectares.

Impacts on forest-related social
issuesIn most cases,two types of social issues are encountered in forest management: those related to local
communities and those related to workers. Both are
addressed by forest certification standards. For
example, Principle 4 of the FSC focuses on‘community relations and workers’ rights’; this
topic is covered by other schemes as well.
In all the cases of certified tropical forests, efforts
have been made to provide employment to the
local community and to include local community
members in forest management. However, theoverall impact of forest certification on local development has been limited and linked to theexistence of other economic opportunities in thearea. The economic sustainability of forestry operations is a precondition for maintaining
employment and generating income and other

There are comprehensive analyses of the impacts ofcertification on the management of community
forests as well as on the managing of communities
themselves (eg Bass et al. 2001, Thornber &Markopoulos 2000). In most cases, the commu-

33

ITTO

nities were supported by donor projects or had astrong relationship with an international ENGO.
The impacts observed include:••

the adoption of scientifically rigorous techniques bycommunity forest managers: communities thathave moved towards certification have adopted
more formal forest management practices,
including planning and taking measures toreduce negative impacts on environmental
values. However, it should be noted that prior
to certification most of these communities had
adopted high technical standards as part ofdonor projects or to meet existing legal regulations. As a result, the incremental impact ofcertification on forest management practices
has been relatively limited. In addition, current
certification processes do not appear to put
enough value on local knowledge in forest
management;
improvement of administration: this is achieved
through better documentation of forestry
operations, bookkeeping and reporting.
Community forestry administrators have in asense been forced to adopt more businesslike
methods, including internal evaluation andtighter management of financial resources.
Certification has sometimes led to the restructuring of the community-based forest enterprisein a way that increases the efficiency and transparency of the administration. On the other
hand, there are cases where only a few
individuals of the community enterprise haveunderstood the requirements, and the impact
on management has therefore remained
limited;•decision-making and participation: certificationemphasises transparent and equitable participation in forest management. In most cases, theinstitutional arrangements of the communitybased forest enterprise have been re-evaluatedto strengthen local commitment to forest
management. Certification has also enhanced
the professional status of community-based
forest enterprises, which have become partners
with government agencies and donor projects
in decision-making on forest management;•changes in targeted markets: because certification
relies on environmentally sensitive markets,
which are mostly located outside the tropicalcountries, it has encouraged community

34

managers to turn to export markets.
Sometimes, certification has helped thepromotion of lesser-known species in export
markets. In most cases, however, the market
benefits have remained limited for commercial
reasons;•

effects on community income: in general, certification has not resulted in a substantial increasein community income. In addition, improving
forest management and processing practices tomeet certification requirements has often
reduced production capacity and offset any
short-run price premium which might haveoccurred. In order to take advantage of newly
opened markets, community forest managers
need good managerial capacity and knowledgeof these target markets, which has rarely been
the case;•

improved organization of communities: in order
to conduct dialogue with government, industry
and donors, forest management communities
have improved the structure of their internalorganizations; and•outgrowers: in many countries, small
landowners grow timber to supply big
companies installed in the vicinity of theirprocessing plants. These landowners face anumber of difficulties when considering forest
certification (Tolfts 1998; Scrase 1999). One of
the most important problems is the cost ofcertifying such woodlots individually;outgrowers can rarely afford the cost of an
external audit. The problem of costs is aggravated by the burden of record-keeping andadministration.

ITTO

6 Options for tropicaltimber producers

African certification scheme), drawing on the
ITTO/regional set of C&I for SFM.

Certification standards and systems

In the Pan-African case, the harmonized
ATO/ITTO PCI may serve as a common
framework for a national standard or for aregional certification standard. This approach isdemanding, because an adequate governing
structure would have to be established. On thepositive side, the standard(s) and arrangements
could be tailored to fit local conditions andrequirements. On the other hand, the regional
scheme would reduce the proliferation ofnational schemes that could otherwise emerge
in the region.

Where ITTO producing member countries lag
behind the other countries, accelerated action andmore support is needed to enable them to haveaccess to, and benefit from, certification. The
development of certification standards has proved
to be costly and time-consuming (the Camerooncase is described in Box 6.1). A number of options
can be drawn on in the development of certification in the ITTO producing member countries:(i) the certification of best-managed concessions to therequirements of the generic FSC standard in cases
where the necessary preconditions exist: a numberof examples are already available but experiencesuggests that progress is likely to be slow andthe impact on SFM will remain limited (cfSection 5);(ii) development of national certification standards to
be used in the country: this work should meetthe international requirements set for suchstandards. For marketing purposes, thestandards should be recognizable by buyers andeventually also by a suitable international
scheme. For the time being, the FSC offers the
only option for international recognition,
which means that the structure of the national
standard should strictly follow the FSC P&C
structure and the FSC rules for national initiatives should also be met. Bolivia is an example
of where a national FSC-endorsed standard has
worked well.
If the FSC approach is not feasible in aparticular country, other avenues such as the
Keurhout Foundation, based in the
Netherlands, can be applied – as is happening
in Malaysia and the Congo Basin. In this case,the direct market benefits would apply toexports to the Dutch market.
The PEFC also has provisions for recognizing
non-European schemes, even though no suchendorsement has taken place yet. It is expectedthat non-European applications will be received
by PEFC in 2002; and(iii)in view of the uncertainties related to option(ii)11, countries may consider developing
regional schemes (such as the planned pan-

In addition to Africa, the regional approach has
been suggested for the ASEAN, Central
American and Andean countries, but these
initiatives have not lead to concrete action.
Currently, the strongest support appears to exist
for the Pan-African scheme.
Due to weaknesses in organization and capacities,
the above strategic approaches have not resulted ina rapid expansion of certification in the ITTO
producing member countries. Further action may
be needed to clarify their strengths and weaknesses,
their feasibility in the local conditions, and theacceptability of the results by the major certification-demanding markets.

Stepwise approaches
Several proposals have been made by different fora
(eg the EC workshop in 2001) to develop a
stepwise approach for developing country
producers to recognize their progress toward SFM.
The reason has been that the FSC requirements
have been so high that the scheme’s progress in thenatural tropical forests has remained slow (seeSection 2) and other options have not been
available.
A related development is the growing importancegiven to curbing illegal logging and trade. Some
consumer countries or buyers have establishedpolicies which state that wood products must
originate from sustainable and/or legal sources. The
issue of how legality should be defined is notaddressed here, but such requirements define twoalternative ‘levels’ for the quality of forest
management and the wood supply chain.
Compliance with the legal requirements is inherent

11 In the case of the FSC, a lack of firm policies and clear rules on theendorsement of other schemes, long time periods needed for
consultation, etc

35

6

ITTO

Box 6.1 Promotion of forest certification through national working groups: the Cameroon case
The national working group (NWG) on sustainable forest management and certification in Cameroon was
created in 1996 within the framework of an EU-funded project: ‘Promotion of Sustainable Forest
Management and Certification in Timber Producing Countries of West and Central Africa’. This was
implemented by WWF Belgium and its first phase was designed for about one year (January 1996 to
February 1997). The project activities were carried out at three levels: (1) the national level in Cameroon,
Gabon and Ghana; (2) the regional level, in association with the African Timber Organization (ATO) andinternational organizations including CIFOR; and (3) the international level, mainly in Europe. The initial
objectives of the EU project were two-fold:• to prepare a framework for certification in one pilot country (Cameroon) and to create awareness in
two other countries (Gabon and Ghana) and at a regional level; and• to improve understanding and commitment for the certification of African timber among
importers/industrialists in Europe.
In Cameroon, the NWG consisted of 15 members: three from government institutions, three from NGOs,
three from logging companies, three from local communities, and three from pilot forestry projects and thescientific community. Although the NWG included forestry specialists, most of the members of the NWG
had no precise knowledge of certification. At its creation, the tasks of the NWG of Cameroon were:• to exchange information and organize training sessions on SFM and certification; and• to adapt international criteria of SFM (CIFOR, ITTO, ATO, FSC) into locally accepted andmeasurable criteria.
During the first phase of the project, the NWG met almost monthly and organized many training sessions,targeting first its members and then other forest management stakeholders. The NWG also sensitized theinterested public on the issue of forest certification. By the end of 1996, a draft set of principles, criteria
and indicators had been worked out.
During the second phase, the project focused on ‘building capacities for sustainable forest management
through the strengthening of NWGs and the development of regional certification strategies with ATO’.
The specific project activities related to the Cameroon NWG were to:(i) strengthen the NWG by consolidating results of the first phase and building its capacity to become alink between international accreditation organizations and future certification activities in the region;(ii) refer to the NWG during the identification of logging companies and local forest communities
interested in certification;(iii)organize a study tour of NWG members to Europe to discover the markets for certified tropical timber
products;(iv)support the exchange of information between the NGOs of Cameroon and those of Europe; and(v) organize training sessions for NWG members on aspects related to auditing, accreditation, forest
management plans, etc.
Activities (iii) and (v) were easily accomplished, but the other activities had mixed results. An importantachievement of the NWG has been awareness-raising on forest certification at the national and regional
levels. The NWG has done much to include forest certification in almost all forestry-related publicdebates. It has contributed to a better understanding of certification within the forestry adminstration andlogging companies. The NWG has become a valid interlocutor in discussions and debates related to SFM.
One of the reasons for this is the composition of the NWG, which incorporated representatives of theforestry administration alongside other stakeholders.
However, the Cameroon NWG has also faced a number of problems. One is its unclear position between
WWF Belgium, WWF Cameroon and the Government of Cameroon. The NWG depended on WWF for
its means of functioning but was supposed to be ideologically independent. This has proved to be difficult.
Similarly, it has not been clear whether the NWG was to influence government policy on SFM andcertification and seek the recognition of its draft standards by the forestry administration, or whether the
purpose was to move towards FSC to obtain recognition of its standards. Before developing a set of PCI it
was not clear how the developed set was to be used. To finalize its drafted standards the NWG intended totest these in the field but this never happened because of a lack of means.

36

ITTO

in all the forestry standards, which are broader andoften more demanding than the law. As regards
trade and industry, the control of the origin of raw
materials and its ‘legality’ is part of the CoC verification. Certification of CoC does not, however,necessarily concern full verification of the origin of
uncertified wood. Therefore, a CoC certificate
holder may be involved (unintentionally orotherwise) in handling illegally procured timber.
In view of the seriousness of illegal harvesting andtrade in tropical timber (see, for example, ITTC
document (XXXI)/21), synergies between
improved enforcement and certification could betapped through a phased approach. One first step
could be the verification of legal compliance, withthe gradual introduction of other elements of SFM.
This kind of phased approach would have specificprotocols stepwise covering the various elements of
SFM but the verification procedures would be
identical to ‘full’ certification assessments. The
approach could allow applicants to make claims on
their progress towards full certification status.
These claims would always be based on externalverification.
In forest management, sustainability requires that
all its elements are addressed by the concession
holder or forest manager as specified in the SFM

standards. These elements may be formulated into
operational modules as suggested by Cozannet &Nussbaum (2001) (Box 6.2). In large-scaleconcession forestry, the core component of the
management system is the forest management plan,
supported by an adequate inventory and demarcation of the permanent forest estate (see ITTO
1998). This is also recognized by many producing
countries, which have revised or instituted
minimum legal requirements for inventories andmanagement plans. Appropriate management
planning is a fundamental requirement in all certification systems.
A stepwise approach has also been applied by the
Keurhout Foundation in some African concessions.
In the initial audit, the current status of forest
management is established as defined in the five
Keurhout principles12. An action plan is thenprepared, addressing gaps and corrective action
requirements. The implementation of the action
plan is subsequently verified by an external bodythrough surveillance visits.
The stepwise approach is still under conceptual
development but it seems to offer an attractive
option for enterprises which need to demonstrate
to their customers that verified progress is being
made towards SFM. Cozannet & NussbaumBox 6.2 Verification system of progress towards SFM
Initial review (optional)• Review of the current situation of forest management

Entry requirements• Formal, public commitment to the improvement process• Preparation of forest management/action plan withtimetable and responsibilities• Compliance with the regulatory requirements of forest
management• Verifiable origin of raw materials (processing industries)

Entry audit• Verification of compliance with entry requirements

Annual audits• Surveillance of continuous compliance with entry
requirements• Verification of the implementation of the forest
management/action plan and its adjustments

Final review/application
for certification• Verification of the completion of the action plan

Source: Adapted from Cozannet & Nussbaum (2001)
12 www.stichtingkeurhout.nl

37

ITTO

(2001) list a number of issues which have to beaddressed if market claims are aimed at during theprocess:•

who should carry out reviews and audits;•

the type of communication based on the
results;•

achieving an adequate level of transparency;•

the potential for conflict of interest between
advisory and verification functions; and•the link with certification.

The phased approach can take various forms andmerits further consideration, particularly from theviewpoint of tropical timber producers. A recent
decision by the International Tropical Timber
Council (Annex 4) will allow a detailed explorationof the concept.

International support
As pointed out before (Section 2), the external
support which has been available from multilateralsources like ITTO, bilateral donors, internationalNGOs, private foundations, etc, has been inadequate for fast progress to be made in the certification of natural tropical forests. Ambitious targets
have been set from outside (eg the WB/WWF
Alliance), with certification as one of the key
instruments to promote SFM in the tropics. The
limited actual results suggest that solutions
proposed from outside may not work and support
has not been well targeted or may have been of
inadequate quality.

38

ITTO has made a significant contribution toprovide an appropriate policy framework, a rangeof tools, and direct support on the ground topromote SFM. However, ITTO’s role in promoting
the certification of tropical forests is still largely
undefined as long as it may go beyond capacitybuilding. A more limited role has been mainly
advocated by ITTO consuming member countries,
while producing members tend to emphasize amore active role for ITTO. The ITTO
International Workshop on Comparability andEquivalence of Forest Certification Schemes, heldin Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in April 2002,
produced a range of recommendations, including
in relation to ITTO’s future role (Annex 1).
Certainly, the issue merits further examination inview of making full use of certification as apotential tool for promoting SFM and credibly
demonstrating progress towards this goal in the
ITTO producing member countries.

References
AFFA 2000. Establishing Comparability andEquivalence Among Forest Management
Certification Schemes. Agriculture, Fisheries &Forestry – Australia, Canberra.
ATIBT 2001. Recent CITES and trade development in tropical timber. ATIBT NewsletterNo. 15, Winter 2001.
ATO/OAB 2001. Les ensembles des principes,
critères et indicateurs (PCI) de l’Organisation
Africaine du Bois (OAB) pour la gestion
durable des forêts tropicales naturelles
africaines, à utiliser au niveau national del’Unité Forestière d’Aménagement (UFA),
harmonisés avec les C&I de l’Organisation
Internationale des Bois Tropicaux (OIBT).
Organisation Internationale des Bois Tropicaux.
Commission Européenne. Août 2001.
Aulén, G. & S. Bleckert 2001. Skogsduvan.
Overbyggnadsdokument mellan svenska PEFC
och FSC standardern. December 2001.
Baharuddin, H.G. & M. Simula 1994.
Certification Schemes for All Timber Products.
Cartagena de Colombia, 19 May 1994. ITTO,
Yokohama.
Baharuddin, H.G. & M. Simula 1996. Timber
Certification in Transition: Study on theDevelopment of Certification Schemes for All
Internationally Traded Timber and Timber
Products. ITTO, Yokohama.
Baharuddin, H.G. & M. Simula 1998. Timber
Certification: Progress and Issues. ITTO,
Yokohama.
Baharuddin, H.G. 2000. Development of
Malaysian Criteria and Indicators for Forest
Management Certification. Paper presented at
the workshop on Streamlining Local-level
Information for Sustainable Forest
Management Workshop 28-29 August 2000.
Vancouver, Canada.
Baharuddin, H.G. & M. Simula 2001. Framework
for an Auditing System for ITTO’s Criteria andIndicators for Sustainable Forest Management.
ITTO, Yokohama.
Bass, S., K. Thornber, M. Markopoulos, S. Roberts& M. Grieg-Gran 2001. Certification’s Impacts
on Forests Stakeholders and Supply Chains.
IIED, London.

Castañeda, F. 2000. Criteria and indicators forsustainable forest management: international
processes, current status and the way ahead.
Unasylva No 203. FAO, Rome.
CEPI 2001. Comparative Matrix of Forest
Certification Schemes. November 2001.
Cozannet, N. & R. Nussbaum 2001. A System for
Modular Verification of Progress. Technical
Working Group Report, 27th July 2001. Draft
for Review.
Elliott, C. 2001. Roles and responsibilities ofenvironmental NGOs. ATIBT Newsletter No.
15, Winter 2001.
FAO/GTZ/ITTO 2001. Meeting Minutes of the
FAO-GTZ-ITTO Seminar on Building
Confidence among Forest Certification
Schemes and Their Supporters held in Rome,
19–20 February 2001.
Fern 2001a. Behind the Logo. An Environmental
and Social Assessment of Forest Certification
Schemes. May 2001. Fern, Moreton-in-Marsh,
UK.
Fern 2001b. Behind the Logo. The Development
Standards and Procedures of the Pan European
Forest Certification (PEFC) Scheme in Finland:
An Introduction. Fern, Moreton-in-Marsh,
UK.
FSC 1998. FSC National Initiatives Manual. First
Secretariat Draft. September 1998.
Goodall, S. 2001. Forest certification: opportunities and benefits for governments. In Simula,M., E. Rametsteiner, A. Blåsten, T. Green and
B. Pajari (eds.) Forest Certification: Forging
Novel Incentives for the Environment andSustainable Forest Management. EFI
Proceedings 43, 2001. European Forest
Institute, Joensuu.
IFIR 2001. Proposing an International Mutual
Recognition Framework. Report of theWorking Group on Mutual Recognition
between Credible Sustainable Forest
Management Certification Systems andStandards. February 2001. International Forest
Industry Roundtable.
ISO 1998. Information to Assist Forest
Organizations in the Use of ISO 14001 andISO 14004 - Environmental Management
Systems Standards. Technical Report 14061.
ISO, Geneva.

39

REFERENCES

ITTO

ITTO

ISO/IEC Guides 61, 62, 65, 66 and ISO Standards
11011 (to be superseded by ISO 10011),
14010-14012, and 14031. ISO, Geneva.
ITTO 1990. Guidelines for the Sustainable
Management of Natural Tropical Forests.
ITTO, Yokohama.
ITTO 1998. Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable
Management of Natural Tropical Forests.
ITTO, Yokohama.
Lammerts van Bueren, E.M & E.M. Blom 1997.
Hierarchical Framework for the Formulation of
Sustainable Forest Management Standards. The
Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen.
Landrot, J.-J. 2001. Objectifs du plan d’aménagement en forêt naturelle tropicale. Paper
presented at: Seminaire de WWF sur l’aménagement des concessions forestières en Afriquecentrale: la nécesité d’une stratégie concertée, lavision européenne. Bruxelles, le 17 decembre
2001.
LEI 2001. Training Development on Assessment of
Sustainable Forest Management in Indonesia.
Final Report PD 1/95 Rev. 4 (M). LEI, Jakarta.
LEI 2002. Annual Report 2001. LEI, Jakarta.
Markopoulos, M.D. 1998. The Impacts ofCertification on Community Forest
Enterprises: A Case Study of the Lomerío
Community Forest Management Project,
Bolivia. Forestry and Land Use Series No. 13.
IIED, London.
Markopoulos, M.D. 2000. The Role ofCertification in Supporting Community-based
Forest Enterprise (CFE) in Latin America.
DPhil Thesis. Oxford University, Oxford.
Meridian Institute 2001. Comparative Analysis of
the Forest Stewardship Council and Sustainable
Forestry Initiative Certification Programs.
Consensus Statement on Salient Similarities
and Differences between the Two Programs.
Meridian Institute, Washington, DC.
MTCC 2002. Operation of the MTCC Timber
Certification Scheme. MTCC Press Release. 8
February 2002. Malaysian Timber Certification
Council, Kuala Lumpur.
Nsenkyiere, E.O. & M. Simula 2000. Comparative
Study on the Auditing Systems of Sustainable
Forest Management. ITTO, Yokohama.

40

NTCC 2000. Information on the Consultation
Process Involved in Formulating the Malaysian
Criteria, Indicators, Activities and Standards of
Performance (MC&I) for Forest Management
Certification. NTCC, Kuala Lumpur.
Nussbaum, R., S. Jennings & M. Garforth 2002.
Assessing Forest Certification Schemes: A
Practical Guide. Proforest, Oxford.
OFI & TRADA 1991. Incentives in Producer andConsumer Countries to Promote Sustainable
Development of Tropical Forests. Pre-project
Report 22/91 (M). ITTO, Yokohama.
Ozinga, S. 2001. Behind the Logo: An
Environmental and Social Assessment of Forest
Certification Schemes. Fern, Moreton-inMarsh, UK.
PEFC 2001. Common Elements andRequirements. Pan-European Forest
Certification Framework. Technical Document.
PEFC, Luxembourg.
Rametsteiner, E. & M. Simula 2001. Background
paper for Workshop on Forest Certification:
Forging Novel Incentives for Environment andSustainable Forest Management. In Simula, M.,
E. Rametsteiner, A. Blåsten, T. Green and B.
Pajari (eds.) Forest Certification: Forging Novel
Incentives for the Environment and Sustainable
Forest Management. EFI Proceedings 43, 2001.
European Forest Institute, Joensuu.
Rametsteiner, E. 2000. Sustainable forest
management certification: frame conditions,system designs and impact assessment. Paper
presented at the Ministerial Conference on
Forests in Europe.
Rametsteiner, E. 2001. Markets for certified
products. Chapter 10 in ECE/FAO Forest
Products Annual Market Review, 2000-2001.
ECE/FAO, Geneva.
Roda, J-M. 2002. Écocertification tropicale: Pouren finir avec les idées reçues! Bois Mag No 15,
Février 2002.
Sandom, J. & M. Simula 2001. Assessment ofCompatibility of Malaysian Criteria andIndicators for Forest Certification with FSC
Requirements. Prepared for the MTCC, Kuala
Lumpur.

ITTO

Scrase, H. 1999. Certification of Forest Products
for Small Businesses: Improving Access – Issues
and Options. Renewable Natural Resources
Knowledge Strategy: 61. Department forInternational Development, London.
Simula, M., E. Rametsteiner, A. Blåsten, T. Green& B. Pajari (eds) 2001. Forest Certification:
Forging Novel Incentives for the Environment
and Sustainable Forest Management. EFI
Proceedings 43, 2001. European Forest
Institute, Joensuu.
Synnott, T. 2000. Forest Stewardship Council
position on mutual recognition. The Second
International Seminar on the Mutual
Recognition of Credible Certification Systems.
Brussels, 28–29 November 2000.
Tchamba, M. 2001. Partenariat avec le secteur
privé dans le programme forêts de WWF au
Cameroun. Paper presented at: Seminaire de
WWF sur l’aménagement des concessions
forestières en Afrique centrale: la nécesité d’une
stratégie concertée, la vision européenne.
Bruxelles, le 17 decembre 2001.
Thang, H.C. 2000. Malaysia’s experiences on
criteria and indicators for sustainable forest
management and timber certification. Paper
presented at the Workshop on Criteria andIndicators for Sustainable Forest Management
and Timber Certification, 21–22 February
2000. Yangon, Myanmar.

Vallejo, N. & P. Hauselmann 2001. PEFC An
Analysis. WWF Discussion Paper. WWF European
Forest Team, Zurich.
Vilhunen, L., E. Hansen, H. Juslin & K. Forsyth2001. Forest Certification Update for the ECE
Region, Summer 2001. Geneva Timber andForest Discussion Papers. ECE/TIM/DP/23.
New York and Geneva.
WB-WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation andSustainable Use (undated). Guidance Note for
Improved Forest Management & Certification
Target: Achieving the Independent
Certification of 200 Million Hectares of Wellmanaged Production Forests by the Year 2005.
World Bank, Washington, DC.

Useful websites
www.diy.com
www.fern.org
www.foresttrends.org
www.fscoax.org
www.ikea.com
www.itto.or.jp
www.lei.or.id
www.mttc.com.my
www.paperprofile.com
www.pefc.org
www.stichting.keurhout.nl

Thornber, K. 1999. Impacts of Certification on
Forests, Stakeholders and Markets – Case
Study: Bainings Ecoforestry Project. IIED
Instruments for Sustainable Private Sector
Forestry Project Series. IIED, London.
Thornber, K. 2000. Forest Certification in Zambia:
Demonstrating SFM and Improving Local
Incomes? A Case Study of Muzama Crafts
Limited. IIED Instruments for Sustainable
Private Sector Forestry Project Series. IIED,
London.
Tolfts, A. 1998. How Appropriate is Certificationfor Small-scale Timber Producers in Melanesia?
Rural Development Forestry Network Paper
23. Overseas Development Institute, London.
Vallejo, N. & P. Hauselmann 2000. Institutional
Requirements for Forest Certification: A
Manual for Stakeholders. GTZ Forest
Certification Project Working Paper 2. GTZ,
Eschborn.

41

ITTO

42

ITTO

Annex 1ITTO INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON COMPARABILITY AND
EQUIVALENCE OF FOREST CERTIFICATION SCHEMES
3–4 April 2002
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

PROCEEDINGS

43

ITTO

BackgroundAt its Thirtieth Session held in Yaounde,
Cameroon on 28 May–2 June 2001, theInternational Tropical Timber Council adopted
Decision 10(XXX) on Certification. This decisioncalled for the convening of a workshop prior to theThirty-second Session of the Council with broadbased participation on progress being maderegarding the comparability and equivalence ofcertification schemes. Pursuant to the decision, the
ITTO International Workshop on Comparability
and Equivalence of Forest Certification Schemes
was held at the Park Plaza International in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia on 3–4 April 2002. The Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) extended its cooperation andcollaborated with ITTO in the convening of thisworkshop.

Objectives
The purpose of the workshop as provided for in
Decision 10(XXX), was:with relevant interested parties and the ITTO
Secretariat, taking into account the comments andsuggestions received.
An overview paper entitled ‘Forest Certification:
Pending Challenges for Tropical Timber’ was also
prepared by the consultants and distributed toregistered participants prior to the convening of theworkshop. The final version of the paper incorporating comments provided during the course of theworkshop forms the main body of this technicalreport. The paper presents an overview of thecurrent situation in forest certification, points out
the substantive differences between the schemes
and analyses international requirements andvalidation mechanisms. It also assesses the impacts
and issues for tropical timber-producing countries
and offers options on certification for tropicaltimber producers. The paper served as a usefulreference for participants in the ITTO workshop.

Attendance•

to invite member countries and relevant interested parties to participate in a discussion of theprinciples, frameworks, and elements of certification schemes;

The ITTO workshop was attended by 68 registeredparticipants from: 14 ITTO member countries;
five relevant international organizations; nine certification schemes; 14 private sector groups; seven
relevant non-governmental organizations; and two
buyers’ groups.

•

to identify principles and critical elements
relevant to the development of standards forcertification;

The list of participants is included at the end of
this annex.

•

to review progress being made towards comparability and equivalence of certification
schemes;•

to obtain the perspective of buyers’ groups
towards certification; and•to recommend relevant activities for ITTO andits members.

In realizing the above objectives, it was hoped that
the ITTO International Workshop would also
contribute to the on-going process of international
dialogue and consultations on some of theoutstanding issues relating to certification.

Workshop program and overview
paper
The final program for the ITTO International
Workshop was developed by the appointed
consultants, Dr. Richard Eba’a Atyi (Cameroon)and Dr. Markku Simula (Finland), in consultation

44

Opening session
The opening of the workshop was officiated by the
Honourable Deputy Minister of Primary
Industries, Malaysia, Y.B. Datuk Anifah Aman. His
opening address was preceded by a message fromthe Executive Director of ITTO and by remarks by
the representative of FAO.

Substantive sessions
The remaining program of the workshop was
conducted in the form of plenary and workinggroup sessions, with the appointed consultants
serving as the moderators. Apart from an introduction to the objectives and organization of theworkshop, the moderators made presentations inplenary to introduce three thematic aspects of certification: namely, an overview of recent developments related to mutual recognition; common
principles and elements of, and differences
between, existing certification schemes; andITTOapproaches and mechanisms for improved comparability, validation and recognition of certification
systems – global and regional options.
Three panel discussions were conducted to address
the issues of: market requirements for certified
timber and timber products; can national schemes
and standards meet international requirements?;
and approaches and mechanisms for improving
comparability, validation and recognition of certification systems – global and regional options. The
first panel discussion involved five presentations
comprising two representing the buyers’ groups,
two representing the timber trade and one representing the suppliers. Six presentations by national
certification schemes in ITTO producing member
countries were made during the second panel
discussion, consisting of three schemes in Asia andPacific, two in Africa and one in Latin America.
The third panel discussion was facilitated by six
presentations made by representatives of majorinternational and regional certification schemes
and initiatives. All presentations made available inelectronic format can be found on the ITTO
website.
Two working-group sessions were held during thecourse of the workshop. The first session dealt with
the issues relating to the needs of producers andforest managers in meeting market requirements;
certifying small-scale and community forests; andbenefits and constraints in developing countries. In
this connection, working groups 1 and 2 wereassigned the task of addressing the main constraints
that tropical timber-producing countries were
facing in having access to, and making use of, forest
certification at the national and forest management
unit levels. The working groups were also tasked toconsider what was needed in tropical timberproducing countries to remove these constraints
and the specific problems related to facilitating
community forests, outgrowers and small-scale
forest owners. The steps that could be taken intropical timber-producing countries to meet therequirements of the international markets
concerning certification, considering national
experiences constituted the subject of the deliberation of Working Group 3, while Working Group
4 tackled questions related to the market requirements for certified tropical timber products andwhat markets could do to assist tropical producing
countries to achieve certification.

The second working-group session was focused on
the way forward in building trust, follow-up
process, and special provisions and support needsin tropical timber-producing countries. In thissession, Working Group 1 addressed the kind ofphased approach that could be recommended fortropical timber-producing countries that could notachieve certification status in their forests in the
short term, while Working Group 2 considered theprinciples and critical elements that were relevantto the development of standards for certification.
Working Group 3 was assigned the topic ofwhether regional certification schemes/initiatives
were an appropriate solution for tropical timberproducing countries (identifying the pros and cons)
and those aspects that should be considered in theirimplementation. The role ITTO should have infacilitating its producing member countries tomake progress in forest certification and the identification of activities to be taken at the international
level and in member countries constituted the issue
deliberated upon by Working Group 4. In
addition, all four working groups were invited toconsider how more trust could be created between
stakeholders supporting different certification
schemes and what should the follow-up process bein the international dialogue on equivalence andcomparability.
Following the completion of each of the working
group sessions, participants met in plenary toconsider the reports of each of the working groups.
Plenary sessions were also held to discuss the way
forward in relation to the continuation of international dialogue and follow-up actions and to
consider and adopt the moderators’ concluding
remarks.

Moderators’ concluding remarks
The gist of the proceedings and outcomes of theworkshop, including a set of recommendations forthe consideration of ITTO and its members, iscontained in the moderators’ concluding remarks
as follows:
Only about 8% of the world´s certified forests
totalling 109 million hectares are found in developing countries. Tropical timber producers areseriously lagging behind the developed countries inmaking use of forest certification, which was originally designed as an alternative to bans andboycotts of tropical timber in the international

45

ITTO

marketplace. Nevertheless, many tropical countries
are committed to promote and implement certification as a tool to make progress towards
sustainable forest management (SFM).
The problems that tropical countries are faced within making progress towards SFM include extremely
diverse ecological and socio-economic conditions,
uncertain or disputed land tenure, social andpolitical conflicts concerning the use of forest
resources, lack of financial and human resources,
institutional weaknesses, and poor cost-competitiveness of SFM-certified forest products. Forest
use is in many cases a high-level political issue thatcannot be addressed through sectoral measuresalone. Tropical timber-producing countries are also
experiencing many demands other than certification from outside which tend to limit their accessto the markets. In the international markets, there
appears to be a lack of understanding about local
realities and a lack of appreciation of the fundamental problems faced by tropical countries inmaking progress towards SFM and implementing
certification to demonstrate this.
In many tropical countries there is a wide gap
between the existing level of management and what
is required by certification standards. Constraints
in bridging the gap include inadequate government
support, an insufficient information base and lackof human resources, a lack of resources needed for
improving forest management practices, a lack of
incentives for forest managers and industry, and alack of understanding of what certification entails.
The management systems in place are not yet
adequate and the concept of forest auditing is stillat the introductory stage. In some cases the small
size of forest management units and the shortduration of allocated harvesting rights are otherconstraints.
Certification can contribute to the control of illegal
logging and trade by tracking the origin of tropicaltimber and by verifying legal compliance, which isa basic requirement in all certification standards.
With regard to deforestation, certification may help
create more value to the resource so that forest land
is not converted into other uses, but the issue ofincreased costs must be addressed. On the other
hand, as the best-managed forests are commonly
certified first, the impact of certification on forest
management is not yet taking place where it ismost needed. Another constraint is that the costs

46

and benefits of certification are not sharedequitably between the stakeholders.
Multiple requirements of different markets andbuyers on what kind of certification is needed fortropical timber products makes it difficult for
producers to meet these requirements and can evenbe a disincentive for SFM. The buyers should bear
their part of the responsibility in assisting tropicaltimber producers in achieving certification.
Examples of such measures are: innovative
procurement policies; education of consumers,
stakeholders and the general public; support fortraining and R&D in tropical timber-producing
countries; the promotion of certified lesser-used
species and non-timber forest products; and suchmeasures as preferential tax policies for certified
timber products in consuming countries.
Relevant principles and critical elements withregard to the development of certification standards
include a set of globally applicable principles and amechanism for their interpretation to define
standards at the national level. The development
process should be based on participation to ensure
broad ownership of the outcome involving stakeholders from the beginning. Decisions should be
preferably made by consensus. All stakeholders
should be informed about the standard development process and be invited to nominate theirown representatives to participate. Such representatives should preferably be genuinely committed tothe process. The lack of adequate capacity for somestakeholders to effectively participate in the process
should also be addressed. There should be mechanisms for communication and the provision of
information as well as for resolving grievances.
Adequate field-testing is needed to ensure that thestandard works in practice. The standard should bebased on available science and technology, draw on
the existing regulations and guidelines, and shouldmeet an agreed international baseline while being
locally applicable. The standard should be periodically reviewed based on new knowledge and expectations as well as experience from implementation.
Some buyers have expressed their minimum
requirements as ‘FSC or equivalent’ in order toobtain confidence in certificates. However, what
equivalence means in this context has not been
defined. The main concerns of buyers appear to berelated to how and by whom the standards havebeen developed.

ITTO

Demand for certified timber products in certain
markets and market segments exceeds the available
supply. Certification has brought confidence totraders to promote wood products. On the other
hand, only part of the production of timber fromcertified forests is marketed as certified due to a
general lack of demand.
It is necessary to address the problem of lack oftrust between stakeholders, which is associated with
their different objectives, political conflicts andsometimes with inadequate dialogue due to a lackof information. Support from major stakeholders
including governments, industry, trade and NGOs
is important to make progress in certification. The
role of NGOs, among other stakeholders, needs tobe recognized; they tend to be considered a reliable
source of information by the general public indeveloped countries as regards the monitoring of,and making judgements on, environmental andsocial issues. All parties should be prepared to makeallowances for achieving more convergence
between certification schemes.
There are three main possibilities for bridging the
gap between the existing certification schemes: (a)cooperative arrangements like mutual recognition
and/or joint certification assessments; (b) consumer
pressure which would lead to the disappearance of
unacceptable schemes; and (c) producer pressure,which has resulted in the harmonization ofnational-level certification standards in somecountries.
Mutual recognition between schemes as a means of
reducing confusion among buyers and consumers
received support from several participants of theworkshop, although others did not support the idea
and saw more merit in competition between
schemes or in allowing the market to decide whichschemes to support. Any international framework
for mutual recognition should be non-discriminatory, transparent, cost-effective and should
include the regular revision of standards. It wasnoted that mutual recognition requires rigorous
technical analysis and should not lead to thelowering of standards. Many participants thoughtthat there was a need for an internationalframework for the evaluation and validation ofcertification schemes, eventually leading to mutual
recognition. This, if implemented, should
preferably be organized through existing bodies.
The FSC is not supporting international-level

mutual recognition, while PEFC works based onthat principle, also offering to recognize nonEuropean certification schemes. Keurhout has its
own criteria for accepting certificates. Practical
tools have been developed to assess individual
schemes with due consideration of their objectives.
National certification schemes have been developedin a number of tropical countries. This has ensured
the due consideration of local situations in thedevelopment of standards and certification arrangements. The catalytic role of governments has been
important in these efforts, not least because thegovernment is often the ultimate owner of forests.
In the development process, inputs are neededfrom all the stakeholders, including the private
sector, social groups, workers, the scientificcommunity and others. The involvement ofgovernment has also contributed to the integrationof SFM and its certification into national policies
and programs.
National schemes are committed to meeting international requirements. Efforts to make national
standards compatible with the international ones
and the regional and national sets of criteria andindicators for SFM have been taken in a number oftropical countries. National schemes have also tried
to obtain endorsement by international certification schemes but the processes have been timeconsuming and their outcomes remain uncertain.
Many participants thought that international
schemes should be more flexible when theirrequirements are adapted to local conditions.
Setting the requirements for certification standards
and schemes too high to be achievable in tropicalcountries will discourage such countries fromtaking action in this field. SFM should be understood as a process where continuous improvement
is essential and different starting levels must berecognized. A phased approach was proposed as apotentially feasible option for tropical timber
producers in gaining recognition of their efforts toimplement certification. Such an approach should
be based on a commitment to achieving certification to a defined standard for SFM that is
acceptable to the market, and has baseline requirements, a defined time-schedule, independent verification, and rigorous rules. The first step could be
the independent voluntary verification of legal
compliance. In the design of the phased approach,possible risks should be considered in order to

47

ITTO

avoid a weakening of existing standards in practice.
The phased approach merits further consideration
but requires in-depth analysis and discussion withstakeholders to design it in a way that makes it
acceptable to the market, producers and otherstakeholders.
Regional initiatives such as the proposed AsiaPacific Forum on Forest Certification and the PanAfrican Forest Certification scheme could bevaluable in assisting countries in developing certification and building capacity through the analysis
of common problems, exchange of experience,
communication, etc. Regional initiatives could also
be useful in supporting the development of comparable national standards within a common
framework and making effective use of scarce
resources. In addition, they could help mobilizefinancial and other support to tropical timber
producers, and even promote common productspecifications. Regional approaches are not applicable in all regions and they risk being timeconsuming and dominated by large producing
countries. Existing organizations could be drawn
on in developing and implementing regional initiatives.
Recommendations for ITTO
ITTO´s role in promoting SFM and SFM certification should be strengthened. The workshop
made the following recommendations on theactions that the Organization should take:(1) provide support for capacity-building to its
producing member countries in forest certification, including institutional strengthening,stakeholder participation, auditing systems,
training, and better understanding of certification, and be more responsive to project
proposals related to certification;(2) monitor progress in the comparability andequivalence of certification systems and explore
opportunities for promoting convergence inforest certification standards in member
countries, including regional initiatives. This
could involve facilitation of multi-stakeholder
dialogue and communication between schemes;(3) facilitate discussion involving stakeholders andprovide support for exploring the feasibility of aphased approach to certification as a means ofimproving equitable access to certification by
producers in producing and consuming
member countries;

48(4) recognize the potential contribution of forest
management and chain-of-custody certification
to the control of illegal logging and illegal tradein tropical timber;(5) facilitate dialogue and cooperation between
consuming and producing member countries,and educate stakeholders and the general public
about the principles and complexities of SFM
and the certification of natural and planted
forests;(6) give more emphasis to its efforts in promoting
enabling conditions for SFM and its certification in its member countries;(7) support research to examine the effectivenessand efficiency of alternative sets of indicatorsfor satisfying specific certification criteria andto clarify the impact of certification on SFM;
(8) keep its members informed on initiatives
related to international frameworks for mutual
recognition between certification systems; and(9) provide support to regional certification fora
and related organizations in the tropicalregions.

ITTO

List of workshop participants
ITTO member countries
Mr. Seila Det
Senior Forestry Officer
Department of Forestry and Wildlife#40, Preah Norodom Blvd.
Phnom Penh
Cambodia

Tel: (855-12) 812-025
Fax: (855-23) 211-494
Email: igcatch@bigpond.com.kh

Mr. Robert Namsenei
Directeur des Etudes et de la Coordination
Ministere des Eaux, Forêts, Chasses, Pêches del'Environnement et du Tourisme
B.P. 830
Bangui
République Centrafricaine

Tel: (236) 509-872
Fax: (236) 610-975

Mr. Li Mingqi
Deputy Director-General
Scientific and Technological Development Centre
State Forestry Administration
18 Hepingli Dongjie
Beijing 100714
China

Tel: (86-10) 8423-8709
Fax: (86-10) 6288-2317
Email: luwenmin@public.bta.net.cn

Mr. Lu Wenming
Professor and Assistant Director
Research Institute of Forestry Policy
and Information
Chinese Academy of Forestry
Wan Shou Shan
Beijing 100091
China

Tel: (86-10) 6288-9727
Fax: (86-10) 6288-2317
Email: luwenmin@public.bta.net.cn

Mr. Adje Olivier Ahimin
Head
Forest Management Department
SODEFOR
01 BP 3770
Abidjan 01
Cote d'Ivoire

Tel: (225) 2244-4616
Fax: (225) 2244-9907
Email: olivierahimin@hotmail.com
sodefor@africaonline.co.ci

Dra. Miriam Cecilia Factos Mendoza
PROBONAEl Vengador 168 y El Zurriago
Quito
EcuadorTel: (593-2) 2 250-850
Fax: (593-2) 2 438-545
Email: probona@uio.satnet.net

Ms. Celestine Ntsame-Okwo
Conseiller Technique du Ministre
Ministere de l'Economie Forestiere, des Eaux, de laPêche Charge de l'Environnement et de laProtection de la Nature
B.P. 199
Libreville
Gabon

Tel: (241) 765-548
Fax: (241) 765-548
Email: nocmc@yahoo.fr

49

ITTO

Mr. Alhassan N. Attah
Manager
Ghana Timber Export Development Board
Unit 4 Granard Business Centre
Bunns Lane, Mill Hill
London NW7 2DZ
U.K.

Tel: (44-208) 906-9560
Fax: (44-208) 906-9570
Email: attah@btconnect.com

Mr. Yoshiki Takahama
Technical Official
Wood Products Trade Office
Forestry Agency
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
1-2-1, Kasumigaseki
Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-8952
Japan

Tel: (81-3) 3502-7830
Fax: (81-3) 3502-0305
Email: yoshiki_takahama@nm.maff.go.jp

Mr. Takashi Yamazaki
Second Secretary
Embassy of Japan in Malaysia
Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Email: takashi_yamazaki@mofa.go.jp

Madam Fatimah Raya Nasron
Timber Industry Division
Ministry of Primary Industries
Level 6-8, Menara Dayabumi
Jalan Sultan Hishamuddin
50654 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 2274-7511
Fax: (60-3) 2274-5014
Email: fatimah@kpu.gov.my

Mr. Ahmad Loman
Timber Industry Division
Ministry of Primary Industries
Level 6-8, Menara Dayabumi
Jalan Sultan Hishamuddin
50654 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 2274-7511
Fax: (60-3) 2275-5014
Email: ahmadl@kpu.gov.my

Madam Leela Ramadas
Timber Industry Division
Ministry of Primary Industries
Level 6-8, Menara Dayabumi
Jalan Sultan Hishamuddin
50654 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 2274-7511
Fax: (60-3) 2274-5014
Email: leela@kpu.gov.my

Madam Low Yoke Kiew
Forestry Division
Ministry of Primary Industries
Level 6-8, Menara Dayabumi
Jalan Sultan Hishamuddin
50654 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 2275-6127
Fax: (60-3) 2273-1636
Email: lykiew@kpu.gov.my

50

ITTO

Mr. Masran Md. Salleh
Forest Department Headquarters
Peninsular Malaysia
Jalan Sultan Salahuddin
50660 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 2698-8244
Fax: (60-3) 2692-5657

Dato’ Dr. Wan Razali Wan Mohd.
Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM)
Jalan FRIM, Kepong52109 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 6279-7000
Fax: (60-3) 6279-7852
Email: razali@frim.gov.my

Mr. Ali Bin Yusop
Forest Deparment Sarawak
Wisma Sumber AlamJalan Stadium Petra Jaya
93660 Kuching, Sarawak
Malaysia

Tel: (60-82) 319-102
Fax: (60-82) 445-640

Mr. Othman Mohamad
Assistant Director
Technical Services
Malaysian Timber Industry Board
Level 13-17, Menara PGRM
No. 8, Jalan Pudu Ulu, Cheras
P.O. Box 10887
50728 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 9280-8141
Fax: (60-3) 9284-6214
Email: othman@mtib.gov.my

Dr. Roszehan Mohd Idrus
School of International Tropical Forestry
University Malaysia Sabah
Locked Bag 2073
88999 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah
Malaysia

Tel: (60-88) 320-118
Fax: (60-88) 435-214
Email: zehan@ums.edu.my

Dr. Shamsudin Ibrahim
Director
Natural Forest Division
Forest Research Institute Malaysia
Kepong, 52109 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 6279-7807
Fax: (60-3) 6279-7857
Email: sham@frim.gov.my

Mr. Richard B. McCarthy
Forest Industries Association
P.O. Box 229
Waigani, NCD
Papua New Guinea

Tel: (675) 325-9277
Fax: (675) 325-9563
Email: rbmcc@datec.com.pg

Mr. Chittiwat Silapat
Chief
Office of Planning and Budgeting
Forest Industry Organization
76 Rajadamnern-nok Avenue
Bangkok 10100
ThailandTel: (66-2) 629-8660
Fax: (66-2) 282-4197
Email: chittiwat@fio.or.th

51

ITTO

Mr. Seepersad Ramnarine
Assistant Conservator of Forests
Forestry Division
Long Circular Road
St. James
Port of Spain
Trinidad and Tobago

Tel: (868) 622-5658
Email: ramnarine@hotmail.com
forestry@tstt.net.tt

Dr. Carey P. Yeager
Conservation Advisor
U.S. Embassy
USAID REM
Jl. Merdeka Selatan No. 3
Jakarta 10110
Indonesia

Tel: (62-21) 3435-9455
Fax: (62-21) 380-6694
Email: CareyY@dosnet.usaid.go

Dr. Osvaldo Encinas
Director
Center for Forestry and Environment
Postgraduate Studies
University of the Andes
MeridaVenezuela

Tel: (58-274) 240-1518
Fax: (58-274) 240-1519
Email: oencinas@forest.ula.vc

International organizations
Mr. Emmanuel Siisi-Wilson
Technical Director (Forest Management Certification)
African Timber Organisation
B.P. 1077
Libreville
Gabon

Tel: (241) 732-928
Fax: (241) 734-030
Email: oab-gabon@internetgabon.com

Dr. Somsak Pipoppinyo
Assistant Director
ASEAN Secretariat
Jl. Sisingamangaraja 70A
Jakarta 12110
Indonesia

Tel: (62-21) 726-2991
Fax: (62-21) 739-8234
Email: somsak@aseansec.org

Dr. I.J. Bourke
Senior Forestry Officer (Trade and Marketing Analysis)
Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO)
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome
Italy

Tel: (39-06) 5705-4174
Fax: (39-06) 5705-5137
Email: jim.bourke@fao.org

Dr. Kanta Kumari
Biodiversity Program Manager
Global Environment Facility
1818 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20433
U.S.A.

52

Fax: (1-202) 522-3240
Email: kkumari@worldbank.org

ITTO

Mr. Carlos Tito Santos
Regional Coordinator
Biodiversity & International Waters
United Nations Development Programme
P.O. Box 12544
50782 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 251-5155
Fax: (60-3) 255-2870
Email: tito.santos@undp.org

Certification schemes
Mr. Rubens Garlipp
SuperintendantBrazilian Society for Silviculture - SBS
Marselha No. 1180
CEP 05332-000
Sao Paulo-SP
BrazilTel: (55-11) 3719-1771
Fax: (55-11) 3714-4941
Email: sbs@sbs.org.br

Mr. Parfait Mimbimi Esono
President
National Working Group Certification Cameroon
B.P. 14897
YaoundeCameroon

Tel: (237) 343-6994
Fax: (237) 343-6994
Email: akung34@hotmail.com

Mr. Auvo Kaivola
Finnish Forest Certification Council
Melkonkatu 16 A
FIN-00210
Helsinki
FinlandTel: (358-9) 2904-1426
Fax: (358-9) 692-2084
Email: auvo.kaivola@ffcs-finland.org

Dr. Dradjad H. Wibowo
Executive Director
The Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute
Jl. Taman Malabar 18
Bogor 16151
Indonesia

Tel: (62-251) 340-744/340-745/340-759
Fax: (62-251) 321-739
Email: dhwibowo@indo.net.id

Dato' Dr. B.C.Y. Freezailah
Chairman
Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC)
19F, Level 19, Menara PGRM
No. 8, Jalan Pudu Ulu, Cheras
56100 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 9200-5008
Fax: (60-3) 9200-6008
Email: mtcc@tm.net.my

Mr. Chew Lye Teng
Chief Executive Officer
Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC)
19F, Level 19, Menara PGRM
No. 8, Jalan Pudu Ulu, Cheras
56100 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 9200-5008
Fax: (60-3) 9200-6008
Email: mtcc@tm.net.my

53

ITTO

Mr. Harnarinder Singh
Senior Manager
Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC)
19F, Level 19, Menara PGRM
No. 8, Jalan Pudu Ulu, Cheras
56100 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 9200-5008
Fax: (60-3) 9200-6008
Email: mtcc@tm.net.my

Mr. Ismail Ibrahim
Manager (Product)
Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC)
19F, Level 19, Menara PGRM
No. 8, Jalan Pudu Ulu, Cheras
56100 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 9200-5008
Fax: (60-3) 9200-6008
Email: mtcc@tm.net.my

Mr. S.T. Mok
FSC Board Member
7 Lorong Kemaris Dua
59100 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: (603) 2095-7950
Email: moki@tm.net.my

Mr. U Myat Thinn
Advisor to the Minister and Chairman of theTimber Certification Committee (Myanmar)
Ministry of Forestry
Thirimingalar Avenue, Off-Kaba Aye Pagoda Road
Yankin P.O.
YangonMyanmarTel: (95-1) 651-801
Fax: (95-1) 651-842
Email: Timcertcom@mptmail.net.mm

Mr. Kees C.W.F. Bosdijk
Keurhout Foundation
P.O. Box 369
NL 1380 AJ Weesp
The Netherlands

Tel: (31-294) 452-430
Fax: (31-294) 450-360
Email: keurhout@stichtingkeurhout.nl

Dr. Dennis Del Castillo Torres
Consejo Peruano para laCertificacion Forestal Voluntaria
Av. Javier Prado Este No. 2785 Piso 7
San Borja
Lima
Peru

Tel: (51-1) 346-1832/(51-94) 263619
Fax: (51-94) 265-527
Email: cp.cfv@terra.com.pe
dennis@iiap.org.pe

Private sector groups
Mr. Ganesh Singh
Executive Committee Member
Forest Products Association of Guyana
157 Waterloo Street
Cummingsberg
Georgetown
GuyanaTel: (592) 339-2741/226-9848
Fax: (592) 226-2832
Email: cortours@guyana.net.gy
fpasect@sdnp.org.gy

Mr. Dickson John Timban
Environmental Quality Coordinator
Borneo Pulp & Paper Sdn. Bhd
P.O. Box 1657
97010 Bintulu, Sarawak
Malaysia

Tel: (60-86) 316-900
Fax: (60-86) 339-017
Email: dicksonjt@hotmail.com

54

ITTO

Madam Aimi Lee Abdullah
Deputy Director
Public & Corporate Affairs Division
Malaysian Timber Council
18th Floor, Menara PGRM
No. 8, Jalan Pudu Ulu, Cheras
56100 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 9281-1999
Fax: (60-3) 9282-8999
Email: aimi@mtc.com.my

Mr. Siew Khoon Chan
Samling Timber Sdn Bhd
Lot 296, Jalan Temenggong Datuk Oyong
Lawai Jau
P.O. Box 368
98007 Miri, Sarawak
Malaysia

Tel: (60-85) 413-099
Fax: (60-85) 412-751
Email: chansk@samling.com.my

Mr. Barney Chan Sek Tee
General Manager
Sarawak Timber Association
11 Floor, Wisma STA
26, Jalan Datuk Abang Abdul Rahim
93450 Kuching, Sarawak
Malaysia

Tel: (60-82) 332-222
Fax: (60-82) 487-888/487-999
Email: sta@sta.org.myMs. Emily Wong King May
Administrative Officer
Sarawak Timber Association
11 Floor, Wisma STA
26, Jalan Datuk Abang Abdul Rahim
93450 Kuching, Sarawak
Malaysia

Tel: (60-82) 332-222
Fax: (60-82) 487-888/487-999
Email: emily@sta.org.my

Mr. Len Talif Salleh
Acting General Manager
Sarawak Timber Industry Development Corporation
P.O. Box 194
93702 Kuching, Sarawak
Malaysia

Tel: (60-82) 443-477
Fax: (60-82) 444-179
Email: lents@pusaka.gov.myDr. Kevin T. Grace
Manager
Forestry Services Division
SGS (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
3rd Floor, Bangunan, John Hancok
Jalan Semantan, Damansara Heights
50490 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 2095-9200
Fax: (60-3) 2095-9611
Email: kevin.grace@sgsgroup.com

Mr. Salahuddin Yaacob
Senior Forestry Assessor
Forestry Services Division
SGS (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
3rd Floor, Bangunan John Hancock
Jalan Semantan, Damansara Heights
50490 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 255-9200
Fax: (60-3) 255-9611/254-6524
Email: salahuddin.yaacob@sgsgroup.com

55

ITTO

Mr. Abdul Aziz Long
Scheme Manager
Environmental Management System
SIRIM QAS Sdn Bhd
P.O. Box 7035
Sirim Complex
40911 Shah Alam, Selangor
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 5544-6346
Fax: (60-3) 5544-6763
Email: azizl@sirim.my

Dr. Yew Foo Keong
Training Consultant
Wisma Strategic Corporation Sdn Bhd
Lot 296, Jalan Temenggong Datuk Oyong
Lawai Jau
98000 Miri, Sarawak
Malaysia

Tel: (60-85) 413-099
Fax: (60-85) 430-071
Email: yewfk@samling.com.my

Mr. Buong Tung Lau
Technical Adviser
WTK Organisation
84, Seng Goon Garden
3 1/2 mile
Penrissen Road
93250 Kuching, Sarawak
Malaysia

Tel: (60-82) 259-229
Fax: (60-82) 427-358
Email: btlau@hotmail.com

Mr. Geoffrey Pleydell
Consultant
2 Bug Hill
Woldingham
Surrey UK
CR37LB
U.K.

Tel: (44-1883) 653-326
Fax: (44-1883) 652-505

Mr. Michael Virga
Director, Sustainable Forestry Programs
American Forest & Paper Association
1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20036
U.S.A.

Tel: (1-202) 463-2712
Fax: (1-202) 463-2708
Email: michael_virga@afandpa.org

Mr. Bruce Frost
Vice-President (IWPA Representative)
Frost Hardwood Lumber Co.
P.O. Box 919065
San Diego, CA 92191-9065
U.S.A.

Tel: (1-858) 455-9060
Fax: (1-858) 455-0455
Email: bhf@frosthardwood.com

Dr. Pham Hoai Duc
Senior Forestry Officer
Vietnam Forest Science andTechnology Association
No. 5 HEM 203/3/2 Kim Nguu
Hanoi
Vietnam

Tel: (84-4) 821-9158
Fax: (84-4) 754-1311
Email: Duc-dkht@netnam.vn

56

ITTO

Non-governmental organizations
Hj. Jamaluddin Bin Mohd. Isa
Executive Secretary
International Federation of Building andWood Workers (IFBWW)
MFOU No. 69 Jalan Jit
Desa Jaya
52100 Kepong, Selangor
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 6276-1388
Fax: (60-3) 6272-8144

Mr. Chew Chee KeongRegional Education Officer
International Federation of Building andWood Workers (IFBWW)
1st Floor, USJ 10/IG
47620 Subang Jaya, Selangor
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 5638-3367
Fax: (60-3) 5638-7721
Email: chew.cheekeong@ifbww.org

Mr. Chen Hin Keong
Senior Forest Trade Advisor
Traffic International
Unit 9-3A, 3rd Floor, Jalan SS23/11, Taman SEA
47400 Petaling Jaya, Selangor
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 7880-3940
Fax: (60-3) 7882-0171
Email: hkchen@pc.jaring.my

Ms. Ginny Ng Siew Ling
Forest Conservation Officer
WWF Malaysia
49 Jalan SS 23/15, Taman SEA
47400 Petaling Jaya, Selangor
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 7803-3772
Fax: (60-3) 7803-5157
Email: gng@wwf.org.my

Dr. Herbert Diemont, Alterra
Wageningen University & Research Centre
Droevendaalsesteeg 3
Wageningen 6700AA
The Netherlands

Tel: (31-317) 477-863
Fax: (31-317) 419-000
Email: w.h.diemont@alterra.wag-ur.nl

Dr. Ruth Nussbaum
Director
PROFOREST
58 St. Aldates
Oxford OX4 1ST
U.K.

Tel: (44-1865) 243-439
Fax: (44-1865) 790-441
Email: Ruth@ProForest.net

Mr. William E. Mankin
Director
Global Forest Policy Project
1630 Connecticut Ave., NW, Third Floor
Washington, D.C. 20009
U.S.A.

Tel: (1-202) 797-1234
Fax: (1-202) 797-5555
Email: gfpp@igc.org

Mr. Richard Z. Donovan
Chief of Forestry
Rainforest Alliance
61 Millet Street
Richmond, Vermont 05477
U.S.A.

Tel: (1-802) 899-1383/434-5491
Fax: (1-802) 434-3116
Email: rzd@smartwood.org

57

ITTO

Buyers’ groups
Mr. Ulf Johansson
Forestry Manager
IKEA Trading South East Asia
No. 2, Jalan 26/35 Section 26
40000 Shah Alam, Selangor
Malaysia

Tel: (60-3) 5101-2500
Fax: (60-3) 5101-2502
Email: ulf.johansson2@memo.ikea.com

Dr. Alan Knight OBE
Head of Social Responsibility
Kingfisher plc
North West House
119 Marylebone Road
London NW1 5PX
U.K.

Tel: (44-7774) 830-087
Fax: (44-2077) 241-160
Email: Alan.Knight@kingfisher.co.uk

Consultants
Dr. Richard Eba’a Atyi
CRESA
B.P. 8114
YaoundeCameroonDr. Markku Simula
Indufor Oy
Töölonkatu 11 A
FIN-00100 Helsinki
FinlandTel: (237) 981-658
Fax: (237) 238-915
Email: ebaa.atyi@caramail.com

Tel: (358-9) 684-0110
Fax: (358-9) 135-2552
Email: indufor@indufor.fi

ITTO secretariat
Mr. Amha bin Buang
Assistant Director
Economic Information and Market Intelligence
International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO)
5th Floor, International Organizations Center
Pacifico-Yokohama
1-1-1, Minato-Mirai, Nishi-ku
Yokohama 220-0012
Japan

Tel: (81-45) 223-1110
Fax: (81-45) 223-1111
Email: itto@itto.or.jp

Ms. Naho Tamura
Secretary
Economic Information and Market Intelligence
International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO)
5th Floor, International Organizations Center
Pacifico-Yokohama
1-1-1, Minato-Mirai, Nishi-ku
Yokohama 220-0012
Japan

Tel: (81-45) 223-1110
Fax: (81-45) 223-1111
Email: itto@itto.or.jp

58

13

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

MONT,
EURO,
FSC

++

++

++

++

++

MONT

o

+

++

+

+

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

USA

ATFS

++

North
America

AF&PA
SFI

++

++

++

Europe,USA,
Canada

PEFC

MONT,
EURO,
FSC

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

PEFC
++

Czech
Rep.

CNCC

EURO,
FSC

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

PEFC
++

Finland

FFCC

ITTO,
FSC

?

+

+

+

+

+

+

?

++

(FSC)
+

Indonesia

LEI

EURO,
FSC

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

PEFC
++

NorwayLivingForests

EURO

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

PEFC
++

Austria

PEFC
Austria

EURO

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

PEFC
++

LatviaPEFC
Latvia

EURO

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

PEFC
++

France

EURO

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

PEFC
++

SwedenPEFC
SwedenCommitment to develop performance standards in line with one or more sets of internationally recognized forest principles and criteria

EURO

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

PEFC
++

Germany

Schemes
PEFC
PEFC
France Germany

13
Fully endorsed by; in brackets: ëworking towards full endorsement byí
14
Active participation of leading forest owner representatives in development of the scheme
15
No significant cost variation for certification of forests of differing sized and ecological types and in different regions
16
ISO/IEC Guide 61/2.1.1
17
ISO/IEC Guide 66/4.1.1
18
ISO/IEC Guide 66/4.1.2 & 4.2
19

IAF
PCI frame19
work- Affiliated toconformant
with ISO/IEC Guide61- Fully

Accreditation
16
bodiesRegistration/
certification
17
bodiesRegistration/
certification
18
bodiesComplaints
procedure
established
National
accreditation
Accreditation
body

Endorsement
Accommodates
all relevant
forest types
Participation ofleading forest
14
ownersNo significant
15
cost variation

Geographicalcoverage

Attributes

EURO

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

?

++

PEFC
++

PEFC
Switzerland/
HWK
Switzerland

EURO,
FSC

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

+

(PEFC)++UK

PEFC UK

MONT

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

+

++

++

Canada

SCC

ITTO,
EURO

+

+

+

++

++

++

+

?

++

++

BrazilABNT
Cerflor

EURO

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

(PEFC)
++

Spain

CEF

EURO

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

?

++

(PEFC)++

Portugal

CFFP

ITTO,
FSC

+

+

+

++

++

++

+

+

++

++

Malaysia

MTCC

FSC

++

FSC
++

Bolivia

FSC,
EURO

++

FSC
++

Sweden

++

++

FSC,
EURO

UK

Standard-setting bodies
CFV
Swedish U K WA S
FSC
Council

SUMMARY OF CEPI COMPARATIVE MATRIX OF FOREST CERTIFICATION SCHEMES

ITTO

Annex 2

59

60

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

+

+

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

NA

ATFS

++

AF&PA
SFI

++

PEFC

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

+

CNCC

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

+

FFCC

+

+

++

+

+

o

++

++

++

++

++

++

LEI

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

LivingForests

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

+

PEFC
Austria

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

PEFC
Latvia

++

++

++

++

++

++

+

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

Schemes
PEFC
PEFC
France Germany

Conformance of registration/certification bodies with ISO/IEC Guide 66 Sections 4.1.4 and 5

20
Forest management standards conform with ISO 14001 or EMAS
21
Standards-setting body committed to ensuring certification standards conform with national forestry policies and regulations
22
Relevant regulatory authorities consulted during standards-setting process
23
Rules established to ensure no single interest dominates the decision-making process
24
Procedures established to ensure all relevant interests are given opportunities to participate and influence decisions
25
All relevant interests invited to participate and concerted efforts made to encourage their participation
26
Presence of clear definition of ëconsensusí
27
Rules developed governing the provision of information to the public on certification scheme
28
Procedures to ensure ready public access to information on the certification process
29
Certification standards published and readily available
30
Conformance of accreditation bodies with ISO/IEC Guide 61/2.1.4, 2.1.5 & 3
31
Conformance of registration/certification bodies with ISO/IEC Guide 66/4.1.4 & 3
32

Conformity with
ISO 14001 or
20
EMAS
Conformity withnational forestry
21
policies
Consultation
with authori22ties
No single
interest domi23
nationOpportunities to24participate
Encouragementof parti25
cipation
Clear definitionof26ìconsensusî
Provision of
27
information
Access to28
information
Standards
29
published
Conformancewith ISO Guide
61/ 2.1.4, 2.1.5
30&3
Conformancewith ISO/IEC
Guide 66/ 4.1.4
31&3
Conformancewith ISO/IEC
Guide 66/ 4.1.4
32&5

Attributes

++

++

++

++

++

++

+

++

++

++

++

++

PEFC
Sweden

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

PEFC
Switzerland/
HWK
++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

+

PEFC UK

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

SCC

++

+

++

+

+

++

++

++

++

++

++

?

ABNT
Cerflor

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

CEF

++

++

?

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

+

CFFP

++

+

++

+

+

+

++

++

+

++

++

?

MTCC

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

+

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

+

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

+

Standard-setting bodies
CFV
Swedish U K WA S
FSC
CouncilITTO++partially

does not comply

insufficient data

not appropriate

o

?

na

++

++

++

ATFS

++

++

++

CNCC

++

++

++

FFCC

++

?

?

LEI

+

++

++

LivingForests

++

++

++

PEFC
Austria

++

++

++

PEFC
Latvia

+

++

++

++

++

++

Schemes
PEFC
PEFC
France Germany

++

++

++

PEFC
Sweden

++

++

PEFC
Switzerland/
HWK
++

++

++

++

PEFC UK

++

++

++

SCC

+

+

++

ABNT
Cerflor

+

++

++

CEF

+

++

?

CFFP

Rules developed governing products claims

33
Procedures developed to ensure the periodic review and revision of certification standards
34
Procedures developed for regular monitoring and re-assessment of certifiers
35
On-going training programs provided for accreditation body and certification personnel
36
Chain-of-custody auditing procedures developed for product labelling
37

Source: CEPI 2001

Note: This table does not include the FSC even though included in the CEPI Matrix as the FSC has asked that their information not be used in the matrix.

fully

+

++

++

++

++

++

AF&PA
SFI

++

PEFC

++

Symbols

Periodic revision of
33
standards
Monitoring and34
reassessment
Training of35
assessors
CoC proce36
dures
Rules forproduct
37
claimsAttributes

++

+

+

MTCC

++

++

++

Standard-setting bodies
CFV
Swedish U K WA S
FSC
Council

ITTO

61

ITTO

Annex 3SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS OF FSC AND SFI

Similarities and differences between the certification programs of FSC and SFI
Attribute
Program
OriginObjectives
Governance structure

Decisions on
standard modification
Mandatory public
involvement

Program fundingStandards
Structure
Employment ofstandards

Certification

Scope of forestry
standards

FSC

SFI

Initially a strong NGO focus; acomprehensive international program

Initially a strong industry focus; anational initiative, now also promoting
third-party certification
Baseline of performance building on
the concepts of sustainable forestry
US oriented, more limited governancestructure
Created by AF&PA for its members,
who oversee implementation
Decisions are made by a separate
Sustainable Forestry Board

Provide market rewards throughlabelling
Comprehensive international
governance structureMembership organization with General
Assembly and chamber structure
Decisions by members through voting
and the international FSC Board of
Directors
Participatory process in standardsetting
Stakeholder consultation duringcertification process
Public summaries of certification
reports
85% from private foundations
15% from membership andaccreditation fees

Tiered structures of principles and supporting requirements but they are
different and difficult to compare
Compliance with FSC P&C isCompliance with SFI objectives,
mandatory. Compliance may be
performance measures, and corelacking on some indicators and aindicators is mandatory with limited
criterion while still meeting theroom for interpretation by auditor
principle but conditions are defined
Third-party certification only
Annual reporting to AF&PA on the
results of first party verification
Optional second and third-party
verification
Comprehensive as intended for
Initially assumes compliance with theinternational use
US law and regulations (ordered andstate) covering many aspects

Accreditation
Accreditation

FSC

Accreditation reports

Summaries are publicCertification process
Consultation
Announcement of plans for a pending
certification in advance of audit
Extensive consultation during the audit
Peer review
Mandatory
Validity andCompliance with changes in standard
surveillance
in one year
Maximum validity of certificate fiveyears
Annual surveillance audits
Conflict resolution
Elaborate internal policies andprocedures

62

Consultation of outside parties instandard-setting
Broader social aspects of SFM in the
public law and regulations in the US
and Canada
Certified companies to issue asummary of the findings
82% from AF&PA members
18% grants and other revenue

Third-party verifiers accredited bynational accreditation bodies
Published if required by law or thecertifierConsultation with stakeholders
optional
Not required
Compliance with changes in standard
in one year
First recertification in three years andevery five years thereafter; no annual
auditsThrough State Implementation
Committee, use of Expert Panelpossible, ultimately Board of AF&PA
Directors

ITTO

Logo rules and CoC
Logo
CoC

Only one logo
CoC verification necessary following aseparate standard

Different versions of logo for third
party and other verifications
Verification of lands owned/controlled
by participants; ìprocurement systemapproachî for other supply sources
using a variety of approaches

Forestry standard
Both programs cover seven areas using essentially the same approach:- Water quality and riparian zone protection- Soil protection- Forest protection from fire, pathogens and disease- Periodic monitoring of environmental conditions and adaptive management- Identification and protection of cultural, archaeological and historic resources/sites- Public access and use opportunities- Efficiency of resource utilization
Different approaches for the same subject areas:- Forest plantations- Sustained yield- Clearcutting and even-aged forest management- Forest regeneration and reforestation- Road building and maintenance- Visual impacts and aesthetics- Long-term financial viability of the forest operation- Competency and adequacy of the forest management staff- Management planning framework
Subject areas where fundamentally different approaches, or addressed only one of the two programs:- Special and unique forest areas- Use of chemicals- Use of genetically modified organisms- Use and management of exotic species- Maintenance and conservation of biological diversity- Maintenance of ecological function- Assessment of environmental impacts- Consultation and public reporting- Health, safety and general welfare of employees and contractors- Compliance with applicable laws and regulations- Recognition of indigenous peoples rights- Education and outreach- Forest management research- Assessment of social impacts- Contribution of socio-economic benefits to local community/region
Source: Abridged from Meridien Institute 2001

63

ITTO

Annex 4

Distr.
GENERAL

INTERNATIONAL TROPICALTIMBER COUNCIL

ITTC(XXXII)/25
18 May 2002

Original: ENGLISH

ITTO
THIRTY-SECOND SESSION
13 - 18 May 2002
Bali, Indonesia

DECISION 11(XXXII)
THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF PHASED APPROACHES TO CERTIFICATIONIN TROPICAL TIMBER PRODUCER COUNTRIES AS A TOOL TO PROMOTESUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENTThe International Tropical Timber Council,
Reaffirming the commitment of Members to the process of advancing ITTO Objective 2000;
Recalling Decision 10(XXX) on Certification;
Recognizing that ITTO as an international organization should not endorse, create or adopt, or beperceived to endorse, any particular certification approach or scheme, including any accompanying
standards developed for the purpose of certification;
Noting the Report on the ITTO International Workshop on Comparability and Equivalence of Forest
Certification Schemes as contained in Document ITTC(XXXII)/10;
Recognizing forest certification as an important voluntary market-based tool to encourage and create
incentives for sustainable forest management and improving market transparency;
Underscoring that certification schemes should be voluntary, non-discriminatory, transparent andmarket-oriented;
Recognizing that while the ITTO Criteria and Indicators were developed to assess progress towards
sustainable forest management, performance standards would be required for the purposes of certification;
Recognizing the role of ITTO in promoting market access as provided for in the objectives of theITTA, 1994, and the ITTO Yokohama Action Plan 2002-2006;
Recognizing the role of ITTO in improving transparency of the international timber market andpromoting tropical timber from sustainably-managed sources as stipulated in the ITTO Yokohama Action
Plan 2002-2006;
Recognizing the potential contribution of certification to sustainable forest management, including
forest law enforcement and related trade;
Recognizing that many tropical timber producing countries have made considerable progress
towards sustainable forest management, and that at the same time those countries account for a very small
percentage of the coverage of certified forests around the world;
Recognizing that in many tropical timber countries there is a wide gap between the existing level ofmanagement and what is required by certification;
Recognizing that tropical timber countries face many institutional, social, human resource andfinancial constraints to achieve sustainable forest management;

/...

64

ITTO

ITTC(XXXII)/25
Page 2
Recognizing the potential role of regional consultations in advancing discussions on comparability
and equivalence among certification schemes, and in assisting tropical timber producing countries to meetsustainable forest management standards and to achieve certification;
Decides to:1.

Authorize the Executive Director to engage two consultants, one from producer and theother from consumer country to undertake a study on the potential of phased approaches tocertification as a tool to promote sustainable forest management, as per the attached Termsof Reference;2.

Authorize the Executive Director to convene three regional workshops to disseminate anddiscuss the results and implications of the study, with recommendations to the Thirty-fourth
Session of the Council based on the attached Terms of Reference;3.

Request the Executive Director to facilitate improved understanding, information-sharing anddialogue between interested parties from both consumer and producer countries on thesephased approaches;

4.

Encourage Member Countries to support project proposals for national capacity building toengage in forest certification in producer Member Countries, including institutional
strengthening, stakeholder participation, auditing systems, training and better public
understanding of the role of certification as regards to sustainable forest management; and5.

Authorize the Executive Director to seek voluntary contributions from Member Countries tomeet the financial requirements of this Decision, not exceeding US$297,980.00.

/...

65

ITTO

ITTC(XXXII)/25
Page 3

ANNEX
Terms of Reference for Consultants
The consultants, one from a producer and the other from a consumer country, will undertake a study on thepotential role of phased approaches to certification as a tool to promote sustainable forest management.
The study will include the following items:
a)

b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)

Consult with relevant parties, including buyers groups, consumer groups, industry, retailers,
certifiers, certification schemes, forest owners and managers, governments, environmental
and social NGOs, local communities, and indigenous peoples
Elaborate the concept and reflect the full range of views as regards to phased approaches tocertification
Identify existing models and initiatives on phased approaches to certification
Analyse the elements and operations of the existing models and initiatives
Collect and analyse information on market acceptance of the existing models and initiatives
Identify key issues, potentials, risks, and constraints on possible designs andimplementation of phased approaches
Identify and elaborate on common elements and stages of phased approaches
Prepare a preliminary report to present at the Thirty-third Session of the Council
Taking into consideration comments and views of Member Countries and the Workshop
participants, finalize the report and present to the Thirty-fourth Session of the Council

Terms of Reference for the Workshops
The three Regional Workshops will be three days duration each and convened in Africa, Asia-Pacific andLatin America between the Thirty-third and Thirty-fourth Sessions of the Council.
The purpose of the Workshop will be to disseminate and discuss results and implications of the study andcomments from Member countries, and make recommendations to the Thirty-fourth Session of the Council.
The Secretariat, in extending invitations to participants, should seek to provide a balance of the following
views at the Workshop:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

producer and consumer Member Countries
forest owners and managers
certification schemes
environmental and social NGOs
local communities and indigenous peoples
buyers groups and consumer groups
industry, traders and retailers

Priority for sponsorship should be given to participants from producer Member Countries.

*

*

*

/...

66

ITTO

INTERNATIONAL TROPIC AL TIMBER ORGANIZATIONInternational Organizations Center, 5th Floor, Pacifico-Yokohama, 1-1-1, Minato-Mirai, Nishi-ku, Yokohama, 220-0012, Japan
Tel 81-45-223-1110 Fax 81-45-223-1111 Email itto@itto.or.jp Web www.itto.or.jp© ITTO October 2002