ISO Central Secretariat
1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse
Case postale 56
CH - 1211 Genève 20
Switzerland
Telephone
Fax
E-mailWeb+ 41 22 749 01 11+ 41 22 733 34 30
central@iso.org
www.iso.org

TMB / NWIP

TO THE ISO MEMBER BODIES

2013-05-28

New work item proposal – Chain of Custody of Forest Based Products –Requirements.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please find attached a new work item proposal submitted by ABNT (Brazil) and DIN(Germany) on Chain of Custody of Forest Based Products – Requirements. It should be
noted that, if the NWIP is approved, the work is proposed to be carried out in a Project
Committee.
You are kindly invited to complete the ballot form (Form 05) which could be downloaded atwww.iso.org/forms and send it, preferably in Word format, to the Secretariat of the ISO
Technical Management Board at tmb@iso.org before 28 August 2013.

Yours faithfully,

Sophie Clivio
Secretary to the Technical Management Board

Encl: NWIP (Form 04)
Justification Study (approved by MSS TF)

BCL/TMB_NWIP_CL

NEW WORK ITEM PROPOSAL
Closing date for voting

Reference number(to be given by the Secretariat)

Date of circulation

ISO/TC
Secretariat

ABNT/DIN/ SC

N

Proposal for new PC

A proposal for a new work item within the scope of an existing committee shall be submitted to the secretariat of that committee with a copy to
the Central Secretariat and, in the case of a subcommittee, a copy to the secretariat of the parent technical committee. Proposals not within thescope of an existing committee shall be submitted to the secretariat of the ISO Technical Management Board.
The proposer of a new work item may be a member body of ISO, the secretariat itself, another technical committee or subcommittee, ororganization in liaison, the Technical Management Board or one of the advisory groups, or the Secretary-General.
The proposal will be circulated to the P-members of the technical committee or subcommittee for voting, and to the O-members for information.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Proposals without adequate justification risk rejection or referral to originator.
Guidelines for proposing and justifying a new work item are contained in Annex C of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1.

The proposer has considered the guidance given in the Annex C during the preparation of the NWIP.
Proposal (to be completed by the proposer)
Title of the proposed deliverable.
(in the case of an amendment, revision or a new part of an existing document, show the reference number and current title)

English title

Chain of Custody of Forest Based Products – Requirements.

French title(if available)

Scope of the proposed deliverable.

Standardization in the field of forest management requirements for a chain-of-custody control system for forest products.

Purpose and justification of the proposal.

The forest products industry in the world has grown significantly in recent years, accounting for much of the countries
exports and generating many direct and indirect jobs. This growth should occur in a sustainable base and enable an effective
social and economic development. Hence, it is necessary to create International management standards, particularly thosethat promote the traceability of the production chain for legally and sustainable produced goods, so that all stages of
production are verified.
Forest management – Chain of custody is based on orientation and coordination of goals for improved handling andmultiple uses of forests. In that ambit, the appropriate forest handling leans on in the idea of sustainability of thesocioeconomic and sustainable development. Sustainable forest management is based on environmentally appropriate,socially beneficial and economically viable management of forests for present and future generations.
The purpose of this new committee would be to create standards in the field of management of forest in a sustainable way,providing an assurance mechanism for both enterprises and woodland owners to be able to demonstrate to consumers thatwood used in their products comes from sustainable managed forests.
The objective of the chain of custody is to create an information-link between the raw material included in a forest-based
product and the origin of that raw material ensuring the traceability.
If a draft is attached to this proposal,:Please select from one of the following options (note that if no option is selected, the default will be the first

option):Draft document will be registered as new project in the committee's work programme (stage 20.00)
Draft document can be registered as a Working Draft (WD – stage 20.20)
Draft document can be registered as a Committee Draft (CD – stage 30.00)
Draft document can be registered as a Draft International Standard (DIS – stage 40.00)
Is this a Management Systems Standard (MSS)?
Yes
No
Note from ISO/CS: The attached Justification Study has been reviewed and approved by the ISO/TMB MSS Task Force

FORM 4 (ISO) v. 2012

Page 1 of 3

New work item proposal

Indication(s) of the preferred type or types of deliverable(s) to be produced under the proposal.
International Standard

Technical Specification

Proposed development track 1 (24 months)

Publicly Available Specification
2 (36 months - default)

Technical Report3 (48 months)

Known patented items (see ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1 for important guidance)
Yes

No

If "Yes", provide full information as annex

A statement from the proposer as to how the proposed work may relate to or impact on existing work, especiallyexisting ISO and IEC deliverables. The proposer should explain how the work differs from apparently similar work,
or explain how duplication and conflict will be minimized.

There are no similar works being developed in ISO, since the Committees that deal with forest are focused on the products(like ISO/TC 89 – Wood based panels, ISO/TC 165 – Timber Structures or ISO/TC 207 – Environmental management).
In the case of TC 207, its scope covers environmental issues only , meanwhile the proposal intends to also address economic
and social aspects.
A listing of relevant existing documents at the international, regional and national levels.
• ITTO - Guidelines for the sustainable management of natural tropical forests• Pan-European Operational Level Guidelines for Sustainable Forest Management• Brazil
ABNT NBR 14789:2007 – Forest Management – Principles, criteria and indicators for forest plantations;
ABNT NBR 14790:2007 – Forest management – Chain of custody;
ABNT NBR 15753:2009 – Forest management – Guidelines for implementation of ABNT NBR 15789;
ABNT NBR 15789:2004 – Forest Management – Principles, criteria and indicators for native forests;
ABNT NBR 16789:2010 – Forest management – Guidelines for implementation of ABNT NBR 14789;
ABNT NBR 14793:2001 Revised Version: 2008 – Guidelines for forest auditing – Audit procedures – Qualification criteria
for auditors forest.
• Australia
AS 4708 Supp 1:2007 – Guidance for medium and large native forest ownerships (Supplement 1 to AS 4708 - 2007).
• SpainUNE 162001:2007 – Sustainable forest management – Vocabulary, terminology and definitions;
UNE 162002-1:2007 – Sustainable forest management – Criteria and indicators – Part 1: Generics for the management unit;
UNE 162002-2:2007 – Sustainable forest management – Criteria and indicators – Part 2: Complementary for the assessment
at regional level.
UNE 162003:2001 – Sustainable forest management – Qualification criteria for forestry auditors;
UNE 162004:2001 – Sustainable forest management – Qualification criteria for certification bodies.
• United States
ASTM D7480-08 – Standard guide for evaluating the attributes of a forest management plan;
ASTM D7480-08 – Standard guide for evaluating the attributes of a Forest Management plan.
A simple and concise statement identifying and describing relevant affected stakeholder categories (including small
and medium sized enterprises) and how they will each benefit from or be impacted by the proposed deliverable(s)The list of affected stakeholders include, but is not limited to, the following:Consumers;
Society;
Government;
Industry;
NGOs;
Forest owners;
Research institutes.

FORM 4 (ISO) v. 2012

Page 2 of 3

New work item proposal

Liaisons:

Joint/parallel work:

A listing of relevant external international organizations
or internal parties (other ISO and/or IEC committees) to
be engaged as liaisons in the development of thedeliverable(s).

Possible joint/parallel work with:ISO TC 207 Environmental Management;
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC);
Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification(PEFC);
Food and Agriculture Organization of ther United Nations(FAO).

IEC(please specify committee ID)

CEN(please specify committee ID)

Other(please specify)

A listing of relevant countries which are not already P-members of the committee.

Preparatory work (at a minimum an outline should be included with the proposal)
A draft is attachedAn outline is attachedAn existing document to serve as initial basis

Brazilian standard will be translated into English and could be used as one of the draft texts.
The proposer or the proposer's organization is prepared to undertake the preparatory work required
Proposed Project Leader (name and e-mail address)

Yes

No

Name of the Proposer(include contact information)

Eugenio De Simone
Standardization Director - ABNT
eugenio@abnt.org.br
55 21 3974 2300
Supplementary information relating to the proposal
This proposal relates to a new ISO document;This proposal relates to the amendment of existing ISO document
This proposal is for the revision of an existing ISO document;This proposal relates to the adoption as an active project of an item currently registered as a Preliminary Work Item;
This proposal relates to the re-establishment of a cancelled project as an active project.
Other:
Annex(es) are included with this proposal (give details)

FORM 4 (ISO) v. 2012

Page 3 of 3

ISO/TMB/TF 2 N 215

ISO/TMB/TF 2
ISO/TMB/TF 2 - Task force on management system standards
Email of secretary:
Secretariat: ISOCS

JS MSS proposal Forest management CoC may 13 rev 1
Document type:

Other committee document

Date of document:

2013-05-24

Expected action:

INFO

Background:

Dear members of the TMB MSS TF,
This is revised JS for Forest Management taking into account the comments that were made by the
TMB MSS TF on the initial submission (N202).
The changes made are indicated in red in this version of the JS. The additions/clarification havebeen found to answer satisfactorily to the comments raised in N202 and the work can progress as a
NWIP.
The JS will be part of the NWIP voting documents so that the voters have additional information.
Best regards,
StefanCommittee URL:

http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/open/tmbtf2

Basic information on the MSS proposal

1

What is the proposed purpose and scope of the MSS? Is the document supposed to be a guidance document or a document with requirements?
The proposed scope of the MSS is to provide requirements for a management system
related to the chain of custody of forests, in order to enable woodland owners and enterprises to manage their activities in a sustainable way. The purpose of the document
is also to allow businesses to demonstrate to consumers that the wood used in theirproducts comes from sustainable managed forests and it will be essential for companies to implement and demonstrate ethical business behaviour, and consumers to makeresponsible purchasing decisions.
The scope of the project covers all the elements of sustainable development – social,economic and environmental – with the goal to enable the creation of an informationlink between the raw material included in a forest, based product and the origin of the
raw material ensuring the traceability.
We want to underline that we expect a standard dealing with sustainable forest management taking in account the existing FM standards or systems that the COC ISO canbe applied to. Note that not the development of a FM standard or systems are proposed,
the COC ISO shall be a bridge between the existing FM standards and the consumers
tracking certified material from the forest to the final product.

2

Would the proposed MSS work item result in an International Standard (IS), an ISO(/IEC)
Guide, a Technical Specification (TS), a Technical Report (TR), a Publicly Available Specification (PAS), or an International Workshop Agreement (IWA)?
The result is intended to be an International Standard.

3

Does the proposed purpose or scope include product (including service) specifications, producttest methods, product performance levels, or other forms of guidance or requirements directly
related to products produced or provided by the implementing organization?
No. The main goal of the proposal is to provide requirements that the sustainability
principles are applied to the chain of custody of forests and wood production.

4

Is there one or more existing ISO committee or non-ISO organization that could logically have
responsibility for the proposed MSS? If so, identify.
No.

5

Have relevant reference materials been identified, such as existing guidelines or establishedpractices?
Yes. The proposal brings a list containing relevant work developed on the field of Forest
Management around the world, which indicates the necessity for such initiative.

6

Are there technical experts available to support the standardization work? Are the technicalexperts direct representatives of the affected parties from the different geographical regions?
Yes. That can be checked in the list of similar initiatives. We have been able to identify alist of countries that develop such work and that could provide support to the development of this project.
Lists of senior experts in Forest COC are fully available in the major existing schemes
web page as:
https://ic.fsc.org/experts-staff.15.htm
http://www.pefc.org/about-pefc/governance/board-of-directors

7

What efforts are anticipated as being necessary to develop the document in terms of experts
needed and number/duration of meetings?
Expected number the experts bearing in mind the multistakeholder approach varies
from 100-200 per meeting. Meetings will take 5 working days following the traditional
ISO approach opening plenary – sub groups breakdown – closing plenary. Expected
meeting year basis as plenary and twice year for sub groups.
Under traditional ISO arrangements, representatives and experts engaged in standards
development fund their own participation. While this is not normally an issue for ex-perts from government, industry and national standards bodies, it can be a particular
problem for other categories of expert like consumers and NGOs. For these reasons weshall established a special Trust Fund, whose purpose is to provide a financial mechanism for funding the participation of stakeholders with limited resources including necessity of support for the participation of developing countries, so that we can have its
contribution and assurance of the global relevance of the document proposed.

8What is the anticipated completion date?
The intended timeframe is the standard one in ISO: 36 months. If necessary, due to thechallenging topic, an extension of the completion date will be requested.

9

Is the MSS intended to be a guidance document, contractual specification or regulatory specification for an organization?
No. The proposal is not intended to be any of the above.

Principle 1: Market relevance
Have all the affected parties been identified? For example:

10

11

Traditionally Forest standards developments include three clusters – environmental,social and economic (industry) – which are further, sub-divided into stakeholders categories:Consumers organizations

GovernmentNGOs
Forest owners

Academia
Correspondent members of ISO (NSBs) are allowed to nominate up to 6 experts considering 2 per cluster.
What is the need for this MSS? Does the need exist at a local, national, regional or global level? Does the need apply to developing countries? Does it apply to developed countries? Whatis the added value of having an ISO document (e.g. facilitating communication between organizations in different countries)?
The issue exists in the global level, since the protection of the environment concerns allparts of the globe. The intended document would be applicable to any country or region
that has economic activities being developed in forests. The proposal aims to deal withthe entire forest supply chain to provide good practices in the forest and to ensure thattimber and non-timber forest products are produced with respect for the highest ecological, social and ethical standards, but has no intention of conflicting with existentnational regulation, which outside the mandate ISO Committee's.
The forest products industry in the world has grown significantly in recent years, representing a big chunk of many countries’ economies due to exports and generation ofmany direct and indirect jobs. So this growth should occur in a sustainable base, enabling an effective social and economic development in the long term, international
standards on management, particularly those that promote the traceability of the production chain, are necessary.
The establishment of a new field of activity, and the development of this International
Standard, would help to harmonize the current variety of national and private standards,
which increases the organizations expenses, mainly the ones that have to demonstrate
their conformity with requirements from different stakeholders, and consequently bilateral, or multiple, recognition for their maintenance in the market.
Among the potential benefits of the document we list:Improved corporate image;Promotion of the sustainability culture;Open new markets;








Enhance the brand and gain a reputation as a sustainable business;
Find new business partnerships;
Develop reliable verification systems to traceability of timber products;
Encourage transparency through the provision of accurate data;
Build the capacity of government agencies and other institution to enforce existinglegislation, with support from standardization;
Strengthen enforcement by improving co-ordination between regulators andstandardization bodies.

12

Does the need exist for a number of sectors and is thus generic? If so, which ones? Does theneed exist for small, medium or large organizations?
The need exists for a specific sector, which comprises businesses acting within theforest supply chain. Taking a step away from the forest industry, it is important to notethat in the bottom line of the issue itself, the biggest beneficiary from the outcome of
the implementation of sustainable practices within the forest management would besociety in general, due to the well-known fact that natural resources tend to get scarcer
and scarcer due to unsustainable exploitation.

13

Is the need important? Will the need continue? If yes, will the target date of completion for the
proposed MSS satisfy this need? Are viable alternatives identified?
Yes the need is relevant and will continue. The targeted date of completion will satisfy
the need and the enforced systematic review period will allow the document to be updated according to the latest practices.

14

Describe how the need and importance were determined. List the affected parties consulted
and the major geographical or economical regions in which they are located.
The need for that document has been determined by the observation of the proliferationof lots of similar initiatives in the forest field. Based on that, having an international
document that could allow the communication between these initiatives, and foster theuse from those who do not yet follow those practices.
There are major countries that we can indicate in the list of affected parties, like Germany, Canada, USA and Brazil, amongst others.

15

16

Is there known or expected support for the proposed MSS? List those bodies that have indicated support. Is there known or expected opposition to the proposed MSS? List those bodies
that have indicated opposition.
So far we have not received any indication of opposition to this proposal. From the expected support (and possible liaison) we indicate Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and
Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), which develop approaches which are similar to the ones expected. Previous consultation contacts with
PEFC and FSC has been carried out by ISO officers and no sustain opposition was noted.
What are the expected benefits and costs to organizations, differentiated for small, medium
and large organizations if applicable?
The differentiation of costs between organizations’ sizes does not apply, due to the fact
that, within the sustainability principles – economic, environmental and social – one
item does not surpass the other. Meaning that the environmental and social initiatives
cannot be represent an economic prejudice.
Standards in the field of forest management would contribute as an alternative to themarket in terms of economic feasibility and more profitable results. Through the sustainable management of forests the optimization of the use of natural resources andwaste minimization, reduction of environmental impact, conservation of forest productivity and reduce production costs can be achieved.
The Forest resources contribute to the overall economy in many ways such as throughemployment, values generated through processing and marketing of forest products,
and energy, trade and investment in the forest sector.
This International Standard will help to deal with a wide variety of aspects, from native
people rights to health and safety issues to contributions to local employment.
Also, the proposal intends to host and protect sites and landscapes of high cultural,spiritual or recreational value. This theme thus includes aspects of land tenure, indigenous and community management systems, and traditional knowledge.

17

What are the expected benefits and costs to other affected parties (including developing countries)?
The proposal intends to host and protect sites and landscapes of high cultural, spiritualor recreational value. This theme thus includes aspects of land tenure, indigenous andcommunity management systems, and traditional knowledge.
From the social aspect, for example, we can list:Conservation of biological diversity;
Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems;
Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality;Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources;
Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles;
Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socio-economic benefits tomeet the needs of societies;
Legal, institutional and economic framework for forest conservation and sustainable management;

Forest ecosystems can act as a tool for mitigation and adaptation to climatechange;Forests make their most significant contribution to the supply of water;
In relation to the soil, forests minimize erosion and hence reduce the impairment;
Indicators and regulations on land use change;
Reduced emissions due to avoided deforestation and degradation;
Reduction of global deforestation rates and illegal logging.







18

What will be the expected value to society?
As mentioned previously, the expected value to society is the establishment of newjobs, respect to the regional culture, and, most importantly, the preservation of the environment and natural resources, with aim to the sustainability of the forest resources.
It is also important to highlight the fact that reduced deforestation and degradation isclimate positive, can reduce CO2-emissions and biodiversity can be sustained with thehelp of this work.

19

Have any other risks been identified (e.g. timeliness or unintended consequences to a specificbusiness)?
No major risk has been perceived considering that the idea is to have two or more COC
systems adopting the same rules. (see question 20)

Principle 2: compatibility

20

Is there potential overlap or conflict with other existing or planned ISO or non-ISO international
standards, or those at the national or regional level? Are there other public or private actions,guidance, requirements and regulations that seek to address the identified need, such as technical papers, proven practices, academic or professional studies, or any other body ofknowledge?
The proposal is not to reinvent the wheel but to considering existing standards in thedevelopment of a global COC standard. The main challenge is to have the systems
agreeing into one standard, but the challenges of COC systems are already being addressed by the systems directly. The idea here is to improve those standards and to
reduce the amount of $$ spent annually on similar COC audits and fees.
We were able to identify the following documents or organizations that develop work in
the field:


PEFC



FSC



FAO



ITTO - Guidelines for the sustainable management of natural tropical forests

Pan-European Operational Level Guidelines for Sustainable Forest Management

21

Is the MSS or the related conformity assessment activities (e.g. audits, certifications) likely to
add to, replace all or parts of, harmonize and simplify, duplicate or repeat, conflict with, or detract from the existing activities identified above? What steps are being considered to ensurecompatibility, resolve conflict or avoid duplication?
This proposal will not conflict with previous existing conformity assessment initiatives.

22

Is the proposed MSS likely to promote or stem proliferation of MSS at the national or regional
level, or by industry sectors?
No. The intent is to congregate the existing knowledge and best practices into one document, so the standard, when published, can be used worldwide as a reference when it
comes to Forest Management.

Principle 3: Topic coverage

23

Is the MSS for a single specific sector?
Initially this MSS is intended for the main use of the forest industry, but its application,and benefits, can be shared by a great number of stakeholders (consumers, Government etc.).

24

Will the MSS reference or incorporate an existing, non-industry-specific ISO MSS (e.g. from theISO 9000 series of quality management standards)? If yes, will the development of the MSS
conform to the ISO/IEC Sector Policy (see 6.8.2 of ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2), and any otherrelevant policy and guidance procedures (e.g. those that may be made available by a relevant
ISO committee)?
Yes. The ISO FM shall be integrated into existing systems that organizations may
have already implemented, such as ISO 9001 or ISO 14001 procedures. Note that
other ISO initiatives (MSS or not) will be take in account like TMB WGSR/ISO
26000 and ISO/TC 34/ISO 22005.
The intention of the proposal is to incorporate and use as guidance the best practices
on MSS, such as ISO 9000 and ISO 14000, as well as the appendix SL.

25

What steps have been taken to remove or minimize the need for particular sector-specific deviations from a generic MSS?
The exclusivity of this theme itself does require particular sector-specific deviations thata generic MS Standard could not handle.

Principle 4: Flexibility

26

Will the MSS allow an organization competitively to add to, differentiate or encourage innovation of its management system beyond the standard?
This aspect is not an intention of this document, and due to that no evaluation has been
made on that. Regarding the flexibility aspects we are kind do accept suggestions andcomplementary language for liaison organizations to indicate their full and formal backing for the process.

Principle 5: free trade27

How would the MSS facilitate or impact global trade? Could the MSS create or prevent a technical barrier to trade?
The MSS would facilitate the global trade of forest products by enabling the traceabilityof sustainable companies.

28

Could the MSS create or prevent a technical barrier to trade for small, medium or large organizations?
No. The intention of this proposal is to allow the traceability of its product and ensurethat it comes from a specific qualified (forest managed) source. As co-effect the en-hancement of the use of sustainable practices to the forest will be fostered around theworld.
29

Could the MSS create or prevent a technical barrier to trade for developing or developed countries?
As presented in the above-mentioned, no.

30

If the proposed MSS is intended to be used in government regulations, is it likely to add to,
duplicate, replace, enhance or support existing governmental regulations?
The MSS is not intended to be used in government regulations, and its development
may even support, but not duplicate, replace or even conflict with Governmental regulation.

Principle 6: applicability of conformity

31

32

If the intended use is for contractual or regulatory purposes, what are the potential methods todemonstrate conformance (e.g. first party, second party or third party)? Does the MSS enableorganizations to be flexible in choosing the method of demonstrating conformance, and to accommodate for changes in its operations, management, physical locations and equipment?
The MSS is not intended to be used for contractual or regulatory purposes, but as far as
it is a MSS, and allows conformity assessment, it is flexible enough to allow organizations on choosing its method of demonstration, as well as accommodate any necessary changes.

If third-party registration/certification is a potential option, what are the anticipated benefits andcosts to the organization? Will the MSS facilitate joint audits with other management systemstandards or promote parallel assessments?
Certification is one of the potential options of this proposal.
As benefits we can one more time mention the ones previously presented in this justification study.
Regarding joint audits or other parallel assessments, as previously mentioned, the intention of the proposal is to base in wide-spread used MS documents, which will surely
facilitate this approach.

Principle 7: Exclusions

33

Does the proposed purpose or scope include product (including service) specifications, producttest methods, product performance levels, or other forms of guidance or requirements directly
related to products produced or provided by the implementing organization?
No. The sole intention of the proposal is to develop a document to support the Chain ofcustody for forest management.
_________________________