FOREST CERTIFICATION

Why Mutual Recognition?

A perspective from the International Forest Industry Roundtable

Retailers and consumers want to give preference to wood and wood products from forests that are under sustainable forest management. A program of forest certification independently verifying that wood products come from sustainably managed sources can provide this assurance.

For a variety of technical, political and legal reasons, a number of alternative forest certification systems have emerged - and it is now unlikely that any single system will establish a monopoly in forest certification. These certification systems, in combination, have the potential to supply large quantities of certified wood products from sustainably managed forests. By working together, through a Mutual Recognition Framework, they could meet expanding market demand for certified wood products. This presents an important opportunity to the forest products industry to continuously improve forest management and guarantee customers that this is being done.

The intent of Mutual Recognition is to provide a critical mass of credibly certified wood products by recognising that different certification systems can provide substantially equivalent standards of sustainable forest management. The Mutual Recognition Framework would set a high threshold for entry for participating systems, while enabling the use of standards that accommodate local and regional circumstances. By providing a rigorous process to differentiate credible from non-credible certification systems, Mutual Recognition would use market forces to provide a range of certification systems that will assure customers that their wood products purchases contribute to sustainable forest management.

Mutual Recognition is supported by a large cross section of forestland owners, forest products companies, environmental organizations, labour and other stakeholders. Many governments and intergovernmental agencies also support Mutual Recognition.

The International Forest Industry Roundtable - acting in a catalytic role - is proposing establishment of an International Mutual Recognition Framework of Forest Certification that is open to all systems that can meet its high standards.

Mutual Recognition can:

– Provide a mechanism that assures all retailers and their customers that forest certification standards participating within the Framework produce substantially equivalent forest benefits on the ground

– Significantly expand the availability of certified forest products in response to growing market demand

– Allow and encourage customers to adopt inclusive purchasing policies that recognise that difference systems deliver substantially equivalent, credible outcomes

– Prevent unfair discrimination against any region or country, including developing or small countries, by providing an open and free market exists for wood products from sustainably managed sources

An International Mutual Recognition Framework should include:

– A representative management body to administer the Framework on behalf of all stakeholders

– An independent quality assurance group to assess the quality and credibility of participating systems

– Analytical tools to assess the substantive equivalence of different systems, including:

1. An agreed set of Criteria and Indicators defining the core elements of credible standards and certification systems for sustainably managed forests

2. A questionnaire to measure individual system conformance against the Criteria and Indicators

3. A glossary of forest standards and certification terminology

[James Griffiths, Chair IFIR Working Group, February 2001]

APPENDIX FOUR - CRITERIA & INDICATORS OF CREDIBLE SFM CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS AND STANDARDS

Theme

Criteria

Possible Indicators

1. Conformity with SFM standards and legislation

The certification system shall require conformance with a nationally (or regionally/sub nationally) accepted standard for sustainable forest management (SFM) which is consistent with internationally agreed sets of SFM Criteria and Indicators and which complies with applicable legislation, including ratified international agreements (e.g. Convention on Biodiversity).

1. A national (or regional/sub national) standards setting body is/was established.

2. The Standards Setting Body has approved and published a standard for sustainable forest management.

3. The Standards Setting Body is committed to the development of standards in accordance with one or more internationally agreed sets of SFM criteria and indicators (including those identified in Appendix 1.

4. The SFM Standard includes performance guidelines, objectives and/or measures which accord with internationally agreed sets of SFM criteria and indicators (see Appendix 1).

5. Government officials, as regulators, participate or are consulted, during the development of the SFM standard.

6. The SFM standard includes a requirement that forestry operations comply with all relevant forestry legislation.

7. For large industrial operations: The SFM standard includes a recommendation for certification applicants to comply with an EMS that is consistent with internationally recognised Environmental Management System standards such as ISO 14001 and EMAS (Eco-Management Audit Scheme). This recommendation is to be considered in the context of the management / infrastructural capacity of the country and the management abilities of the forest products company.

8. The SFM standard includes requirements for certification applicants to establish management plans consistent with the scale of the forestry enterprise.

9. Quantitative / descriptive indicators have been established to monitor performance towards SFM objectives at the level the standard is applied.

2. Participation

The certification system shall be open and accessible to all interested stakeholders. The influence of all stakeholders shall be balanced and consensus outcomes shall be sought.

1. There are clear procedures to ensure all interested stakeholders are invited to participate in developing and reviewing SFM standards.

2. There are clear rules and procedures to ensure all interested stakeholders are able to influence decisions during the development and review of SFM standards, and to ensure that no single interest dominates the decision making process.

3. Representatives of relevant forest owner sectors (private industrial, private non-industrial, community/indigenous people, and state) have been actively involved in the standard setting process.

4. Accreditation bodies can demonstrate they have a documented structure designed to enable the participation of all parties significantly concerned in the development of the accreditation system.

5. Standards development bodies can demonstrate a documented system designed to ensure balanced participation of stakeholders in standards setting.

6. A diverse group of stakeholders, such as representatives of forest owners, industry, regulators and social and environmental interests, support the SFM standard and certification process.

7. Consensus is the objective (but not a requirement) during the development and review of the SFM standard and certification procedures,

3. Scientifically supported

The SFM standard shall be scientifically supported.

1. The scientific community participates in the development of the SFM standard.

2. All views shall be supported by knowledge or the weight of current scientific opinion.

4. Continual improvement

The certification system shall be responsive to new knowledge, amenable to changed public values, and shall contribute to continual improvement in sustainable forest management.

1. The SFM standard is regularly assessed and revised to incorporate new knowledge and changed public values and provisions to improve attainment of SFM objectives.

2. The certification system includes procedures for the periodic reassessment of certification bodies.

3. The certification system includes a database of certification operations and certificates, so that trends may be assessed.

4. The SFM Standard includes a philosophy of continual improvement.

5. Non discriminatory

The certification system shall be non-discriminatory, among all forest types, sizes and ownership structures.

1. Promote cost-effective delivery of certification of different forest types, sizes and ownerships, forest owners have an option for group / regional certification.

2. Representatives of relevant forest owner sectors (private industrial, private non-industrial, community/indigenous people, and state) have been actively involved in the standard setting process.

3. SFM standards are designed to be applied to each forest type and all ownership and management structures.

4. The certification body must have competence in forest management to enable assessment of different forest types and ownership structures.

5. Auditors have competence in forest management and the standard to enable competent audits of different forest types and ownership structures.

6. Repeatability, reliability and consistency

The certification system shall ensure the results of independent audits are repeatable and consistent.

1. The SFM standard and certification procedures are clearly and concisely described and based on objective definitions.

2. Accreditation bodies operate according to recognised quality management systems (for example as described in ISO 9001 or ISO Guide 61).

3. Certification bodies operate according to recognised quality management systems (for example as described in ISO 9001 or ISO Guide 62).

4. Auditors comply with internationally accepted auditing standards and qualification criteria.

5. The SFM standard includes a requirement for audits of the management system and on-the-ground performance.

7.Independence and competence

Audits and certifications shall be carried out by competent, independent third party certification bodies and auditors, who are accredited through internationally accepted procedures.

All certification institutions (including those involved in forest assessment, accreditation, standards setting, and dispute resolution) shall be free from conflicts of interest.

1. Accreditation bodies are affiliated with, or conform with, all requirements of the International Accreditation Forum or European Co-operation on Accreditation (EA) and operate according to ISO Guide 61 (or equivalent) procedures.

2. Certification bodies operate according to ISO Guide 62 (or equivalent) procedures.

3. Third party auditors comply with internationally accepted auditing standards and qualification criteria [references required].

4. Third party auditing teams have a full understanding of the SFM standard and forestry practices and shall include members with experience in the country and forest types where auditing services are performed.

5. A clear separation of process exists between:

o Setting of standards

o Accreditation of certification bodies and auditors

o Auditing and certification

o Settlement of disputes.

6. Accreditation and certification bodies have a documented structure designed to safeguard impartiality.

7. Accreditation and certification bodies can demonstrate that they have formal rules and procedures for operation of relevant committees to ensure these are free from any commercial or financial pressures that might influence decisions.

8. There are open procedures for dispute resolution.

9. Accreditation bodies can demonstrate that their employees and directors are prohibited from carrying out any forest certification activities or from providing consulting services to obtain or maintain accreditation.

10. Certification bodies can demonstrate that they do not offer or provide consulting services to obtain or maintain certification.

11. Certification bodies are accredited and can demonstrate a documented structure designed to avoid conflict of interest and ensure competency in their fields of activity.

8.Transparency

The certification system shall be transparent. All interests can identify and comprehend standards and institutional frameworks. Procedures and documentation shall be clear, concise and readily available.

1. The SFM Standard is clear, concise and readily available to all interested parties at a reasonable cost.

2. A full list of certification bodies is readily available to the public.

3. A full list of certifications clearly identifying name, location, the date of certification and responsible certification body, is readily available to the public.

4. Accreditation bodies are required and able to:

o Prepare a full report following assessment which is available to the certification body

o Make available to the public on request information about the accreditation process and procedures; their sources of financial support; and information on procedures for handling complaints.

5. Certification bodies are required to and able to:

o Prepare a full certification report following the audit, which is available to the applicant

o make available to the public on request information about the certification process and procedures; the fees charged to certification applicants; their sources of financial support; and information on procedures for handling complaints

o Make available to the public information pertaining to their accreditation as certifiers.

6. Participants who set standards and develop accreditation and certification procedures are recorded.

7. The membership, financial support, organisation and governance of all organisations participating in the standards setting process shall be transparent and available to the public.

9. SFM Claims

Certification procedures shall include guidelines designed to ensure all SFM claims are clear, unambiguous, substantiated, and consistent with relevant national and international laws, standards and guidelines.

1. A clear set of guidelines governing SFM claims has been agreed and is readily available

2. The guidelines accord with relevant national and international laws, standards and guidelines regard claims and labels.

3. Procedures have been developed to monitor and handle complaints concerning SFM claims.

Wood Flow Accounting System (or Chain of Custody)

Where used a woodflow accounting system shall reliably record and report materials flow by:

– Wood source

– Delivery

– Processing and distribution along the value chain
This information may be used to support the claims and the requirements of many labelling systems.

1. A rigorous, auditable and certifiable wood flow accounting systems is available to companies that wish to implement one

2. A certified wood flow accounting systems is required if a company is using product labelling that asserts the wood originates from s sustainable managed forest


APPENDIX FOUR - CRITERIA & INDICATORS OF CREDIBLE SFM CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS AND STANDARDS
Theme	Criteria	Possible Indicators
1. Conformity with SFM standards and legislation	The certification system shall require conformance with a nationally (or regionally/sub nationally) accepted standard for sustainable forest management (SFM) which is consistent with internationally agreed sets of SFM Criteria and Indicators and which complies with applicable legislation, including ratified international agreements (e.g. Convention on Biodiversity).	1. A national (or regional/sub national) standards setting body is/was established. 2. The Standards Setting Body has approved and published a standard for sustainable forest management. 3. The Standards Setting Body is committed to the development of standards in accordance with one or more internationally agreed sets of SFM criteria and indicators (including those identified in Appendix 1. 4. The SFM Standard includes performance guidelines, objectives and/or measures which accord with internationally agreed sets of SFM criteria and indicators (see Appendix 1). 5. Government officials, as regulators, participate or are consulted, during the development of the SFM standard. 6. The SFM standard includes a requirement that forestry operations comply with all relevant forestry legislation. 7. For large industrial operations: The SFM standard includes a recommendation for certification applicants to comply with an EMS that is consistent with internationally recognised Environmental Management System standards such as ISO 14001 and EMAS (Eco-Management Audit Scheme). This recommendation is to be considered in the context of the management / infrastructural capacity of the country and the management abilities of the forest products company. 8. The SFM standard includes requirements for certification applicants to establish management plans consistent with the scale of the forestry enterprise. 9. Quantitative / descriptive indicators have been established to monitor performance towards SFM objectives at the level the standard is applied.
2. Participation	The certification system shall be open and accessible to all interested stakeholders. The influence of all stakeholders shall be balanced and consensus outcomes shall be sought.	1. There are clear procedures to ensure all interested stakeholders are invited to participate in developing and reviewing SFM standards. 2. There are clear rules and procedures to ensure all interested stakeholders are able to influence decisions during the development and review of SFM standards, and to ensure that no single interest dominates the decision making process. 3. Representatives of relevant forest owner sectors (private industrial, private non-industrial, community/indigenous people, and state) have been actively involved in the standard setting process. 4. Accreditation bodies can demonstrate they have a documented structure designed to enable the participation of all parties significantly concerned in the development of the accreditation system. 5. Standards development bodies can demonstrate a documented system designed to ensure balanced participation of stakeholders in standards setting. 6. A diverse group of stakeholders, such as representatives of forest owners, industry, regulators and social and environmental interests, support the SFM standard and certification process. 7. Consensus is the objective (but not a requirement) during the development and review of the SFM standard and certification procedures,
3. Scientifically supported	The SFM standard shall be scientifically supported.	1. The scientific community participates in the development of the SFM standard. 2. All views shall be supported by knowledge or the weight of current scientific opinion.
4. Continual improvement	The certification system shall be responsive to new knowledge, amenable to changed public values, and shall contribute to continual improvement in sustainable forest management.	1. The SFM standard is regularly assessed and revised to incorporate new knowledge and changed public values and provisions to improve attainment of SFM objectives. 2. The certification system includes procedures for the periodic reassessment of certification bodies. 3. The certification system includes a database of certification operations and certificates, so that trends may be assessed. 4. The SFM Standard includes a philosophy of continual improvement.
5. Non discriminatory	The certification system shall be non-discriminatory, among all forest types, sizes and ownership structures.	1. Promote cost-effective delivery of certification of different forest types, sizes and ownerships, forest owners have an option for group / regional certification. 2. Representatives of relevant forest owner sectors (private industrial, private non-industrial, community/indigenous people, and state) have been actively involved in the standard setting process. 3. SFM standards are designed to be applied to each forest type and all ownership and management structures. 4. The certification body must have competence in forest management to enable assessment of different forest types and ownership structures. 5. Auditors have competence in forest management and the standard to enable competent audits of different forest types and ownership structures.
6. Repeatability, reliability and consistency	The certification system shall ensure the results of independent audits are repeatable and consistent.	1. The SFM standard and certification procedures are clearly and concisely described and based on objective definitions. 2. Accreditation bodies operate according to recognised quality management systems (for example as described in ISO 9001 or ISO Guide 61). 3. Certification bodies operate according to recognised quality management systems (for example as described in ISO 9001 or ISO Guide 62). 4. Auditors comply with internationally accepted auditing standards and qualification criteria. 5. The SFM standard includes a requirement for audits of the management system and on-the-ground performance.
7.Independence and competence	Audits and certifications shall be carried out by competent, independent third party certification bodies and auditors, who are accredited through internationally accepted procedures. All certification institutions (including those involved in forest assessment, accreditation, standards setting, and dispute resolution) shall be free from conflicts of interest.	1. Accreditation bodies are affiliated with, or conform with, all requirements of the International Accreditation Forum or European Co-operation on Accreditation (EA) and operate according to ISO Guide 61 (or equivalent) procedures. 2. Certification bodies operate according to ISO Guide 62 (or equivalent) procedures. 3. Third party auditors comply with internationally accepted auditing standards and qualification criteria [references required]. 4. Third party auditing teams have a full understanding of the SFM standard and forestry practices and shall include members with experience in the country and forest types where auditing services are performed. 5. A clear separation of process exists between: o Setting of standards o Accreditation of certification bodies and auditors o Auditing and certification o Settlement of disputes. 6. Accreditation and certification bodies have a documented structure designed to safeguard impartiality. 7. Accreditation and certification bodies can demonstrate that they have formal rules and procedures for operation of relevant committees to ensure these are free from any commercial or financial pressures that might influence decisions. 8. There are open procedures for dispute resolution. 9. Accreditation bodies can demonstrate that their employees and directors are prohibited from carrying out any forest certification activities or from providing consulting services to obtain or maintain accreditation. 10. Certification bodies can demonstrate that they do not offer or provide consulting services to obtain or maintain certification. 11. Certification bodies are accredited and can demonstrate a documented structure designed to avoid conflict of interest and ensure competency in their fields of activity.
8.Transparency	The certification system shall be transparent. All interests can identify and comprehend standards and institutional frameworks. Procedures and documentation shall be clear, concise and readily available.	1. The SFM Standard is clear, concise and readily available to all interested parties at a reasonable cost. 2. A full list of certification bodies is readily available to the public. 3. A full list of certifications clearly identifying name, location, the date of certification and responsible certification body, is readily available to the public. 4. Accreditation bodies are required and able to: o Prepare a full report following assessment which is available to the certification body o Make available to the public on request information about the accreditation process and procedures; their sources of financial support; and information on procedures for handling complaints. 5. Certification bodies are required to and able to: o Prepare a full certification report following the audit, which is available to the applicant o make available to the public on request information about the certification process and procedures; the fees charged to certification applicants; their sources of financial support; and information on procedures for handling complaints o Make available to the public information pertaining to their accreditation as certifiers. 6. Participants who set standards and develop accreditation and certification procedures are recorded. 7. The membership, financial support, organisation and governance of all organisations participating in the standards setting process shall be transparent and available to the public.
9. SFM Claims	Certification procedures shall include guidelines designed to ensure all SFM claims are clear, unambiguous, substantiated, and consistent with relevant national and international laws, standards and guidelines.	1. A clear set of guidelines governing SFM claims has been agreed and is readily available 2. The guidelines accord with relevant national and international laws, standards and guidelines regard claims and labels. 3. Procedures have been developed to monitor and handle complaints concerning SFM claims.