Mutual (Multilateral) Recognition of
Credible Forest Certification Schemes

By U Myat Thinn, Chairman
Timber Certification Committee (Myanmar)

Introduction

1 . The progressive deterioration of the world's environment, need no longer be disputed or debated. Global warming and climate change are proven facts. Natural disasters in all forms are increasing in frequency and magnitude. There are infact many factors that are involved in bringing about this alarming outcome. Principally, it was mankind's callous and irresponsible attitude and acts, such as over exploitation of the natural resources and creation of extensive pollution, not only of the soil and water resources, but most importantly, of the atmosphere. Solutions were sought in haste, without a proper understanding of the basic factors that brought about these adverse impacts upon our environment.

2. Deforestation was identified as being one of the major causes behind environmental degradation, and the main focus of the blame was placed upon tropical forests. But the issue of pollution was being down-played and the pressures to bring about its reduction, were either shelved or vetoed. The forestry sector now appears to be the principal player and is having to bear the burden, whether right or wrong.

3. Many initiatives have cropped up since the Rio, Earth Summit; but unfortunately it has mostly been fragmented, and at times conflicting. If we cannot find common ground and reach a consensus, as to how we should go about attaining Sustainable Management of our forests, then we will never be able to gain credibility, or be able reach a viable solution that would save our forests.

Reflections of the past

4. The Forestry Sector in the past had been subjected to an insignificant role in the developmental process, as it had to operate in the shadow of the dominant sectors, such as Agriculture, Industry etc:. Forestry was always the loser in most landuse conflicts, having to give in to the demands of the other sectors and their progressive needs. Foresters likewise were relegated to a secondary role, behind the professionals of other disciplines. There was very little interest in the development of forestry education, research and development. Reinvestment in the management and overall development of the sector was also nominal. As such, when the Forestry Sector was forced to the forefront, after the Rio Earth Summit, it was ill-prepared. In most cases it was under-staffed and insufficiently funded; its professionals were inadequately trained to deal with the broader issues, such as politics, economics, environmental factors and social aspects that were suddenly added on to management parameters, causing a great deal of confusion.

5. Forest Management was thought of as merely concerning trees and forests. Economic viability was the only yard-stick by which the value of forests were measured and forests were appreciated for their economic and utilization values alone; while other benefits accrued from them were more or less taken for granted or overlooked.

6. In many cases extensive forest lands were cleared and converted into more economically viable landuse designs, such as agriculture fields, grazing grounds and multi-crop plantations. As the forest cover dwindled to nominal percentages, economies boomed through the yield of their agriculture, live-stock and industrial sectors. This occurred mostly in Europe, the North American Continent and some countries in South America.

7. The concept that forest resources are easily renewable, probably led to misinterpretations, which combined with the drive to achieve economic viability, led to large expanses of natural forests being cleared and substituted with mono-culture plantations. The trees returned no doubt; but the ecosystems, the biodiversity, the soil and water resources were severely depleted or destroyed.

8. Demographic growth and population movements brought increasing pressures on forests and more land was cleared for agriculture and other basic needs. Where forests were maintained, tensions between the long term horizons of forestry and the needs for short term returns to investments; between the stability of the resource and

the day to day subsistence needs of local populations increased. Pressures on forests were further exacerbated by inequitable developmental patterns, increasing numbers of rural poor and landless who were forced to migrate into less productive and more ecologically fragile areas.

9. Forestry had always been a wide-based, complex and often conflicting science. But it was not comprehended fully and correctly, till the latter part of the twentieth century. There were some very confusing statements in a 1993 publication under the heading of "Forest myths". Quote - There is no doubt about the immense importance of forests and the many benefits they can bring. There is, therefore, no need for untrue or exaggerated claims. Bad arguments can undermine good cases and can make advocates for forests look less credible in the eyes of knowledgeable people. (a) The belief that forests increase local rainfall, for example, is almost invariably false. Denuding an area of trees will have little or no effect on whether rain-bearing winds blow across it or rain fails upon it. (b) The belief that forests provide additional oxygen supplies to the areas where they are growing - sometimes suggested as one of the advantages of peri-urban plantations is totally false. (c) The notion that forests regulate the flow of streams and rivers by acting as sponges, absorbing rainwater and releasing it gradually is also false. (d) The belief that trees are always benign elements in the farming landscape is also a myth. Unquote.This negates all the claims of forests being guardians of agriculture, the soil and water resources etc:.

10. The FAO's hydrological cycle chart clearly depicts the vital role that forests play, through their functions of infiltration and percolation, in the recharge of the underground water resource. But this vital and vulnerable role that forests play in the replenishment of the water resource, had been more or less excluded or undermined in most deliberations, with the main focus being placed upon conservative usage and non-pollution. This is a clear manifestation of the poor understanding and wrong perceptions concerning the role and functions of forests that are still prevalent.

11. Forests are complex by nature, because they are diverse, depending upon multifarious factors that are reliant on their degree of varying conditions. It would therefore be erroneous to generalize management prescriptions. Common sense reasoning alone, can rationalize that different management objectives, strategies and applications would need to be formulated for differing forest types and situations. Other than that, the views of forestry professionals will naturally be divergent, depending upon their experiences attained in differing situations. We will therefore need to reach a consensus based upon our view of forests, their role and functions in a proper perspective. Besides, forestry development has to evolve over a number of years; it is a slow process and therefore any amends that need to be made for past mistakes, should also be an evolutionary process; step by step over a period of time. It would amount to committing a gross error, if we were to expect "quick fix" solutions to problems that had infact evolved through many centuries. To state a case, the deserts of the world were all once plush and green, mostly covered with natural forests; but centuries of pressures brought about by thriving civilizations destroyed them and caused once rich productive forest lands to become barren. Try as we might, mankind can never recreate Ethiopia and Sudan to the state they were, in King Solomon's days, nor can Tunisia revert to its state, when it was the rice bowl of the Roman Empire. Nature once destroyed, cannot be replicated.

12. When Timber Certification was initiated around the mid 1990's, we were very concerned, as it appeared that radical green groups had accomplished a coup d'e tat and were in haste to impose their ideals upon nations and forest owners around the world. In short, certification became a sort of a coercive exercise, compelling producers to join the party, or else face dire consequences.

Sustainable Forest Management - SFM

13. Many appear to think of SFM as a new concept, that was the outcome of UNCED. It had been recorded that the "Sustained Yield" concept was defined as early as 1752, by a German forester. His definition formed the basis of global Forest Policy formulation and management prescriptions. When the "Myanmar Selection System IVISS" was introduced in 1856, it also embraced the %ustained Yield" guidelines, which in short stated that "harvesting should not exceed the increment of a forest". The focus however, was on the sustainability of the forest products, rather than on the environmental, social and aesthetic values. Myanmar was fortunate though, as its foresters, both nationals and British, while embracing the sustained yield concept, placed their main focus on the preservation of the natural forests, thus ensuring the perpetuity of not only the resource, but also the natural environment, the ecosystems, biodiversity, the soil and water resources etc:. We strongly believe that this wise decision, has been instrumental in sustaining the amelioration of the climatic conditions and preserving the natural resources of the nation.

14. As had been stated above, the notion that forest resources are easily renewable and the criteria for forest management being economic viability, led to vast stretches of natural forests being converted to other forms of landuse patterns and substitution with plantation forests. But our foresters found out at an early stage, that conversion of good natural tropical teak forests to extensive mono-culture teak plantations, adversely affected the fauna and flora, biodiversity, site quality, productivity and ecology of the forests, ultimately leading to forest decline. ( 1995 Gyi K.K and Tint, Dr. Kyaw. 1995 Keh,K and Kyaw.S). Research now shows that site quality in teak plantations decline with age and site deterioration between and within rotations, poses a threat to potential yield and sustainable management. (1995 Jarayaman. 1995 ChacRo. 1979 KFRI ). As a result, establishment of large scale plantations was discouraged and plantation establishment was carried out on small plots, as a compensatory measure, in degraded areas. Large scale planting was initiated on degraded forest areas only in the mid-1 990's, out of the recognition that plantations had become a necessity, so as to be able to provide an array of social and economic benefits; but most of all to complement the management of and reduce the pressure on the natural forests.

15. An alarming factor is - although the ultimate objective of certification is SFIVI, there have only been broad and sometimes vague definitions on sustainability and SFIVI. To our knowledge, there still is no consensus on the final definition of sustainability. Different versions have been presented, depending upon the differing situations and vested interests. There was a time when we were told that harvesting from natural forests alone was not sustainable, and that it would be sustainable if one harvested only a minimal quantity from the natural forests and the majority from plantations. This brought about a great deal of consternation on our part, as our 50% forest cover is predominantly of natural forests, which successive generations had preserved at great economic sacrifice and we had been harvesting conservatively, with an AAC of around 3 million cubic metres, since over a century ago. It is comforting that this trend of thought placing priority focus on plantations is changing, with the realization of the need to preserve the ecosystems and biodiversity.

16. Eberhard E. Bruenig, in his paper titled "Forests and Climates", stated that - "The structure and dynamics of natural forests are adapted to site conditions. Natural pristine forests are open ecosystems in a dynamically oscillating balance with their variable climate environment. Their structural, physiognomic and genetic features enable them to survive the normal variations of climate. Their species richness and diversity and ease to regenerate by cycle or succession makes repairs possible, even of catastrophic climate shifts. Plantation forests, on the other hand are less adapted to withstand climatic oscillations, shifts and extreme events."

17. Although we have witnessed a slight shift of focus towards natural forests, the distinction is still not very clear. So then how do we set our priorities in a proper perspective? Mr. S.TMok in his paper "Forest certification in the new millennium" stated that - "However, there is no consensus on the definition of SFM and no agreed means to demonstrate its achievement. Nevertheless, numerous sets of criteria and indicators for SFM have been adopted for various regions as well as in many countries." Our concern is that, SFM being the ultimate objective of certification, how can certification achieve its objective without consensus on the definition of sustainability or SFIVI? As these are the basic tenets of the whole certification exercise, it is our feeling that we should strive to reach a consensus on these and many other like issues; if not the whole certification process will remain complex, confusing and conflicting. As such, we would like to caution against haste, to achieve tangible results, for fear that the whole SFM and certification process may fall apart.

Timber Certification

18. The FAO published its Declaration of the Principles of Forestry Policy in 1951. Many countries adopted these policy guidelines, the objectives of which, for the most part are still valid today. The ITTO adopted the Guidelines for the Sustainable Management of Natural Tropical Forests in 1980. In the aftermath of the Rio-Earth Summit, several regional processes took place and individual criteria and indicators were drafted. The ITTO also drafted its Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management of Natural Tropical Forests and finally adopted it in 1998. But most of these processes stopped with the C&Is and did not proceed to developing corresponding certification schemes.CIFOR for some time participated keenly in the development of its C&Is for SFM and a possible certification scheme; but gave it up as it was too complex; but they did produce a C&I set relating to the social sector.

19. Actually, certification is not something new, but had been in progress in other sectors since several decades ago. The International Organization for Standardization -ISO is a long established organization and the SGS set up an Inspection Agency in Myanmar to certify agriculture produce since many years back. In fact, we tried to involve the SGS (Myanmar) as a focal point for establishing cooperative relations with its mother company; but SGS replied that it was fully engaged and therefore could not send a representative to Myanmar. We were however advised to contact SGS (Malaysia).

20. Myanmar established links with the ITTO in 1993 and became a full-fledged member in 1995, but we were slow in joining the certification process for several reasons. Firstly, we were not very clear as to what it was all about, as we lacked adequate information. Responsible organizations such as the CSID, IPF, IFF, FAO etc.: kept a distance from the whole affair, making way for various international private organizations and NG0s to take the initiative, whereby they hastily formulated their own standards for SFM and certification schemes. As such, not only certification, but even SFM became extremely confusing. Certification was supposed to be voluntary; but in reality, the threat of losing one's markets always prevailed, if one did not become part of the process. Secondly, we were quite unsure of ourselves, having been shunned by UN umbrella organizations like the GEF and UNEP; also well established international NG0s such as the WWF and IUCN; we were very skeptical about our chances to be given a fair deal. Thirdly, we had understood as early as in 1993, that the ITTO's Year 2000 Objective, was not meant to pressure countries into achieving SFM by the year 2000; but merely that countries should be in the process of striving to achieve SFM by year 2000. Then all of a sudden, pressure groups started advocating that all timber that has access to the international markets should be certified by year 2000, which we felt strongly, was an impossible task. Fourthly, we were quite confident that we had managed our forests more credibly than most countries, and therefore should not have too much trouble, should we undertake to have our forests certified. Our policy and legal instruments were in place; all the management plans at the FMU level had been reviewed and updated. The Code of Harvesting prescriptions had been revised and most importantly, we were employing the least impact methods in harvesting. So we decided to wait and see, during which time, we gathered information and inputs, in order that we could consolidate our position and be better prepared when the time came to join the certification process.

21. Many certification bodies and schemes became established; most prominent were the International Standardization Organization - ISO and the Forest Stewardship Council - FSC. Several other international and national schemes also emerged. Some national schemes chose to adopt their own standards and schemes, while others chose either to adapt their standards and schemes to one or more of the internationally acknowledged standards and schemes, such as the ITTO C&Is, FSC's P&Cs, ISO's 14001 etc:. Then there was the issue of the levels of certification, which the WWF classified as three (1) the Forest Management Unit - FMU level. (2) the Forest Owner or Concession level. (3) the Region or Country level. The initial emphasis and drive was for certification at the FMU and forest owner or concession levels. However, some countries opted for whole lcountry certification, while a few regional schemes have also emerged.

22. There was also the issue of, should it be a first party, second party or a third party exercise? The FSC's scheme is insistent on a third party approach. But the U.S.A. stands by its national American Forest and Paper Association's Sustainable Forestry Initiative - SFI and has adopted the "Second party" certification approach. The U. K we are told, has adopted its own national system and has nothing to do with the other schemes. Canada has its own Canadian standards Association's Sustainable Forest Management System Standards - CSA, and has adopted the [SO standards, with a "third party" mechanism. They however have embraced the "whole country" level of certification. The ISO has its own scheme and has listed the "third party" system as optional. The FSC's scheme also requires a multi-stakeholder participatory and consultative approach. Some European Countries have now formed a grouping and evolved their own Pan-European Forest Certification - PEFC scheme. In our region, Indonesia formulated their National C&Is based upon the ]SO and FSC guidelines; while Malaysia adopted ITTO's C&Is. Although countries have officially established their own standards and schemes, in those countries that practise concessioning of their forests or allow private ownership, the private sector are permitted to contact and undertake assessment and certification with any certifying body they choose. So the question arises in a country such as Myanmar, where all forest estates are owned by the government (State), what course do we adopt? Who do we follow?

Politics should not come into play

23. The Timber Certification Committee, Myanmar was established in August, 1998. As our friends in Europe were being pressured, to attain FSC certified timber or else suffer the consequences, we decided to establish links with the FSC and its subsidiaries. As we were not sure of how the response would be, we were reluctant to start off with an application for a full assessment, leading to certification. Instead, we decided to develop a mutual acquaintance through a third party As such, we invited a consultant from the "Fortech Group-U. Wand showed him around our forests and factories. He was also able to hold extensive discussions at all levels. He was very enthusiastic and supportive about our chances of achieving certification. We however warned him that politics could come into play. On his~eturn to the UK, he was made to call upon and discuss with the "Burma Action Group", which is a totally biased political group. After all our painstaking efforts and expense, Fortech responded by stating that due to social reasons, they did not fore-see the possibility of Myanmar achieving certification in the short term and that it would be futile and prohibitively costly to continue.

24. It was a severe blow to our expectations of fair play, according to the ethical codes laid down, stating that FSC was a non-political organization. On the onset, we had been concerned about the possibility of a "hidden agenda"; because certification had focussed principally on the forests of Europe, where many countries had already consumed most of their forests and had thus set about establishing proper management systems for the forests that remained. At the same time, the radical green groups had been organized to employ "bull-dozing pressure tactics", condemning tropical timbers and calling for bans and boy-cotts. If one were to reappraise FSC's performance till this day, one would find that over 90 percent of the forest area it has certified, lies in Europe and the North American continent. It appeared to be a deliberate tactic to undermine the economy of tropical countries, which are also mostly developing nations, many with their economies in transition. Instead of being a cooperative endeavour, it seemed that certification was taking an ugly turn, and becoming a coercive political tool instead.

25. In June, 2000, the WWF held the "Forests for life" conference in London. The WWF and FSC admitted to their shortcomings and failings of the past and came up with positive views for the future. Many of the delegates made some hard hitting statements. Ms. Suzanne Apple, Vice-president of "Home Depot", urged FSC to set aside politics and for all sides to collaborate. Dr Ruth Nussbaum, Director of SGS Qualifor, said that - it was critically important that we differentiate between those operating poorly and illegally. Where Governments say they are going to have good forest management, we need to support them. This, we felt firmly substantiated our initial fears.

26. However, these positive developments have been immensely encouraging and have helped to allay our doubts and concerns about being victimized. We have received several documents, condemning the WWF and FSC for various misdemeanors of the past; but we fully understand that any newly established organization will naturally have "teething problems"; the important thing is that they learn from past mistakes and make amends. The growing understanding and flexibility on the part of FSC of late, and the decline in "pressure tactics" of the radical green groups, particularly in Europe, we sincerely hope, manifests FSC's sincere desire to bring about reforms.

27. We had been advocating since the Eleventh World Forestry Congress in 1997, that responsible organizations such as the CS13, IPF, IFF, FAO, ITTO etc: should take a pro-active stand concerning the SFM and certification issues, and not leave the fate of our forests in the hands of the private sector and NG0s. But to our disappointment, they preferred to assume a neutral stance for the time being. We anticipate earnestly that this FAO-GTZ-ITTO sponsored "Seminar on Building Confidence Among Forest Certification Schemes and Their Supporters" will herald in a new era, whereby these organizations will play a positive lead role in future SFM and certification endeavours. We hope this will augur well for the future sustenance of the world's forests and the welfare of mankind.

The Credibility Issue

28. The FSC has become the most dominant and sought after certifying body at present; particularly in Europe and North America. And the buyers groups are all vying for the FSC label, claiming that it is the only credible certification scheme. Some nations, counties or municipalities, had even initiated legislation banning the use of non-FSC certified tropical timbers.

29. The issue of credibility needs to be considered in a proper perspective. In that context, many moral questions will need to be raised. How do we define credibility? Who decides whether an organization is credible or not? On what criteria do we base and measure credibility? What happens when an organization with a claim to credibility, undermines or compromises its image? Should the future of our forests be placed in the hands of agencies who lack expertise and experience in ecosystems and forestry management? Should not well established and professionally sound responsible organizations, such as the IFF, FAO and ITTO etc.: assume the stewardship of the world's forests? If certification continues to be market driven and the decision of credibility lies in the hands of the buyers' groups, would it not compromise SFM in the long term, thereby defeating the very objectives we all hope to attain?

30. To return to the issue of the claim that FSC is the only credible scheme, we will need to examine FSC's performance, regarding the actual forest area it has been able to certify. FSC started operating in 1993. To date it has over 300 members from about 50 countries and most of its members are leading environmental NG0s. It is registered as a civil association under Mexican law. It has so far certified around 17 million hectares and the progression for the year 2005 is to complete certifying 200 million hectares, through 10 accredited certification bodies. The world's forest cover amounts to over 3440 million hectares; the Asia-Pacific region has around 658 million hectares, and Myanmar possesses about 33 million hectares. Our concern is - as the FSC's efforts had principally focussed on Europe and the U.S, what do forest owners in the tropical regions and those that FSC cannot accommodate, do in the meantime? Do they automatically lose out? Does this not amount to ecoh`omic discrimination, or inequitable sharing of benefits? On the contrary, certification should be a universally united endeavour, whereby all nations and responsible organizations should cooperate and assist one another towards attaining SFM, in whatever way possible, and addressing effectively, the fundamental causes of deforestation and environmental degradation.

The Mutual Recognition Process

31. In 1998, we received information that FSC had signed a MOU with LEI of Indonesia, agreeing to explore ways and means as to how a mutual recognition process could be developed. Likewise, FSC and NTCC Malaysia embarked upon developing a mutual recognition process. We now hear that FSC is seeking similar cooperation with Keurhout of the Netherlands, the U.K. and the PEFC. These are indeed very positive and encouraging indications that WWF and FSC have acknowledged the reality that they can no longer go it alone.

32. On November 9-10, 1999, the World Bank 1 WWF Alliance held a workshop for "Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use; Forest Certification 1 Verification Systems" at the World Bank's headquarters in Washington D.C. The objective of this workshop was to survey the various programmes and approaches to independent Forest Certification 1 Verification currently being employed, that could be relevant to measuring progress towards 1mproved Forest Management -- lFM". Among the subjects discussed were two very relevant topics, namely -"Mutual Recognition among forest certification programmes" and "Market-oriented Certification Schemes Reviewed".

33. This current Seminar on "Building Confidence Among Forest Certification Schemes and Their Supporters" that is being co-sponsored by the FAO-GTZ and ITTO, has taken the concept of mutual recognition a step further, to that of cooperation at the multilateral collaboration, while expediting the whole certification process. We anticipate that this seminar is an indication that FAO and ITTO will henceforth take a pro-active lead role in future SFM and Certification process.

34. We have been trying to find out what mutual recognition is all about; but have not been able to acquire a definitive answer; simply because nobody appears to be very clear yet, as to how it should be developed and where it will lead to. At the moment, we are witnessing efforts being made to carry out comparative studies between several national C&Is and the Uls, P&Cs or Minimum Requirements of corresponding national and international certification schemes. For example, NTCC Malaysia conducted such an exercise with the Keurhout Foundation of the Netherlands; they are now in the process of establishing common ground with FSC's P&Cs. LEI of Indonesia, likewise had started the process with FSC since 1998. The TCC (Myanmar) has recently embarked on a similar process with the Netherlands Timber Trade Association.

35. As we see it, mutual recognition will not be without its complexities, confusions and conflicts. For instance, how can the Uls, P&Cs or Minimum Requirements of all the international and national schemes concur completely? Surely they will differ, depending upon their divergent situations. But we look upon it as a plausible alternative to the present approach, which we feel is too narrowly focussed. Besides, all the Uls, P&Cs or MRs being generic in nature, it is always possible that interpretations will differ, depending upon the background and experiences of the accredited certifiers. We feel pretty sure that even the ten certifiers accredited by FSC, will come up with several versions of views of its P&Cs.

36. It is evident that the mutual (multilateral) recognition process will need to be based upon groupings of commonalities, be it regional or similar backgrounds and situations. We will need to think this out very carefully and thrash out relevant issues over a period of time, instead of rushing the process and then getting nowhere. We will need to put aside our emotions, well intended or not. We will need to set aside our differences, political bias and vested interests; and set our sights on achieving our noble goal of attaining Sustainable Forest Management. We will need to accertain that the decisions we make and the approaches we adopt, will significantly improve forestry management practices. But it will have to be on a step by step basis.

Conclusion

37. Myanmar has been committed to Sustainable Forest Management since 1856, when it introduced Systematic forest management and adopted the "Myanmar Selection System -MSS", it is supportive of the concept, that a mechanism to acertain that SFM guidelines and practices are indeed being adhered to. As such, Myanmar has drafted its national Uls, together with its Standards of Performance and Checklists and are in the process of field testing them, through the establishement of a model forest. We have established links with many renowned international NG0s who have been working with

38. We are also collaborating with the ITTO, LE1 Indonesia, NTCC Malaysia, Keurhout Foundation and the NTTA of the Netherlands, JOFCA a Japanese NGO and also SGS (Malaysia). Although we are a developing country with a LDC status, and are being unduly suppressed economically, we have not, and do not have any intentions of ravaging our natural resources. Our AAC still remains at a very conservative level and our foreign exchange earnings from timber sales amounts to a mere US$ 200 million. To refer to Dr. Nussbaum's statement once more - we are not merely saying that we intend to manage our forests in a proper manner; but have proven through the years that they had infact been managed sustainably. This we feel, merits adequate recognition and assistance from the international community. As certification is prohibitively costly, we cannot afford it on our own. We therefore implore the international donor agencies, especially those under the UN umbrella, to honour their ideals and ethical commitments, and not turn a deaf ear on our appeals, by neglecting our dire need of technical and financial inputs, in order to be able to attain SFIVI.

39. We would gladly tender our invitation and hearty welcome to all responsible related organizations and officials, to come and visit us, take a look around at first hand, sit down and discuss related issues with us, advise us and assist us wherever possible. We have adhered steadfastly to the ideals of SFM and will continue to uphold our commitment. We have always been transparent in all our dealings, be it bilateral, or multilateral and will continue doing so. We therefore feel that it is time, that we started working together, to understanding each other better, through person-to-person contact and constructive dialogue. Our only behest is, that people should not come with a predetermined bias, and that we should be given a fair hearing. We would like to extend our hand of friendship to all certification related organizations; as we desire to cooperate with and learn from those who are way ahead of us. We will certainly need all the assistance that can be made available, in order to be able to save our natural forests for posterity.

REFERENCES

  1. State of the World's Forests - FAO.
  2. Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management of Natural Forests - ITTO.
  3. Forestry in Myanmar - Forest Department, Myanmar.
  4. The Challenge of Sustainable Forest Management - FAO.
  5. Water for Life - FAO
  6. WWF Guide To Forest Certification, 96.
  7. Certified Forest Products Marketplace. Forest Products Annual Market Review, 1997-98.
  8. Certification : international trends and forestry and trade implications - Jean-Pierre Kiekens.
  9. Forests and Climates - Eberhard E.Bruenig.
10. "News Lettee'ATI13T - Conc. WB 1 WWF - Workshop in Washington.
11. Forest Certification in the new Millennium - S.T.Mok.
12. Record of Discussions with LE1 Indonesia and NTCC Malaysia.