Joint statement:
Viewpoints of European Private Forest Owners and American Tree Farm System
Regarding Mutual Recognition of Credible Forest Certification Schemes

Preliminary remarks

Forest certification is one tool amongst others to testify and promote sustainable forest management. Sustainable forest management as such is a dynamic concept, with continuous improvement based on knowledge and know-how.

In order to respect the different needs of the diverse society concepts worldwide, binding definitions of sustainable forest management can only be the result of democratic political processes respecting voluntary freedom of choice and forest owner property rights. In Europe and North America political processes were started in 1990 and 1992 that incorporated in their further development the definition of sustainable forest management (Helsinki Resolutions: balance between economical, social and ecological aspects; Montreal Process: development of criterion and indicators of sustainability) deriving from the non-binding forest declaration at the Earth Summit in Rio 1992.

In the time allocated, we try to answer the three questions of the organizer from the viewpoint of private forest owners in Europe and North America.

Which requirements should certification schemes meet to be credible?

Amongst others, we see 6 requirements as essential resulting from the above:

· The need for the constitutional character of the certification scheme ensuring the division of power (legislative, executive, judicative) and deriving from that the need for an independent third party auditing (ISO logic).

· Respect of democratic values including:

a. Conformity and ongoing respect of the international political processes (e.g. the Pan European Process, the Montreal Process, etc.)

b. Respect of different legitimate national parties such as industry federations, forest owner associations, labour unions, consumer organisations, environmental organisations and other involved or interested parties.

· Respect for the regional diversity of forests and forest management worldwide as well as the differing national values of forest owners.

· Voluntary, transparent and non-discriminatory, based on independent, essential components: the standard setting, the accreditation, the assessment, the dispute settlement and the chain of custody.

· Ensure freedom of choice of the certification scheme by the interested party, be it regional, group or individual certification.

· Recognising the limit below which it is scientifically and economically wrong to ask for individual unit certification. Both limits have to be dealt within the national certification framework.

What are the broad principles, e.g. critical elements necessary, for collaboration?

Without any order of priority, we consider the following principles as most essential for collaboration:

  1. Mutual respect and trust
  2. Readiness for co-existence
  3. Sharing of the same objectives
  4. Recognition of the diversity of opinion in respect of different society requirements
  5. Respect of democratic parliamentarian institutions (division of power)
  6. Proper understanding of public participation as expressed by FAO/ECE/ILO
  7. Liberty of choice between different systems
  8. Acceptance of international standards
  9. Accepting ownership rights and the freedom to operate in a given framework.
10. Credibility of all partners
11. Utilization of prevailing efficient structures

How should these broad principles be fulfilled in a certification scheme?

And, how should they be fulfilled on each component of a certification scheme?

On The standard setting

Mutual respect and trust in conjunction with shared objectives are most important elements in the standard setting process besides a proper understanding of public participation.

Therefore, it is essential that each country develop, in line with a regional framework based on a democratic process, its own standards that reflect best the diversity of their forest and forest management practices. The standard setting process is wished to be an open and constructive dialogue between representatives of relevant interested and involved parties in forest management, a dialogue with public participation which recognizes that "private ownership represents a different level for participation compared to public forests" (see Report of the FAO/ECE/ILO WP. 163 Public Participation in Forestry in Europe and North

America). The standards should be periodically reviewed in the light of new scientific knowledge and a continuous improvement is aimed at.

Accepting these principles, in mutual respect and trust, the possible co- existence of alternative certification schemes could fulfil the need for the liberty of choice, favouring the continuous development required to maintain the diversity of the complex ecosystem "forest", in a balanced respect of the economical, social, ecological and cultural values.

On accreditation

Almost every country has established publicly recognised authorities that take the task and carry the responsibility for accreditation in various fields. These national public authorities best ensure a credible accreditation in respect of national legal frameworks and international standards for accreditation. These independent authorities appointed by governments are the assurance of the division of power between the different components of any certification scheme.

In order to be credible, the work of the accreditation bodies needs to be subject to peer review. In addition the accreditation bodies have to prove that they understand the character of the standard and are capable of interpreting the spirit of the standard and have the capability of judging whether the standard has been met or not.

On the assessment

It is obvious that as far as ownership rights are concerned, the standards should not go beyond legal requirements in the spirit of existing laws and regulations and that, along with this, the owner must have the freedom of choice to operate within the given and accepted framework.

The assessors should have no influence on the standard and abstain from any forcing strategy in the direction of a certain improvement. This should be the sole choice of the owner within the given and accepted standards.

On the dispute settlement

The national standard setting association, sometimes called Governing Body, in respect of power division, should set up or appoint an independent dispute settlement board, taking care of all complaints arising from specific decisions concerning the issuance of certificates that cannot be solved between the certification body and the applicant.

On the chain of custody

To communicate the message of sustainable forest management from the forest to the consumer through the whole wood and fibre chain a forest certification scheme has to be applicable to prevailing structures in the forest based industries. The Chain of Custody rules (C-o-C) are requested to meet the needs of all companies along the wood chain (sawmills, wood based panel mills, paper mills, converters, publishers, printers, wholesalers, retailers, etc.). Cost prohibitive modifications are a disadvantage for all parties concerned.

Conclusion

The variety in society's conceptual needs, the diversity of forests and forest management worldwide can be best met by a variety of certification schemes. Any attempt to help promoting sustainable forest management by a monopolistic certification structure ignores the basic rights of voluntariness and freedom of choice.

Despite required differences in concepts whilst sharing the same objective, the readiness for co-existence is a conditio sine qua non for any collaboration.

We prefer an honest dialogue we are and remain open for it.

We hope that the outcome of this seminar is the start of a confidence building process amongst all parties in direction of sustainable forest management worldwide.

____________________________________________________________________