- Indian Institute of Forest Management

Transcription

Monograph on Forest Certification & SFM
Prof. Maharaj Muthoo
President Roman forum
FOREST CER
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
FOREWORD
A Tool for Sustainable Forest Management
Sustainable forest management calls for a long term commitment by all the stakeholders,
including those concerned about the attainment of Millennium Development Goals. The
debate about forestry practices should continue in the effort towards balancing social,
economic and environmental dimensions of human well being. Despite several
international environmental agreements and commendable national policies, it remains a
challenge to save the earth’s bio-diversity rich and climate-change mitigating forests,
many of which are vanishing at an alarming rate. Lack of good governance and illegal
logging are considered among important reasons for deforestation, more so the abject
persistent poverty among forest-dependent communities and forest-fringe villages.
Forest Certification is as an innovative initiative in this context. Increasing
environmental awareness and ethical consumerism has led to forest certification as an
effective tool for communicating the quality environmental and social performance of
good forest management. The goal of credible certification systems is to ensure that
forest products are derived from responsibly managed forests -be that in a phased
approach to certification under trying circumstances, such as in the tropics. The
certification standards, criteria and indicators and the chain-of-custody (CoC) enables
the identification of forest products obtained through legitimate harvesting. This assures
access to reputed retailer chains and major markets, whereby the role and responsibility
of committed forest owners and managers should be appropriately recognized and
rewarded -more so in this era of globalization, which has come to stay, warts and all.
Manmohan Yadav
P C Kotwal
A book on this subject shall help in building awareness and understanding about the
diverse aspects of forest certification and related issues,
been very well attempted
B asL has
Menaria
in this monograph. It shall be useful to scientists, students, policy planners, managers
and entities dealing with wood, pulp, paper, among other items, including
environmental services and non-timber forest products (NTFP). A separate chapter on
NTFP (including Medicinal and Aromatic Plants) is worthwhile, given that millions of
poorest of the poor derive their livelihoods from NTFP and these have an immense
Centre
for Sustainable
Management
market
potential
and scope forForest
better benefit
sharing. & Forest Certification
IIFM-ITTO Project
I congratulate
the INSTITUTE
authors for bringing
out a comprehensive
monograph on forest
INDIAN
OF FOREST
MANAGEMENT
certification. I wish them and their collaborators continued success in their laudable
BHOPAL (INDIA)
efforts, which will contribute towards improving trade and market mechanisms,
leveraging sustainable management of forests and related resources, and promoting
harmony between humanity and the environment.
(Maharaj Muthoo)
Centre for SFM & Forest Certification, IIFM Bhopal
FOREST CERTIFICATION
FIRST REPRINT 2007
Published by
Indian Institute of Forest Management,
Nehru Nagar, PO Box 357
Bhopal-462 003 Madhya Pradesh, India
Tel: 91-755-2775716, 2773799, Fax: 91-755-2772878
Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Website: www.iifm.ac.in
© 2007 Indian Institute of Forest Management
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any
information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publisher.
ISBN- 81-7969-047-4
IIFM Library Cataloguing-in-publication Data
Design and Layout: Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal.
FOREST
CERTIFICATION
Manmohan Yadav
PC Kotwal
BL Menaria
Centre for Sustainable Forest Management & Forest Certification
IIFM-ITTO Project
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF FOREST MANAGEMENT
BHOPAL (INDIA)
Prof. Maharaj Muthoo
President
Roman forum, Italy
FOREWORD
Sustainable forest management calls for a long term commitment by all the stakeholders,
including those concerned about the attainment of Millennium Development Goals. The
debate about forestry practices should continue in the effort towards balancing social,
economic and environmental dimensions of human well being. Despite several
international environmental agreements and commendable national policies, it remains a
challenge to save the earth’s bio-diversity rich and climate-change mitigating forests,
many of which are vanishing at an alarming rate. Lack of good governance and illegal
logging are considered among important reasons for deforestation, more so the abject
persistent poverty among forest-dependent communities and forest-fringe villages.
Forest Certification is as an innovative initiative in this context. Increasing
environmental awareness and ethical consumerism has led to forest certification as an
effective tool for communicating the quality environmental and social performance of
good forest management. The goal of credible certification systems is to ensure that
forest products are derived from responsibly managed forests -be that in a phased
approach to certification under trying circumstances, such as in the tropics. The
certification standards, criteria and indicators and the chain-of-custody (CoC) enables
the identification of forest products obtained through legitimate harvesting. This assures
access to reputed retailer chains and major markets, whereby the role and responsibility
of committed forest owners and managers should be appropriately recognized and
rewarded -more so in this era of globalization, which has come to stay, warts and all.
A book on this subject shall help in building awareness and understanding about the
diverse aspects of forest certification and related issues, as has been very well attempted
in this monograph. It shall be useful to scientists, students, policy planners, managers
and entities dealing with wood, pulp, paper, among other items, including
environmental services and non-timber forest products (NTFP). A separate chapter on
NTFP (including Medicinal and Aromatic Plants) is worthwhile, given that millions of
poorest of the poor derive their livelihoods from NTFP and these have an immense
market potential and scope for better benefit sharing.
I congratulate the authors for bringing out a comprehensive monograph on forest
certification. I wish them and their collaborators continued success in their laudable
efforts, which will contribute towards improving trade and market mechanisms,
leveraging sustainable management of forests and related resources, and promoting
harmony between humanity and the environment.
(Maharaj Muthoo)
PREFACE
Currently, sustainable forest management, like the entire field of
forestry sector, is going through a new era of technological changes,
particularly in the light of emergence of trade/ marketing and
environmental awareness. This has necessitated the need to explore newer
avenues for sustainable forest management and forest certification. The
need to look for alternative tool does not mean that the current sustainable
forest management practices are expected to abandon. On the other hand,
it necessitates increasing levels of sophistication in marketing which can be
utilized in conjunction with other management practices.
Forest certification is a market driven tool that ensures sustainable
management of forest on one hand and provides premium price to the
forest products on the other hand. Forest certification enables consumers to
express environmental concern with a choice to choose certified forest
product from market.
In order for the forest managers/ traders/ researchers/ scientists to
understand forest certification competently, need to gain adequate
knowledge on social, environmental and economic aspect of forest
management and thus evolve sound forest management practices.
An effort has been made in this book to present and discuss the
various advances made in the field of sustainable forest management and
forest certification. This edition includes up-to-date information on forest
certification. It also contains chapters on NTFPs (including MAPs)
Certification, options for a National Forest Certification scheme in India
and role of government on forest certification.
This book has been designed to bring out comprehensive material on
the fundamentals and basic principles of forest certification. This book is
expected to benefit the students, researchers, scientists, policy makers,
traders and forest managers who have interest in sustainable forest
management and forest certification. The subject has been presented in
crisp, clear-cut and simple language.
Manmohan Yadav
P C Kotwal
B L Menaria
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We take this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution made by various persons in bringing
out this book. We sincerely acknowledge the various sources and publications from which
valuable material for this book has been drawn. We sincerely thank the entire staff of the IIFMITTO Project and staff of IIFM for their help in preparation of this book.
We also acknowledge and express our sincere thanks and gratitude to Prof. D.K. Bandyopadhyay,
Director, Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal for his constant encouragement and
guidance through out the project on completing this book.
We also express our gratitude to the IIFM-ITTO Project for the financial support for bringing out
this publication.
IIFM, Bhopal
Manmohan Yadav
P C Kotwal
B L Menaria
ABBREVIATIONS
AF&PA
American Forest and Paper Association
AFF
American Forest Foundation
AFS
Australian Forestry Standard
ATFS
American Tree Farm System
B-I Process
Bhopal-India Process
C&I
Criteria and Indicators
CARs
Corrective Action Requests
CBD
Convention on Biological Diversity
CEPI
Confederation of European Paper Industry
CERFLOR
Brazilian National Forest Certification Program
CERTFOR
Chilean Forest Certification System
CFPC
Certified Forest Products Council
CILSS
Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel
CITES
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
CoC
Chain of Custody
COP5
Fifth Conference of Parties
CSA
Canadian Standards Association
CSA
Canadian Standards Association
CTE
Committee on Trade and Environment
DEFRA
Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs
EMS
Environmental Management Standard/ System
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization
FMOs
Forest Management Organizations
FMU
Forest Management Unit
FSC
Forest Stewardship Council
FSC
Forest Stewardship Council
FSI
Forest Survey of India
GATT
General Agreement on Tariff and Trade
GoI
Government
ha
Hectares
IFOAM
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement’s Accreditation
Programme for organic agriculture
IGADD
Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development.
IIFM
Indian Institute of Forest Management
IRR
Internal Rates Of Return
ISO
International Organization for Standardization
ITTO
International Tropical Timber Organization
JFM
Joint Forest Management
Km
Kilometre
LEI
Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute
LFCCs
Low Forest Cover Countries
m
Metre
MCPFE
Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe
MIV
Modular Implementation and Verification
MoEF
Ministry of Environment and Forest
MTCC
Malaysian Timber Certification Council
NGO
Non Governmental Organization
NS
Not significant
NTFP
Non Timber Forest Products
NTM
Non-Tariff Measure
NWFP
Non Wood Forest Product
PEBLDS
Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy
PEFC
Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification
PEOLG
Pan-European Operational Level Guidelines
PPM
process of production method
PRFs
Permanent Reserved Forests
RCOC
Requirements for Chain-of-Custody Certification
RHS
Royal Horticultural Society
SADC
Southern Africa Development Community
SCC
Standards Council of Canada
SFB
Sustainable Forestry Board
SFI
Sustainable Forestry Initiative
SFIS
SFI Standard
SFM
Sustainable Forest Management
SIDS
Small Island Developing States
SPS
Sanitary and Phytosanitary
TBT
Technical Barrier to Trade
UK
United Kingdom
UNCED
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
UNEP
United Nations Environment Agency
UNFF
United Nations Forum on Forests
USA
United State of America
WFAP
World Forest Appraisal Programme
WTO
World Trade Organization
WWF
Worldwide Fund for Nature
CONTENTS
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgement
Abbreviations
1. Status of Forest Resources
1-10
1.1 Global forest resources
1
1.2 Forest resources of India
4
1.3 Trade of forest products
7
2. Sustainable Forest Management
11-19
2.1 Sustainable forest management- The ecosystem approach
12
2.2 Criteria and Indicators for sustainable forest management
13
2.3 Initiatives for sustainable forest management
15
3. Sustainable Forest Management in India
21-35
3.1 Significance of sustainable forest management in India
22
3.2 Initiative for sustainable forestry development in India
22
3.3 The Bhopal-India process
23
4. Forest Certification: Concept and Evolution
37-54
4.1 Concept of ecolabel
37
4.2 Concept of forest certification
38
4.3 Definition of forest certification
39
4.4 Origin of forest certification
39
4.5 Evolution of forest certification
41
4.6 Relevance of forest certification
43
4.7 Benefits of forest certification
43
4.8 Forest certification and sustainable forest management
44
4.9 Need for forest certification
44
4.10 Why become certified?
47
4.11 Emerging issues and trends in certification
48
4.12 The WTO and labelling
51
5. Elements of Forest Certification Programmes
55-79
5.1 Forest certification standards
55
5.2 Certification organizational process
61
5.3 Accreditation under forest certification
61
5.4 Forest certification auditing
63
5.5 Forest certification and labelling
64
5.6 Chain of custody (CoC) certification
65
5.7 The certification process
67
5.8 Group certification
69
5.9 Phased approach to forest certification
70
5.10 Impediments to success of forest certification in developing countries
6. Forest Certification Programmes
78
81-102
6.1 Type of forest certification
81
6.2 Criteria for a credible forest certification schemes
82
6.3 Internationally recognized schemes
82
6.4 National certification schemes
90
6.5 Distribution of certified forest area
100
6.6 Challenges for certification programmes
101
7. Certification of non timber forest products
103-110
7.1 Importance of non timber forest products
103
7.2 Role of NTFPs in the forest management system
105
7.3 Certification of NTFPs
106
7.4 Issues related to NTFP certification
107
7.5 Merits and demerits of NTFPs certification
108
7.6 Challenges facing NTFP certification
109
8. Role of Government in Forest Certification
111-115
8.1 Government policies their objectives
111
8.2 Governments promote sustainable forest management
111
8.3 Governments provide the framework for efficient, safe and equitable
markets
8.4 Governments agree on the rules for international trade
113
8.5 Governments are forest owners
113
8.6 Governments are buyers of wood products
113
8.7 Governments are not part of the governance of international
certification schemes
9. Forest Certification in India: Options for a National Forest
Certification Scheme
9.1 Need of forest certification in India
114
9.2 Need of Indian forest certification agency
118
9.3 Impediments to certification
118
9.4 Setting standards of certification for sustainable utilization and
management of forest resources
119
9.5 Potential certification system in India: the bureau of Indian standards
121
9.6 Progress of forest certification in India
121
Bibliography
113
117-122
117
122-130
1
Status of Forest Resources
A healthy planet needs healthy forests. Thriving forests regulate the water cycle and
stabilize the soils. Forest also help moderate climate by soaking up and storing carbon
dioxide. In addition to these ecosystem services, forests provide habitat for diverse flora
and fauna, offer cultural, spiritual and recreational opportunities, and provide a variety
of food, medicines and wood resources.
1.1 GLOBAL FOREST RESOURCES
Extent of forest resources are the major thematic elements characterizing sustainable
forest management. Generally speaking, it refers to the overall goal of maintaining
adequate forest cover and stocking of various forest types and characteristics including
‘other wooded land and as ‘trees outside forests’ to support the social, economic and
environmental objectives related to forestry within a country or region. The ultimate aim
of monitoring the extent and characteristics of forest resources is to reduce unplanned
deforestation, restore and rehabilitate degraded forest landscapes, manage forests
sustainably and evaluate the important function of carbon sequestration by forests, other
wooded land and trees outside forests thereby contributing to moderating the global
climate (FAO, 2006).
According to Global Forest Resource Assessment 2005 (FAO, 2006), the total forest area
of the world is estimated to be less than 4 billion hectares (ha) or 30 percent of total land
area. This corresponds to an average of 0.62 ha of forest per capita. However, area of
forest is unevenly distributed. For example, 64 countries, including India, with a
combined population of 2.0 billion have less than 0.1 ha of forest per capita. Often
described as low forest cover countries (LFCCs), they include a number of fairly large
countries in arid zones, as well as many small island developing states (SIDS) and
dependent territories. The ten most forest-rich countries account for two-thirds of total
forest area, while seven countries or territories have no forest at all, and an additional 57
have forest on less than 10 percent of their total land area.
Deforestation, mainly due to conversion of forests to agricultural land, continues at an
alarmingly high rate i.e. some 13 million hectares per year (FAO, 2006). At the same
time, forest planting, landscape restoration and natural expansion of forests have
significantly reduced the net loss of forest area.
Net global change in forest area in the period 2000 to 2005 is estimated at -7.3 million
hectares (mha) per year (an area roughly the size of Panama or Sierra Leone), down from
-8.9 mha per year in the period 1990 to 2000.
An estimated 36 percent of total forest area is classified as primary forests, i.e. forests of
native species, in which there are no clearly visible indications of human activity and
ecological processes are not significantly disturbed. About 6 million hectares of these
forests were lost or modified each year since 1990, and there is no indication that the rate
of change is slowing down. This rapid decrease stems not only from deforestation, but
also from modification of forests due to selective logging and other human interventions
through which primary forests move into the category of modified natural forests.
Forests and trees are being planted for many purposes and at increasing rates, yet they
still account for a fairly small proportion of total forest area. Forest plantations a subset
of planted forests consisting primarily of introduced species, make up an estimated
4 per cent of total forest area. Productive forest plantations, primarily established for
wood and fibre production, account for 78 per cent of these, and protective forest
plantations, primarily established for conservation of soil and water, account for 22 per
cent. The area of forest plantations increased by about 14 mha during 2000 to 2005, or 2.8
mha per year, 87 per cent of which are productive forest plantations (FAO, 2006).
In 2005 the total global growing stock of forests was estimated at 434 billion m3, which
corresponds to an average of 110 m3 ha-1. The countries with the most growing stock per
hectare were found in central Europe and some tropical areas.
Changes in area of forest by region and sub-region as presented in tables 1.1 show that
South America suffered the largest net loss of forests from 2000 to 2005 that is about 4.3
mha per year followed by Africa, which lost 4.0 mha annually. While there are signs that
the net loss in Africa is decreasing, it seems to be increasing in South America primarily
due to a reported increase in the net loss of forests in Brazil. North and Central America
and Oceania each had a net loss of about 350000 ha, with a decreasing trend in Oceania,
and a slightly increasing trend in North and Central America the latter primarily owing
to a decrease in the plantation establishment rate in the United States (down from an
average of 596 900 ha per year in 1990 –2000 to an average of 157 400 ha per year in the
period 2000–2005) and the continued, albeit decreasing, net loss of forests in Mexico
(FAO, 2006).
Table 1.1 Changes in forest area (1990-2005)
Region
Forest Cover (million ha)
1990
2000
2005
Africa
699 (-4.4)
656 (-4.0)
635 (-4.3)
Asia
574 (-0.8)
567 (1.0)
572 (-0.2)
Europe
989 (0.9)
998 (0.7)
1001 (0.8)
North & Central America
711 (-0.3)
7.8 (-0.3)
706 (-0.3)
Oceania
213 (-0.4)
208 (-0.4)
206 (-0.4)
South America
891 (-3.8)
853 (-4.3)
832 (-4.0)
Total world
4077 (-8.9)
3989 (-7.3)
3952 (-8.4)
* Data in parenthesis represent the forest area lost or gained during the respective
period. Source: FAO, 2006
Asia, which had a net loss of some 800000 ha per year in the 1990s, reported a net gain of
one million ha per year from 2000 to 2005, primarily as a result of the large scale
afforestation reported by China. Forest areas in Europe continued to expand, although at
a slower rate than in the 1990s.
1.1.1 Trend towards sustainable forest management at the global level
According to Global Forest Resource Assessment 2005 report (Table1.2) the trend
towards sustainable forest management at the global level were as follows:
Extent of forest resources: The area of forest has decreased by an average of 8.4 mha per
year since 1990, or 0.21 per cent per year. The other variables under this theme also show
a decrease over time, but none of the change rates exceed the threshold of 0.50 per cent
annually.
Biological diversity: The area of primary forest decreased by an average of 5.8 mha per
year (excluding the Russian Federation). On a positive note, the area of forest designated
for conservation of biological diversity increased by about 6.4 mha per year during the
same period or a total of 96 million hectares.
Forest health and vitality: The area of forest adversely affected by insects, diseases and
other disturbances shows an increase equivalent to 1.1 mha per year, while the area
adversely affected by forest fires shows a small decrease.
Productive functions of forest resources: The most prominent changes over time are a
decrease in the area of forest designated primarily for productive purposes, an average
of 4.6 mha per year and an increase in area of productive forest plantations of 2.2 mha
per year. This shift indicates that substantial areas of natural forests previously allocated
for productive purposes are now designated for other uses, while the proportion of
wood removals coming from forest plantations is likely to significantly increase in the
future.
Protective functions of forests: Both variables under this theme show an increase since
1990.The area of forest designated primarily for protective purposes has thus increased
by close to 3.4 mha per year or more than 50 mha during the last 15 years.
Socio-economic functions: The nominal values of removals of wood and non-wood
forest products have increased, but less than the average rate of inflation. Employment
in forest conservation and management has decreased by about one per cent per year.
The area of privately owned forests has increased by an average of 2.7 mha per year in
the period 1990-2000. Area of forest designated for the provision of recreation, education
and other social services has increased by more than 6.6 mha per year or a total of 100
mha since 1990 primarily due to a large increase in Brazil.
Overall, the situation at the global level has remained relatively stable. Negative trends
include decreases in area of primary forest and employment and an increase in area of
forest adversely affected by insects, diseases and other disturbances. Positive trends
were reported in the area of forest designated for biological diversity and social services,
as well as for area of productive and protective forest plantations, value of wood
removals and amount and value of NWFP removals, and area of forests under private
ownership.
Table 1.2 Trends towards sustainable forest management at the global level
Thematic element
Trend in FRA 2005 variables or derivatives
Extent of forest
resources
Area of forest
Rea of other wood land
Growing stock of forests
Carbon stock/ ha in forest biomass
Biological
Area of primary forest
diversity
Area of forest designated primarily for conservation of biological
diversity
Total forest area excluding area of productive forest plantations
Forest health and
Area of forest affected by fire
vitality
Area of forest affected by insects, diseases and other disturbances
Area of forest designated primarily for production
Productive
function of forest
Area of productive forest plantations
resources
Commercial growing stock
Total wood removal
Total NWFP removals
Protective function Area of forest designated primarily for protection
of forest resources Area of protective forest plantations
Socio-economic
Value of total wood removals
functions
Value of total NWFP removals
Total employment
Area of forest under private ownership
Area of forest designated primarily for social services
H= High (Reporting countries represent 75-100% of total forest area)
M= Medium (Reporting countries represent 50-75% of total forest area)
L= Low (Reporting countries represent 25-50% of total forest area)
Source: FAO, 2006
Data
availability
H
M
H
H
H
H
1990-2005 annual change rate
(%)
Units
-0.21
-8351 (1000 ha)
-0.35
-3299 (1000 ha)
-0.15
-570 (Million m3)
-0.02
-0.15 (t/ ha)
-0.52
-5848 (1000 ha)
1.87
6391 (1000 ha)
H
M
M
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
L
M
M
M
H
-0.26
-0.49
1.84
-0.35
2.38
-0.19
-0.11
2.47
1.06
1.41
0.67
0.80
-0.97
0.76
8.63
-9397 (1000 ha)
-125 (1000 ha)
1101 (1000 ha)
-4552 (1000 ha)
2165 (1000 ha)
-321 (Million)
-3199 (1000 m3)
143460 (1000 m3 ton )
3375 (1000 ha)
380 (1000 ha)
377(Million US$)
33 (Million US$)
-102 (1000 pers yrs)
2737 (1000 ha)
6646 (1000 ha)
1.2 FOREST RESOURCES OF INDIA
India is the seventh largest country in the world with an area of 3,287,263 km2. Mainland
India stretches from 8°4' to 37°6' North and 68° 7' to 97°25' East. It has a land frontier of
15,200 km and 7,516 km of coastline. It has varied topography, geography, land use,
climate and geological formations. This has lead to the formation of a wide variety of
habitats and ecosystems or landscapes and it is one of the 12 mega-biodiversity countries
(with two biodiversity hot-spots, namely North eastern Himalayas and Western Ghats)
in the world. India occupies 2.4% of the world’s land area and contributes 8% to the
world’s diversity, which supports 16% of the planet's human population and 18% of the
cattle population. A large number of India's livestock population graze in forests causing
serious damage to regeneration and productivity. The use of forests beyond its carrying
capacity and encroachments are the main cause of concern for sustainability of forests in
India. At present, a substantial proportion of forests have no natural regeneration and
more than half of them suffer from wild fires.
Nearly all of the forest areas in the country are state owned and they are managed by the
state governments on the basis of long term working plans approved by the Union
Government. According to annual report of MoEF, GoI (2005-06) the forest cover of the
country has been estimated to be 678, 333 km2 (which is 20.64 % of the geographic area)
of which about one mha lies outside recorded forest area. Of this the very dense forest
(canopy density >70%) are spread over 51,285 km2 (1.56%), moderately dense forest
(canopy density between 40-70%) are spread over 339,279 km2 (10.32%) and open forests
(canopy density between 10-40%) cover an area of 287,769 km2 (8.76%). More then half of
the forest area in the country is tropical moist and dry deciduous types. About 40% of
the forest cover consists of degraded forests as indicated by their low canopy density.
Of the 16 major forest types in the country, the tropical deciduous form the major type
with 38.2 per cent and moist deciduous covering 30.3 per cent area of the country.
Among the states Madhya Pradesh accounts for 20.68% of the forest cover of the country
followed by Arunachal Pradesh (10.80%), Orissa (7.38%), Maharashtra (7.32%) and
Andhra Pradesh (6.94%). The seven North-Eastern states together comprise 25.70% of
the total forest cover.
Conservative estimates suggest that at least 10% of India’s recorded wild flora and 20%
of its mammals are on the threatened list. Many of these would now be categorized as
“critical”, i.e. on the verge of extinction. In fact, no one can say how many species have
already been lost. According to one estimate, 23 species of animals and plants are extinct
which include the cheetah and the lesser one horned rhino among mammals, the pink
headed duck, the mountain quail, and the forest spotted owlet among birds, and plants
like Hubbardia heptaneuron, which disappeared when a hydro-electric dam was built
upstream of its riverine habitat. Many species have gone extinct unnoticed either
because they were not “glamorous” like the large mammals or because their existence
was simply not known to us (Kothari et al, 2001).
Forestry and agriculture are two important land uses, the later competing with the
former under relentless pressure of an ever increasing population. Human population
has grown from 361 million in 1951 to 1020 million in 2001. To meet the requirements of
food production, besides enhancing the productivity, the area under agriculture has
16
increased from 118 mha in 1951 to 142 mha at present. It is therefore, unlikely, that the
agriculture land will be available for expansion of forest cover. It is only the "culturable
wastelands", covering 13.94 mha and part of the "fallow land and other than current
fallows", covering 9.89 mha, which seem to be potential areas on which forest cover can
be expanded through afforestation. In addition, efforts will have to be made to raise trees
outside conventional forest areas through innovative agroforestry programmes to meet
the national goal of 33% tree cover.
Tropical forests form the dominant natural terrestrial ecosystem in the country. There
are also extensive areas of peat swamp and mangroves. (About 85% of the total
mangroves, a unique eco-system occurring in inter tidal regions are in West Bengal,
Gujarat and Andaman and Nicobar Islands). This diverse assemblage of forest habitats
and ecosystems makes India a country very rich in flora and fauna.
1.2.1 National Forest Policy
The National Forest Policy of 1988 defines the three primary goals of forest management
as i) to conserve the natural environment", ii) to meet the requirements of local people
(particularly tribal population and the poor), for forest produce, and iii) as a source of
wood and other products for industries and other non local users. This policy envisages
participation of communities in the management of forest resources as a means of
achieving these objectives.
The National Forest Policy, 1988 stipulates to have a minimum of 1/3 of the land area of
the country under forest and tree cover. It also envisages a need based and time bound
massive afforestation programme on all denuded, degraded and unproductive lands.
Though a cumulative area of 36.21 mha has been planted since 1950, yet much of this
could not be maintained and has become unproductive over the years. As such, the rate
of afforestation is not adequate due to insufficient outlays for the forestry sector.
1.2.2 Forest Legislation
India has a long tradition of professional forestry with a history of forest legislation since
1865 when most of the forests became the State property. Indian Forest Act, drafted first
in 1865, was revised in 1878 and was consolidated again in 1927 to regulate laws relating
to forests managed for production. Subsequently, several amendments in this Act were
made and some of the States have promulgated their own Forest Act. After the adoption
of the National Forest Policy, 1988, it was proposed to update and consolidate all forest
laws and amendments made by the States from time to time to bring about a uniform
law throughout the country in conformity with the provisions of the new forest policy.
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is another forest legislation amended in 1988. It
stipulates concurrence of the Union Government for diversion of forest lands for nonforestry purposes with provisions of compensatory afforestation. Other related
legislations are the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 amended in 1991 & then in 2002 and
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
1.2.3 Joint Forest Management
The philosophy of Joint Forest Management (JFM) is a development alternative wedded
with socio-economic realities in a multiple cultural and ethnic set up to embark on a path
of prosperity and productivity through the judicious use of limited natural resources on
17
a sustainable basis. Its success depends on the endeavors of every collaborator more so,
on the part of already organized set up. It is now widely accepted that rural people
living in and around protected forests must be brought into the management process for
forest protection activities to succeed. The implementation of JFM resolution is a step in
this direction. The implication of JFM is the "the sharing of products, responsibilities
control, and decision making authority over forest lands between forest departments
and local user groups." The implementation of the new forest Policy of 1988 led to
Government of India's resolution in June 1990, which paved the way for active
participation of the people in the protection and management of forests.
This strategic approach has led the Government of India to issue guidelines for the
participation of communities residing nearby the forest areas as partners in
management. By September 2006, nearly 100,000 JFM Committees (JFMCs) have been
created in all the States, engaged in protection and regeneration of about 22 million
hectares of notified forests and plantations outside the forest area in return for defined
usufructs and other benefits (ITTO, 2006).
1.2.4 Sustainability of Forest Resources
India is committed to manage its forest resources in a sustainable manner. Planned and
scientific management of forests in accordance with the prescriptions of working plan
has been practiced in India since mid 19th century. The ruling objective of forest
management was sustained yield of timber. The National Forest Policy adopted in 1988
has sustainability as its central theme, with its objectives revolving around overall
conservation of forest resources. With the paradigm shift in forest management in India
it becomes imperative to evolve a holistic framework that encompasses ecological,
economics and socio-cultural aspect of forestry.
Bhopal-India process, initiated in 1998, developed a practical and indigenous mechanism
for monitoring sustainable forest management in the country. A set of Criteria &
Indicators were evolved, in accordance with other international and regional initiatives,
to monitor sustainable forest management (SFM) in India. Now in the present pilot
study, FSI has been endeavored to quantitatively assess the sustainability of forest
resources in the country.
1.2.5 Forestry Practices
Forestry is the second largest land use after agriculture in the country. Land allocation
for forestry includes, areas set apart as forest land and non forest land (agroforesrty,
farm woodlots, windbreaks and shelter belts, avenue trees, urban forest/ parks,
homestead forest and sacred grooves). Of over one billion population of the country,
about 300 million of the rural poor depend on forestlands. For approximately 100 million
people, forests are the main source for sustaining livelihoods (fuel wood, non-timber
forest products, construction materials, etc.) and generating cash income. Half of India's
70 million tribal people, the most disadvantaged section of society, subsist on forest
resources. Seventy per cent of India's rural population depends on fuel wood to meet
their domestic energy needs. About 470 million livestock use forests as grazing grounds.
Degradation and deforestation are sensitive issues for India as they adversely affect not
only the environmental functions of forests (e.g. wildlife refuge, watershed protection,
prevention of soil and water runoff, and groundwater recharge) but also the subsistence
18
functions of providing fuel wood, food, fodder, and cash income to the local
communities residing in and around forests. Also logging has gone far beyond the level
of sustainability, and most of its forests are today seriously degraded.
1.3 TRADE OF FOREST PRODUCTS
1.3.1 Global
Forest-based products are divided into (i) wood and wood-based products and (ii) non
wood/ timber forest products (NWFP or NTFPs). The value of global trade may be
estimated at $ 155 billion in 2003 of which non-wood products could account for about
7% depending on their definition (FAO, 2005). The figure does not include the value of
traded services such as forest-based ecotourism which is a growing industry and is
becoming a significant source of revenue in many countries.
Wood-based products are traded as (a) roundwood (or chips), (b) primary processed
products (sawnwood, wood-based panels, pulp and paper), or (c) further processed
value-added products (builders´ woodwork, wooden furniture, converted paper and
paperboard products, etc.).
Not more than 15% of the global roundwood production enters international trade as the
balance is used domestically. The share, however, varies by product and region and it
tends to increase as a function of product unit value. Trade has shown a visible change
over the last few decades with a decline in the exports of roundwood (mainly due to
physical supply limitations, bans and restrictions on exports, etc.) relative to the trade in
processed products.
World roundwood production in 2003 reached 3,342 million m3, about 1.2 per cent above
the level of the preceding year. The greater part of global wood production is burned as
fuel. Of total roundwood production in 2003, 53 percent was woodfuel and the
remaining 47 percent available for industrial roundwood. The vast majority of wood
burning occurs in developing countries, where wood is often the most important source
of energy. On the other hand, the larger part of industrial roundwood production
continues to be accounted for by the developed countries, which provide more than
70 percent of the total. As most industrial roundwood is consumed and processed
domestically, the proportion reaching international markets is small.
The developing countries accounted for 2,000 million m3 or 60 percent, of total
roundwood production in 2002. Almost 80 percent of roundwood production consists of
woodfuel, the production of which has been stable in recent years.
Total roundwood production in the developed countries, following a significant decline
in the early 1990s, is still well below the peak levels of 1989-90. Industrial roundwood
19
accounts for 87 percent of production, whereas woodfuel is of relatively marginal
importance.
The value of international trade in forest products increased rapidly from the mid-1980s
to the mid-1990s to reach $155 billion in 2003. Europe, Asia and North & Central
America account for the major share of the value of world forest product imports. In
2003, imports of forest products reached a maximum value of $76 billion in Europe and
$43 billion in Asia, the second-largest importing region. Exports of forest products
increased remarkably in Europe in recent years and topped at $83 billion in 2003,
accounting for more than half of the world's total forest product exports. The secondlargest exporting region is North and Central America (FAO, 2005).
Europe earns higher trade value both within and outside the region because many
countries manufacture value-added products. The region accounts for 55 percent of
world export value, although its roundwood production rests at only 30 percent of the
world total. Countries in South America, Africa and Oceania mainly trade in raw
material, earning 4, 2 and 2 percent, respectively, of world export value while accounting
for 10, 4 and 3 percent of total roundwood production.
World trade volume (exports plus imports) continued improving in 2004 when it surged
by 10.3%, up sharply from 5.4% in 2003 and well above the average growth over the past
decade and during the 1980s. Trade growth slowed in 2005, but still expanded by a solid
7%. World trade growth is projected to accelerate to 7.4% in 2006. Both developed and,
particularly, developing countries contributed to the surge in trade growth in 2004, with
both exports and imports expanding. The deceleration in world trade in 2005 was
likewise due to lower trade volumes by both developed and developing countries.
Average non-fuel primary commodity prices (US$) climbed by 18.5% in 2004, due mostly
to the depreciation of the US dollar and buoyant global demand, particularly in China.
Average non-fuel primary commodity prices rose a further 8.6% in 2005. However, the
average price of these commodities is projected to contract by 2.1% in 2006 in
anticipation of slowing global growth, particularly in China. After remaining almost flat
or declining slightly from the mid-1990s to 2001, average primary commodity prices
appear set to resume a gradual long-term downward trend despite the strong surge in
2003-2005 (ITTO, 2005).
1.3.2 India
1.3.2.1 Trade of Wood
India’s roundwood production in 2006 was estimated to about 300 million m3, of which
225 million m3 (85 per cent) is the estimated share of fuelwood and 70-80 million m3
20
industrial roundwood, including poles and small lumber for rural households (ITTO,
2006). Compared with 1991, roundwood production in 2001 registered an increase of
about 20%. Supply from Indian natural forests (including temperate hardwood and
softwood species) is about 12 million m3 (about half of it from tropical forest areas). The
estimated share of industrial roundwood for industry coming from farm forestry and
other trees outside forests is 31 million m3. Official imports of timber count for just over 3
million m3 in 2006, mostly in form of logs. Hence there is a gap between consumption
and supply of timber of about 25 million m3. It is possible that a considerable part of this
gap is coming from unregistered sources, such as homegardens and small timber logs
and poles. A major player to fill up this gap is the production of timber from Non-Forest
areas, the high potential of which has not been recorded at the National level. The
incidents of some theft from forest areas, tantamount to illegal felling, are not ruled out.
A considerable share of demand for industrial roundwood is coming from the pulp and
paper industry. This industry mostly sources its raw material in India, not through
imports of pulp. Wood (47%) and bamboo (24%) count to about 5.9 million m3
roundwood equivalent of the total production of 5.3 million metric tonnes. Eucalypts
(47%), Casuarina equisetifolia (26%) and Leucaena leucocephala (20%) are the main
wood species demanded. The main suppliers of the pulp and paper industry are farm
forestry 28%, the open market (29%) and government sources (39%).
ITC Ltd.
Bhadracgalam Unit in Andra Pradesh for example obtains 83% of its wood from farm
forestry, JK paper in Orissa obtains nearly 90% from farm forestry.
India is a net importer of forest products. In 2001, the largest share of import bill went
for logs for feeding the processing units, followed by paper and paperboards. The total
value of imports of primary forest-based products in 2001 was US$ 942 million,
compared to US$94 million for such exports. Logs made up about 42% of the total forest
products import bill. The import volume was about 2.1 million m3 in 2004 and is
projected to increase significantly to meet the growing gap between supply and demand,
especially of quality tropical hardwoods. As such, 95% of all wood imports to India are
logs, mainly from tropical countries. With Indonesia and Papua New Guinea no longer
in the arena, Myanmar and Malaysia remain the major countries for tropical log imports.
Several African and Latin American countries are joining the log and other forest
product exporters to India, notably Benin, Costa Rica, Cote d’ Ivoire, Ecuador, Gabon,
Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania and Togo, and even Cameroon, Guyana and Panama. Log
imports are supported by a favourable tariff regime of 5% compared with 25% for
imported sawnwood and 34.4% for plywood.
21
1.3.2.2 Trade of NTFP
India has a rich resource base of NTFP that includes 3,000 species of plants, 1800
medicinal plants, 250 essential oil yielding plants, 100 tans and dye yielding plants and
120 gums and resin yielding plants. The quantity, price and thus value of both imports
and exports of NWFP has increased. The increase is more in exports than imports and is
a good sign for the country. Benefit of such increase will be still more if these benefits
trickle down to the local people. This is very important especially when a large section of
people living near to forests derive economic support form these products.
Nearly 60 percent of all the recorded forest revenue in India comes from NTFP. Most of
India's 50 million tribal people receive a substantial proportion of their cash and in-kind
income from NTFP (NTFP are estimated to generate 70 percent of all employment in the
Indian forestry sector), while about 200 to 300 million village people depend on products
from forests to varying degrees (Shiva 1995). The forestry sector, with 23 percent of the
country's geographical area, provides 2.3 million person-years of employment. Of this
total, 1.6 million person-years are related to NTFP. Most NTFP often provide
employment during only part of the year because the processing of NTFP is still poorly
developed (Gupta 1994).
Therefore production and trade in NTFPs receives attention in successive forest policy
statements because NTFPs are so important in the forest-dependent rural and tribal
economy. The Constitutional Amendments of 1993 provided for transfer of ownership of
NTFPs from the State governments to Gram Sabhas/ Panchayats (village assemblies) in
States having sizeable tribal populations. Many States have specific regulations about
NTFP production and trade. The prime objective of the State Minor Forest Produce
(Trade and Development) Co-operative Federation is to save the tribal people who are
engaged in collection of minor forest products (= NTFPs) from inequitable trading with
urban-based middlemen, to ensure fair wages and benefits, to rationalize marketing of
products, to empower the community in managing their own affairs through
appropriate institutional arrangements, and to ensure that the resources are sustainably
managed.
Plant-based medicines for which the knowledge is traditional and inherited in tribal
communities ought to confer intellectual property rights on the producer communities.
It is unclear if India has the appropriate legislation to permit the registration of such
knowledge (as “prior art”), which can be used to advantage by the communities if the
private sector (or government) attempts to domesticate or patent the plant genomes or
their products.
The situation is complicated by the long period for which the
phytochemical survey of India has been running – well over a century – so the
22
traditional knowledge may have been placed in the public domain before intellectual
property rights were deemed to be commercial for indigenous and traditional people.
1.3.2.3 Contribution of Forest Sector to Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
It is a direct measure of contribution of forestry sector to national economy and can be
used to estimate its multiplier effects on other sectors of economy. It provides one of the
basis for allocation of resources in Indian national planning system and thus availability
of monetary resources for forest development. Since it measures unduplicated valueadded, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) may be considered more useful to measure
economic contribution than revenue or employment.
Forestry’s contribution to GDP fell from about 2.9% in 1981 to 1.7% in 1991 and around
1.1% in 2005 and 0.9% in 2006 (CSO, 2006). This figure excludes the contributions of
forest-based industries (which are counted under manufacturing), as well as the vast
amount of products such as fuelwood and fodder, the use of which is unrecorded. The
figure also ignores the contribution of environmental services such as water and soil
conservation. About 7.5 million people, mostly in rural and tribal settings, are in forestrelated employment.
The declining trend in national income and the absence of reliable estimates of removals
and value of forest products calls for detailed study to find out actual estimates and to
identify causes of decline and revise the estimates if necessary.
23
2
Sustainable Forest Management
ECONOMY
ENVIRONMENT
Sustainable forest management (SFM) is a sub-set of sustainable development
(Sustainable development is a process of developing land, cities, business, communities,
and so on that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs") according to the 1987 Brundtland Report of the
United Nations. One of the factors which it must overcome is environmental
degradation, but it must do so without forgoing the needs of economic development,
social equality and justice. Several United Nations texts, most recently the 2005 World
Summit Outcome Document, refer to the "interdependent and mutually reinforcing
pillars" of sustainable development as economic development, social development, and
environmental protection (Fig. 2.1). For some, the issue is considered to be closely tied to
economic growth and
the need to find ways
Jobs
to
expand
the
National
prosperity, Sustainabl
economy in the long
e economy
environment,
wealth
term without using
renewable
creation
up natural capital for
Sustainable development
current growth at the
Local
cost of long term
Social equity
environment
growth. For others,
Social inclusion,
the concept of growth
communities
itself is problematic,
as the resources of
SOCIETY
the Earth are finite.
Conserving
the
Fig. 2.1 Three pillars of Sustainability
biodiversity is also
vital to sustainable
development and reducing poverty, as stated in the Madagascar Declaration. The 2005
UK Sustainable Development Strategy has the objective of enabling all people
throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life,
without compromising the quality of life of future generations. Environmental
degradation is damage to a local ecosystem or the biosphere as a whole due to human
activity. Environmental degradation occurs when nature's resources (such as forests,
habitat, earth, water and air) are being consumed faster than nature can replenish them.
An unsustainable situation occurs when natural capital (the sum total of nature's
resources) is used up faster than it can be replenished. Sustainability requires that
human activity, at a minimum, only uses nature's resources at a rate at which they can be
replenished naturally (Table2.1).
24
Table 2.1 Consumption of resources and their sustainability
Consumption of renewable resources
State of environment
Sustainability
More than nature's ability to replenish
Environmental degradation Not sustainable
Equal to nature's ability to replenish
Environmental equilibrium Sustainable growth
Less than nature's ability to replenish
Environmental renewal
Sustainable growth
Source: www.wikipedia.com
It is also the current culmination in a progression of basic forest management concepts
preceded by Sustainable forestry and sustained yield forestry. “Sustainable forest
management is the term currently used to describe approaches to forest management
that set very broad social and environmental goals”. A range of forestry institutions now
practice various forms of sustainable forest management and a broad range of methods
and tools are available that have been tested over time.
The Forest Principles adopted at The United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 captured the general international
understanding of sustainable forest management at that time. A number of sets of
criteria and indicators (C&I) have since been developed to evaluate the achievement of
SFM at both the country and management unit levels. These were all attempts to codify
and provide for independent assessment of the degree to which the broader objectives of
sustainable forest management are being achieved in practice.
A good definition of the present day understanding of the term “sustainable forest
management” was developed by the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests
in Europe (MCPFE), and has since been adopted by the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO). It defines sustainable forest management as:
“the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains
their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfil,
now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national,
and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems”.
ITTO defined SFM as “the process of managing permanent forest land to achieve one or
more clearly specified objectives of forest management with regard to the production of
a continuous flow of desirable forest products and services without undue reduction of
its inherent values and future productivity and without undue undesirable effects on the
physical and social environment”
2.1 SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENTTHE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH
The Ecosystem Approach has been prominent on the agenda of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) since 1992. The CBD definition of the Ecosystem Approach
and a set of principles for its application were developed at an expert meeting in Malawi
in 1995, the so-called Malawi Principles. The definition, 12 principles and 5 points of
"operational guidance" were adopted by the fifth Conference of Parties (COP5) in 2000.
The CBD definition is as follows:
25
“The ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and
living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way”.
Conceptual framework of SFM:
Principle
Criteria
Indicators
Verifiers
Principle: A fundamental truth or law as the basis of reasoning or action.
Criterion: An aspect that is considered important by which sustainable forest
management may be assessed. A criterion is accompanied by a set of related indicators
Indicator: A quantitative, qualitative or descriptive attribute that, when periodically
measured or monitored, indicates the direction of change.
Verifiers: Standard value of the indicators to achieve the level of sustainability.
Application of the ecosystem approach will help to reach a balance of the three objectives
of the Convention. An ecosystem approach is based on the application of appropriate
scientific methodologies focused on levels of biological organization, which encompasses
the essential structures, processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their
environment. It recognizes that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral
component of many ecosystems.
Sustainable forest management was recognized by Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity in 2004 (Decision VII/11 of COP7) to be a concrete means of applying
the Ecosystem Approach to forest ecosystems. The two concepts, sustainable forest
management and the ecosystem approach, aim at promoting conservation and
management practices which are environmentally, socially and economically
sustainable, and which generate and maintain benefits for both present and future
generations. In Europe, the MCPFE and the Council for the Pan-European Biological and
Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) jointly recognized sustainable forest
management to be consistent with the Ecosystem Approach in 2006 (10th meeting of the
PEBLDS Council).
2.2
CRITERIA AND INDICATORS
FOREST MANAGEMENT
FOR
SUSTAINABLE
Sustainable forest management incorporates the technical, ecological and economic
aspects of the forestry as well as addresses the socio-economic and livelihoods of forest
dwelling communities. Various forest management interventions made by the forest
department and other agencies need to be monitored to get regular feedback on the
efforts made to improve the forests. This would help, identify areas of concern and apply
corrective and timely measures to ensure continuous availability of forest goods and
services. The regular monitoring and assessment of forest resources is thus essential.
Criteria and Indicators (C&I) approach is one of the recognized policy instruments by
which progress towards implementing sustainable forest management and its effective
monitoring can be measured.
26
Criteria define and characterize the essential elements, as well as a set of conditions or
processes, by which sustainable forest management may be assessed. The criteria are
associated with related indicators. Periodically measured indicators reveal the direction
of change with respect to each criterion.
Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management are widely used for
monitoring, assessment and reporting towards sustainability of forests. Some countries
prepare national reports assessing the progress toward sustainable forest management.
There are nine international and regional initiatives towards SFM following the criteria
and indicators approach involving nearly 160 countries. Three of the more advanced
initiatives are those of the Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the
Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (also called
the Montreal Process), the Ministerial Conference for the Protection of Forests in Europe,
and the International Tropical Timber Organization.
There appears to be growing international consensus on the key elements of sustainable
forest management. Seven common thematic areas of sustainable forest management
have emerged based on the criteria of the nine ongoing regional and international SFM
initiatives. These were acknowledged by the international forest community at the
fourth session of the United Nations Forum on Forests (2004) and the 16th session of the
Committee on Forestry (2003) and include following:
1. Extent of forest resources;
2. Biological diversity;
3. Forest health and vitality;
4. Productive functions and forest resources;
5. Protective functions of forest resources;
6. Socio-economic functions; and
7. Legal, policy and institutional framework.
This consensus on common thematic areas (or criteria) effectively provides a common,
implicit definition of sustainable forest management.
2.3 IMPORTANCE OF USING CRITERIA AND INDICATORS
C&I is cost-effective, simple, measurable and relevant approach in the assessment of the
sustainability of prevailing forest management practices and are identified, taking into
account ecological, institutional, social and economic conditions and needs. Importance
of C&I ;
•
To ensure a continuous flow of forest goods and services
•
As a tool to measure direction of change towards SFM
•
Contribute towards sustainable development by addressing environmental,
economic and social well-being
27
•
As a tool to monitor progress of forest management at the FMU level (forest
divisions)
•
To fulfill Objective 2000 which states that ‘the total exports of tropical forest
products should come from sustainably managed forests.
•
As a prerequisite towards gaining Certification of Forests and its products for
international trade in accordance with Objective 2000.
•
India has commitment towards this objective, failing which our exports (particularly
NWFPs) in the international markets may be adversely affected.
•
To get in tune with global C&I processes for SFM that would facilitate in obtaining
external aid for the forestry sector.
•
As a tool for monitoring externally aided projects to ensure flow of committed
funds.
•
As a means for monitoring, assessment and reporting of SFM at the international
platforms.
•
The array of C & I together, and measured over time, can provide a picture of the
state of a country’s forests and trends towards their sustainable management.
•
The C & I framework provides an implementable mechanism to assess the
achievement of country’s forest policy objectives.
•
Measuring and monitoring the C & I over a period of time helps understand if the
forests are being sustainably managed at the regional, sub-regional or management
unit level.
•
The status of Criteria as evident from the values of corresponding Indicators reflects
upon the success of forest management.
•
Interpretation of the data collected on Indicators helps identify whether management
interventions are collectively taking a country towards or away from SFM.
•
Analysis of periodic information about the C & I at the National level can provide
vital feedback regarding the desired change / adjustments in the national policy,
such that forest management efforts are in the right direction.
•
National trends can be analyzed to see SFM progress at the global level and with a
global perspective.
2.4 CONSTRAINTS IN USING C&I
•
C & I are not individual performance standards / measures.
•
No single criterion or indicator alone constitutes a measure of sustainability.
•
The use of C & I as a tool for measuring progress towards SFM is still in its infancy,
though efforts are on in this direction throughout the globe.
28
2.5 INITIATIVES
MANAGEMENT
FOR
SUSTAINABLE
FOREST
In the forestry sector over the past decade, a number of countries have tried to evolve
criteria and indicators for sustainable management of forests at national and forest
management unit levels (Table 2.2). The FMU level C&I differ from the state and
national level; in that the former is significant to the local forest situations while the later
ones encompass the forest condition and their types at the national level. The National
level Criteria and Indicators are being complemented by the development and
implementation of criteria and indicators at the forest management unit level. The
ongoing international processes on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest
management that started with a focus at the national level have subsequently developed
complementary forest management unit level criteria and indicators.
These criteria are developed so as to make them applicable both locally (at the
management unit) and at policy levels (the national level). This is not true of the
indicators: some may be common to national as well as at FMU level, but others are
specific to certain forestry conditions at FMU level only. Attempts have been made at
international level (to some extent the ITTO and by some NGO (including the Forest
Stewardship Council), to develop indicators at the forest management level which can be
used for certification of wood and other raw materials harvested from forests.
The basic principle of all the global processes is same i.e. they contain sets of C&I
encompassing the comprehensive definition of SFM i.e. ecological, economic and social
parameters.
The Pan-European Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management, which
was developed within the framework of the Pan-European Forest Process, cover boreal,
temperate and Mediterranean forests in 37 European countries. The process is overseen
by Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe. At the Third
Ministerial Conference in the year 1998, the six national-level criteria identified within
this process were officially adopted and the corresponding 27 indicators were endorsed.
Ministers also endorsed the Pan-European Operational Level Guidelines for Sustainable
Forest Management for further development and for use on a voluntary basis.
The Montreal Process on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable
Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests covers temperate and boreal forests
outside Europe. The 12 participating countries agreed on a set of seven non-legally
binding national-level criteria and 67 indicators. Participating countries recently agreed
to review and consider possible elements for criteria and indicators at the forest unit
level; these are currently under discussion and development.
The eight signatory countries of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty have identified seven
national-level criteria and 47 indicators within the Tarapoto Proposal for Criteria and
Indicators for Sustainability of the Amazon Forest, launched in 1995. Four criteria and 22
indicators were also identified for the FMU level and one criterion and seven indicators
for the global level. National Consultations for validation were conducted in each of the
participating countries between December 1996 and July 2000 to evaluate the relevance
and applicability of these C&I in light of national conditions and needs.
29
The Dry-Zone Africa Process had 28 countries participating in it, which originated in a
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/FAO Expert Meeting on Criteria and
Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in 1995. It has identified seven nationallevel criteria and 47 indicators. The African Forestry and Wildlife Commission and the
secretariats of three sub regional groupings - the Permanent Interstate Committee for
Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development
(IGAD) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) - have endorsed the
work of this process. A number of national and regional workshops and expert meetings
have been held to review the applicability of the C&I in countries concerned, to discuss
the availability of information and national capacities for collection and analysis of data,
and to elaborate a plan of action for implementation. Two sub regional follow-up
meetings of national coordinators have also been held, covering countries in SADC and
CILSS countries.
The Near East Process originated in an FAO/UNEP Expert Meeting on Criteria and
Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in 1996. The 30 participating countries
have identified seven national-level criteria and 65 indicators, focusing mainly on the
management of dry-zone forests and woodlands in the region. The Near East Forestry
Commission has endorsed and is closely following the work. A number of regional
workshops and expert meetings have been held to review the applicability of the C&I in
countries concerned and to discuss the availability of information and national capacities
for collection and analysis of data. Guidelines for assessment and measurement are
currently under development.
The Lepaterique Process of Central America was initiated following the
recommendations of an Expert Meeting on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest
Management organized in 1997 by the Council for Forests and Protected Areas (CCABAP) in collaboration with FAO. Experts from the seven participating countries identified
eight national-level criteria and 53 indicators, as well as four criteria and 40 indicators at
the regional level. The expert meeting was followed by two sub regional training
workshops and seven national seminars, which reviewed applicability and availability
of data and made recommendations on future implementation. Countries concerned are
at present carrying out National Validation Exercises to review the criteria and
indicators identified.
The Dry Zone Asia Initiative originated in a workshop on National-Level Criteria and
Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Dry Forests in Asia/South Asia, held in
December 1999 and supported by FAO, UNEP and the International Tropical Timber
Organization (ITTO). The nine participating countries identified eight national-level
criteria and 49 indicators for the sustainable management of dry forests in the region.
Participating countries also elaborated a two-year plan of action and undertook to seek
political and technical support from national forestry authorities for its implementation.
The 13 member countries of the African Timber Organization (ATO), in a meeting held
in 1993, identified five principles, 20 criteria and 60 indicators for SFM, for application at
the regional, national and FMU levels.
Focusing largely on research at the forest management unit level, the Centre for
International Forestry Research (CIFOR) has assisted a number of countries in fieldCentre for SFM & Forest Certification, IIFM Bhopal
30
testing of criteria and indicators for SFM. In support of this work, CIFOR published the
Criteria and indicators tools series in 1999.
International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) is an intergovernmental
organization promoting the conservation and sustainable management, use of
tropical forest resources. It was established under the auspices of the United
Nations in 1986 amidst increasing worldwide concern for the fate of tropical
forests. While almost everyone was alarmed at the rate of deforestation occurring
in many tropical countries, there was also considerable agreement that the
tropical timber trade was one of the keys to economic development in these
countries. The reconciliation of these two seemingly disparate phenomena is
ITTO's story. ITTO has revised its set of C&I of 1999 in the year 2005. Accordingly the 7
criteria remains but has reduced the indicators from 66 to 57.
Bhopal-India Process for SFM was launched with the objective of carrying forward the
process of SFM in India. It was launched at IIFM, Bhopal in 1999 to develop a practical
and measurable set of C&I for monitoring the progress of forest management in the
country. A series of national and local level workshops and consultation meetings were
held to sensitize communities, forest managers, NGOs and researchers about the
national set of C&I. National level workshops were organized across the country at
Dehradun, Delhi, Bangalore, Bhopal and regional workshops at Raipur (C.G.), Jabalpur
(M.P.), Kanpur (U.P.), Jaipur (Rajasthan), Guwahati (Assam), Thiruvanathpuram
(Kerala), Gandhinagar (Gujarat), Angul (Orissa) on C&I of SFM. Several documents as
reports, bulletins, and research papers are published under the process on a regular basis
and disseminated to various interest groups and stakeholders at national and
international. A set of national level C&I has been evolved for adoption and are being
applied in the states of M. P., Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, and Orissa.
These initiatives towards C&I approach for SFM are in progress at various levels of
implementation. Many of the ongoing processes have established technical and scientific
committees to ensure soundness of approach. These processes have clearly stated the
efficacy of the C&I system for SFM.
31
Table 2.2 Major international processes on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management
Process
Number of
Criteria
7
Number of
Indicators
57
Applicability
Dry-Zone
Africa Process
7
47
Pan European
Forest Process
6
Montreal
7
ITTO Initiative
on criteria and
indicators
Place of
adoption
Yokohama,
Japan
Date of
adoption
March
1992,
Revised in
2005
National level
Nairobi,
Kenya
November
1995
27
quantitative
& 101
qualitative
indicators
Boreal temperate and
Mediterranean type
forests in Europe regional
and national levels d
Helsinki,
Finland,
Lisbon,
Portugal
June 1993
June 1998
67
Temperate and boreal
Santiago,
February
National and forest
management unit levels in
humid tropical forests of
member tropical countries
No. of
Participating countries/regions
countries
59
Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Côte
d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon,
Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, Togo, Cambodia, Fiji, India,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Papua, New Guinea,
Philippines, Thailand, Vanuatu, Bolivia, Brazil,
Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras,
Mexico, Panama, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad, Tobago,
Venezuela, Australia, Canada, China, Egypt,
Austria, Belgium/Luxembourg, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United
Kingdom, Japan, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway
,Republic of Korea, Switzerland, United States of
America
30
CILSS (9 countries): Burkina Faso, Cape Verde,
Chad, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania,
Niger, Senegal IGADD, (7); Dijibouti, Eritrea,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda
SADC(14); Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi,
Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa,
Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia Zimbabwe, Democratic
republic of Congo, Seychellus
37
Albania, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Czech, Republic, Denmark, Estonia, European
Community, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco,
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, UK
12
Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan,
32
Process
(non-legally
binding)
Tarapoto
Proposal
1 Global,
7 National,
4 FMU
7
7 Global,
47 National
22 FMU
65
Lepaterique
Process of
Central
America
4 Regional, 8
National,
5 FMU
African Timber
Organization
Regional
Initiatives for
Dry Forests in
Asia
Near East
Process
forests in countries
outside Europe, national
level
Sponsored by Amazon
Cooperation Treaty
Chile
1995
Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russian
Federation, Uruguay, United States
Tarapoto,
Peru
February
1995
8
Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru,
Suriname, Venezuela
Regional and national
levels
Cairo, Egypt
October
1996
30
40 regional
53 National
50 FMU
Forest management level
Tegucigalpa,
Honduras
January
1997
8
Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cyprus,
Djibouti, Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq,
Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lebanon, Libya,
Malta, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian
Arab Republic Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey,
Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Hinduras,
Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba
28
60
Regional and National
levels
Libreville,
Gabon
January
1993
13
8
49
Dry forests in Asia;
national level
Bhopal,
India
December
1999
9
Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo,
Cote d’ lvoire, Democratic Republic of Congo,
Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria,
Sao Tome and Principe, United Republic of Tanzania
Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Mongolia,
Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand
A. The total number of countries participating in international process is more than 140, because many countries are members of more than one processes.
B. Of the 59 member countries of ITTO only the 12 listed countries participated in ITTO’s criteria and indicators process. The rest of the ITTO member countries participated in other
process. India, Myanmar and Thailand are also members of the Regional Initiative for Dry Forests in Asia.
C. CILSS: Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel: SADC: Southern Africa Development Community; IGADD: Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and
Development.
D. Operational Level Guidelines for application at the sub national level have also been developed.
33
3
Sustainable Forest Management in India
The formal initiation of a scientific forestry through state management of forests can be
attributed to Sir Dietrich Brandis, the first Inspector General of Forests in India. This
scientific management had economic concerns especially to exploit timber and was
based on the sustained yield concept. Further, the first Indian Forest Policy, in 1894,
prioritized agricultural interests over forests. Post independence, the Indian Constitution
provided guidelines for protection of forests and wildlife. In 1952, the first Forest Policy
of independent India laid that one-third of the total geographical area should be under
forest cover hence ensuring balanced and complementary land use system. It introduced
the fundamental concept of self-sustenance for meeting local and national needs,
advocated forestry extension, management and control of private forests and creation of
village forests; besides focusing on need to protect wildlife. However, it had prejudice
for timber yield and increased revenue from the forests. In 1976 by constitutional
amendment, the subject of forest was shifted form the State list to Concurrent list, to
ensure uniform policy and management.
The Forest Conservation Act 1980, amended in 1988 and subsequent clarifications
provided that areas defined as ‘Forests’ by the Government of India cannot be used for
‘non-forestry’ purposes without a prior approval from the Government of India. This
demonstrated a marked reduction in forest loss. The rate of diversion of forest land was
1.5 lakh ha per year during 1950 to 1980. After the Forest Conservation Act 1980, the rate
of diversion of forest land has reduced to 0.38 lakh ha per year under the provisions of
the Act for certain developmental activities of the nation. There is a provision for
compensatory afforestation in double the area of diverted forest land in the same locality
with similar tree species.
The National Forest Policy 1988 aims at maintaining environment stability and
ecological balance. It emphasized on conserving the natural heritage, preserving flora
and fauna, meeting fuel, fodder, non-wood forest produce and small timber
requirements of the rural and tribal population and increasing forest productivity to
meet local and national needs. The principal aim of Forest Policy is to ensure the
stability of the environment through conservation that includes preservation,
maintenance, sustainable utilization, restoration, and enhancement of the natural
environment through active involvement of the people. The Government of India issued
on 1st June 1990, guidelines highlighting the need and the procedure to be adopted for
the involvement of village communities and civil societies in the protection and
development of degraded forests. This initiated the now well known concept Joint
Forest Management (JFM) in India. Since then, almost 28 states in the country have
34
resolved to implement JFM, having over one lakh village committees protecting around
19 million hectares of forestland.
3.1 SIGNIFICANCE
OF
MANAGEMENT IN INDIA
SUSTAINABLE
FOREST
In view of the global developments, adoption of SFM is imperative for the country.
Changing conditions of the forests stimulated the shift in management paradigms in
India. In independent India the forest management regimes were directed mainly
towards timber productivity, which gradually shifted to multiple uses of the forests that
also included NWFPs together with protection through community participation (JFM).
Since UNCED, criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management have been
formulated within the framework of several international and national meetings. These
are ITTO, African Timber Organization, Helsinki, Montreal, Tarapoto, Central
America/Lepaterique, Dry zone Africa, Near East, Dry zone Asia.
Sustainable forest management encompasses the set of relevant Criteria and Indicators
(C & I) as measures of sustainability of forest resources in a given local, regional or
national context. These C&I for SFM besides measuring sustainability of forests at the
national level, also envisage effective monitoring at the FMU level.
Since the purpose of criteria and indicators is to provide a framework for measuring and
monitoring trends at the country level over time, "interpretation" of the data collected on
indicators would help to identify whether management interventions are, collectively,
taking a country towards, or away from, sustainable management of forest resources.
This would be also helpful in identifying policy adjustments and suggest corrections to
improve forest management. In this way, forest indicators are like economic indicators,
such as inflation, employment or interest rates, which are used by many, countries to
"indicate" the overall health of national economy and stimulate appropriate policy
adjustments to achieve economic objectives.
The use of criteria and indicators will greatly improve the quality of information about
forests and the impacts of forest management practices that are available to decisionmakers especially the state forest department and the people in general. Thus Criteria
and indicators are tools used to define, assess and monitor progress towards sustainable
forest management. Criteria and indicators at the national level may be used to guide
countrywide policies, regulations and legislations necessary to achieve national
objectives. The ultimate aim is to promote improved forest management practices over
time, and to further the development of healthier and more productive forests, taking
into consideration the social, economic, environmental, cultural and spiritual needs of all
the stakeholder groups.
Following the global initiatives, IIFM took the initiative of developing C&I for
sustainable forest management in India. It was through the Bhopal-India Process in 1998
35
at IIFM, that the first-ever-national set of C&I for SFM was developed. This process
supplemented by recommendations from the National Task Force (1999), Government of
India recommended a set of 8 criteria and 43 indicators at national level.
3.2
INITIATIVE
FOR
SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA
FORESTRY
The 1992 Earth Summit at UNCED underscored sustainable management of World
Forests as an essential element of Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development
has been explained as:
"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs".
--The World Commission on Environment and Development, Brundtland Commission 1987.
Under the Indian context the definition of Sustainable Development is:
"Sustainable development ensures that the maximum rate of resource consumption and
waste discharge for a selected development portfolio would be sustained indefinitely, in
a defined planning region, without progressively impairing its bio-productivity and
ecological integrity. Environmental conservation, therefore, contrary to general belief,
accelerates rather than hinders economic development.
Therefore, the Development plans have to ensure:
•
Sustainable and equitable use of resources for meeting the needs of the present
and future generations without causing damage to environment.
•
To prevent further damage to our life-support systems;
•
To conserve and nurture the biological diversity, gene pool and other resources
for long term food security".
--State of the Environment Report - 1999, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of
India
The UNCED also accentuated the need for developing scientific guidelines for assessing
sustainability of forests and forestry resources. Criteria and Indicators are now globally
accepted as reliable tools for assessing sustainability. Today 160 countries across the
globe are involved in a major international process for development of criteria and
indicators specific to the prevalent ecological, economic and social conditions.
The Indian initiative for development of C&I for SFM was undertaken by Indian
Institute of Forest Management (IIFM), Bhopal; a premier education training research
and consultancy institution in Asia in 1998. Through various consultative processes,
expert discussions, sessions the process led to development of national level 8 criteria
and 43 indicators for SFM in India. In November 1999, Government of India appointed a
‘National Task Force on SFM’ for reviewing the developed set of C&I. The task force
36
recommended a national set of 8 criteria and 43 indicators was accepted by GoI also
designated IIFM as the nodal agency for operationalising SFM in India.
Following the processes a project sponsored by ITTO titled “Sustainable Forestry
Development through community participation in India” was undertaken by IIFM for
application of C&I at FMU level and other related activities such as sensitization of
stakeholders, dissemination of information etc. The project also initiated a dialogue on
SFM in the country through various workshops and seminars most important was the
task of sensitizing the communities involved in sustainable management through
grassroots level training workshops. With respect to the progress in operationalisation,
a generic C&I system has been developed and is being applied at 12 FMUs in four states
(M.P., C.G., Gujarat and Orissa). Capacity enhancement of forest managers as well as
local communities has received impetus under the project along with sensitization of
strategic decision-makers.
3.3 THE BHOPAL-INDIA PROCESS
India is a land of diversity both in terms of human as well as natural resources. Due to
its diverse eco-regions, India has always been committed to the conservation of forests
and biodiversity, with sustainability as the central theme of national Forest Policies. But
in the absence of a pragmatic framework for SFM in India, there was no mechanism to
provide feedback on the direction of change taking place. Following the regional,
international and national initiatives for development of C&I of SFM across the globe,
the Indian initiative was undertaken by Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal
in 1998 and was christened as the ‘Bhopal-India Process’. The Bhopal-India Process (B-I
Process), in 1998, was the Indian initiative to synchronize India’s SFM efforts with the
rest of the world. It was conceptualized, that development of C&I for SFM in India
would provide an effective way to set the management targets, in harmony with the
national forest policy 1988. It would also provide a mechanism to monitor the direction
of sustainable forest development. The Government of India (GoI) constituted a
‘National Task Force on SFM’ in November, 1999 which recognized 8 criteria and 43
indicators of Bhopal-India process and recommended a two-pronged strategy for
adoption and operationalising criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management.
IIFM was appointed as a nodal agency for coordinating C&I implementation in India.
India’s early forest management policies supported agricultural and timber production
as highest priority assets, but have gradually evolved to ensure environmental stability
and ecological balance over a period of time. The current actual forest cover of India is
20.64% (FSI 2003) of its total geographical area. But due to the many issues of concern
such as deforestation, degradation, increasing demand for forest products, and
insufficient financial allocation, an urgent need is being felt to streamline its efforts to
ensure sustainability of forests and its maintenance. In spite of the efforts to involve
people’s participation in forest management (over one lakh Joint Forest Management
Committees have been constituted and managing about 19 m ha of forest land in
different states). There is a need to monitor the continuously changing patterns of
37
problems related to forest management like encroachment, grazing, fire, etc. India is a
producer member country of ITTO is committed to the objective, 2000 of ITTO which
states “the total exports of tropical timber products should come from sustainably
managed forests by the Year 2000.” In order to achieve this objective it is imperative to
redefine forest management in light of the criteria and indicators and operationalising
them at local, state and national levels.
The national level C&I are developed primarily for assessing sustainability of forest
resources in the country and provide feedback to decision-makers for designing and
developing policies and programmes. The FMU level C&I are of direct management
significance. At the FMU level, C&I are the tools for monitoring direction of change,
towards or away from sustainability and undertake corrective action. As FMU is the
building block for planning forest management, C&I henceforth become building blocks
for adaptive management. The national level C&I give a complete picture of the status of
forestry resources. However at the FMU level all the indicators are not relevant and
applicable due to diversity in forest ecosystems, socio-economic and socio-cultural
contexts. This necessitates development of specific set of C&I for the FMU, based on the
base set of C&I of B-I Process. The C&I of B-I process were revised and refined in the
year 2005 in consultation with policy makers, forest officials, academicians, researchers
etc. the refined set of C&I is given in table 3.1
Table 3.1 Set of Criteria and Indicator of Bhopal-India process (IIFM, 2005)
Criteria
Indicators
1.1
Criterion 1:
Increase in the extent
of forest and tree
cover
Criterion 2:
Maintenance,
conservation and
enhancement of
biodiversity
(b) Man-made forest (tree plantations)
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Criterion 3:
Maintenance and
enhancement of
ecosystem function
Area and type of forest cover under
(a) Natural forest
Data
Availability
A
FMU
National
+
+
A
+
+
Forest area officially diverted for non-forestry
purposes
Forest area under encroachment
Area of dense, open and scrub forests
Trees outside forest area
Area of protected eco-systems (Protected Areas)
Number of
(a) Animal and
A
+
+
A
A
C
A
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
B
+
+
(b) Plant species
B
+
+
Number and status of threatened species
(a) Animal
C
+
+
(b)Plant species
C
+
+
Status of locally significant species
(a) Animal and
C
+
-
C
+
-
C
+
+
(b) Plant species
Status of species prone to over exploitation
B
+
+
3.1
Status of non-destructive harvest of wood and NonWood Forest Produce
Status of natural regeneration
A
+
+
3.2
Incidences of forest fires
A
+
+
3.3
Extent of livestock grazing
(a) Forest area open for grazing
A
+
+
38
and vitality
(b) Number of livestock grazing in forest
3.4
Criterion 4:
Conservation and
maintenance of soil
and water resources
Criterion 5:
Maintenance and
Enhancement of
Forest Resource
Productivity
4.4
Occurrence of weeds in forest
(a) Area
(b) Weed type
Incidences of pest and diseases
Area under watershed treatment
Area prone to soil erosion
Area under ravine, saline, alkaline soils and deserts
(hot and cold)
Soil fertility/Site Quality
4.5
(a) Duration of water flow in the selected streams
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.3
+
B
+
+
B
B
A
B
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
B
+
+
C
+
+
B
+
-
B
+
-
`
5.2
Growing stock of wood
Increment in volume of identified species of wood
A
C
+
+
+
+
5.3
Efforts towards enhancement of forest productivity:
(a) Technological inputs
A
+
+
(b)Area under Hi-tech plantations
A
+
+
A
+
+
Clonal Seed
6.1
Recorded removal of wood
A
+
+
6.2
Recorded collection of Non-Wood Forest Produce
A
+
+
6.3
6.4
Efforts towards reduction of wastages
Aggregate and per capita consumption of Wood and
Non-Wood Forest Produce
Direct employment in forestry and forest based
industries
Contribution of forests to the income of forest
dependent people
Demand and Supply of Wood and Non-Wood Forest
Produce
Import and Export of wood and Non-Wood Forest
Produce
(a) Number of JFM committees and area(s) protected
by them
(b) Degree of people’s participation in management
and benefit-sharing
(c) Level of participation of women
C
+
+
B
+
+
B
+
+
B
+
+
C
+
+
A
-
+
A
+
+
A
+
+
A
+
+
A
+
-
A
+
+
+
+
+
+
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
7.1
Criterion 7:
Maintenance and
enhancement of
social, cultural and
spiritual benefits
+
(b) Ground water in the vicinity of the forest areas
(c)Area under Seed Production Areas,
Orchards etc
Criterion 6:
Optimization of
forest resource
utilization
B
7.2
7.3
7.4
Use
of
indigenous
technical
knowledge:
Identification, Documentation and Application
Quality and extent to which concessions and
privileges are provided
Extent of cultural/sacred protected landscapes:
forests, trees, ponds, streams, etc.
A
(a) Type and area of landscape
Criterion 8:
Adequacy of Policy,
Legal and
Institutional
framework
8.1
Existence of policy and legal framework
A
+
+
8.2
Number of forest related offences
A
+
+
8.3
Level of investment in Research and Development
A
+
+
8.4
Human resource capacity building efforts
A
+
+
8.5
Forest Resource Accounting
(a) Contribution of forestry sector to the GDP
+
+
B
39
(b) Budgetary allocations to the forestry sector
B
+
+
8.6
Monitoring and Evaluation mechanisms
B
+
+
8.7
Status of information dissemination and utilization
B
+
+
A: Indicators whose data are readily available in the official records
B: Indicators whose data can be generated with some efforts and within the available resources
C: Indicators whose data require detailed research inputs.
(+): Indicator applicable
(-): Indicator not applicable
3.3.1 Development of FMU level Indicators (LUCID)
The C&I are the tools for assessing trends in forest conditions and forest management.
They provide a common framework for describing, monitoring and evaluating the
progress towards sustainable forest management. Development of C&I at the FMU level
has been largely spurred by the desire to assess sustainability and to develop tools to
facilitate the implementation of better management practices through monitoring. At
either FMU or national level, criteria and indicators help to identify whether
management is resulting in desired outcomes that are in accordance with sustainability
objectives. Interpretation of the trends will help in deciding appropriate interventions
and timely action in a focused manner. The site specific set of C&I for the FMU
developed following the base set of C&I of B-I Process (Fig. 3.1).
The applicability of indicators of sustainable forest management within the broad
framework of criteria varies with the site conditions. A method for developing local
Fig. 3.1 Flow chart to evolve C&I
40
level indicators has been standardized involving local communities and tested for the
development of site-specific indicators applicable to forest management unit level. This
process helped to sensitize the community members on the concepts of SFM and its
assessment using C&I. This developed a common understanding on the concepts. It
involved various community-based exercises to develop site specific, local draft set of
C&I. The evolved set of indicators was further tested in the actual field conditions to
finalize the local C&I set. LUCID is simple, robust approach having scientific premises
and cost affective tools in local capacities and contexts. Hence these indicators are also
called people’s indicators.
The set of site-specific indicators so developed are simple, robust with scientific
basis/logic, easily understood by the communities for periodic collection of required
data/information for monitoring and assessment.
Indicators were identified for each of the forest management units i.e. the forest
divisions and periodic data on each of the indicators were collected from the records of
forest departments, other relevant reports and primary data collected from the field.
There can be a number of ways to workout the sustainability of the FMU based on
appropriate analysis and interpretation of the data of indicators. The method for this
should be simple and scientifically robust. There can be several ways to work out the
sustainability of the forest management. The IIFM has developed computer based
software “Forest Management Control System” (FORMACS) for working out the
sustainability of the FMU based on the indicators data. The Sustainability Index (SI)
provides scenario of the results of past working plan prescriptions and current
management practices. These indicators provide a robust and valuable tool for assessing
the sustainability of forest resources. On the basis of the results of present study, we can
see that how the forest has performed towards sustainability of forest resources.
3.3.2
Application of C&I at FMU level
Six forest management units were selected in Madhya Pradesh and two forest
management units were selected in Chhattisgarh State for the implementation of C&I
approach for sustainable forest management. These encompass three main forest types
viz. Sal forests, Teak Forests and Miscellaneous Forests. The scope of the project has
been extended to states of Gujarat and Orissa with two FMUs in each state.
Based on the Bhopal-India process, specific sets of indicators were developed for all the
project sites (i.e. Forest Management Unit) involving communities and following the
LUCID. The criteria of B-I Process were kept sacrosanct to cover all aspects of SFM, but
the indicators are flexible at FMU level according to local forestry conditions and are
developed following the LUCID and involving the communities. The evolved indicators
are simple, robust and having scientific basis so that local community members are able
to collect and record relevant data and observations. Periodic data were collected from
the field by involving local community members, departmental records (Working plan
and other divisional records). The data processed with the help of software, FORMACS
(Forest Management Control System) and sustainability index was worked out. The
41
specific forest area of the divisions and its sustainability index as obtained by
FORMACS are summarized in table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Sustainability Index of forest divisions under study
Forest Division
Forest Area (km2)
Year
Sustainability
Index
2125.540 (52.1)
1999 to 2005
56 to 67
1670.311 (32.72)
1999 to 2005
East Mandla
1312.69 (36.59)
1999 to 2005
48 to 60
South Seoni
1193.10 (26.38)
1999 to 2005
50 to 60
Ratapani Wildlife Sanctuary
907.71 (100.0)
1999 to 2005
50 to 65
Harda
1130.20 (30.5)
1999 to 2004
48 to 61
Sheopur Kalan
2680.68 (40.21)
1998 to 2005
47.9 to 56.0
Jhabua
1586.72 (23.21)
1999 to 2005
45.63 to 55.59
Dhamtari
Marwahi (North Bilaspur)
53 to 64
*Value in parenthesis is percentage of total geographical area
The SI of different project sites varies between 45.63 to 67.00. The lowest sustainability
index was reported in Jhabua forest division. The low SI were due low forest cover,
incidence of forest fires, duration of water flow in the selected streams,
collection/harvest of non wood forest biomass and offences related to forest.
3.3.3 Operationalisation of C&I approach for SFM in India
In view of the current status of implementation and policy environment, a multi
pronged strategy needs to be adopted for operationalising SFM in India. As the meaning
of forest sustainability evolve, the C&I are specifically considered to aid in the
development of policies that would support sustainable forest management at the
national level and provide a common framework for monitoring and assessing the
trends. Thus, there is a need to build capacity of forest department and other
stakeholders for operationalising C&I based approach for SFM. The strategy should
cover all aspects of sustainable forest management and acknowledge SFM as a holistic
approach with multiple stakeholders. Also, it should further encompass the institutional
mechanisms and capabilities for implementing SFM. The broad strategy for
operationalising SFM in India, therefore would be (i) development of a functioning
system of C&I for SFM, (ii) strengthening of institutional mechanisms and arrangement
for promoting and operationalising C&I for SFM, (iii) enhancement of individual and
institutional capacities for operationalising C&I for SFM and (iv) functioning
42
participatory arrangements for operationalising C&I for SFM. The following sections
deal with the specific strategies to be adopted.
Developing National Set of Indicators
Developing State Level Indicators
Adapting FMU level Indicators
Monitoring SFM through community
participation
SFM Cell
National Strategy
National Working Plan Code
Other policy imperatives
SFM Cell
Implementation Plan
State Working Plan Code
Capacity enhancement
Monitoring and assessment
Management decisions
Working Plan
Local monitoring systems
Micro-plans
Capacity enhancement
Working Groups
Fig. 3.2 Operationalisation of SFM
3.3.3.1 Strategy for operationalising Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest
Management in India
(i) Development of a functioning system of C&I for SFM
Political commitment: National Forest Policy (1988) and JFM resolution of 1990
(amendment, 2002) and several forest conservation related enactment’s (Wildlife
Protection Act, 1972, 2002, Forest Conservation Act of 1980, Environmental Protection
Act, 1986 etc.) showed the National commitments towards conservation and sustainable
development of forests. India was very actively involved in the forest conservation and
development of formulations adopted at Rio-Earth Summit (1992). International
deliberations in IPF/IFF and now UNFF have been participated by high-level Indian
delegations. These deliberations unequivocally re-affirmed the basic principle of
Sustainable Forest Management adopted at Rio-Earth Summit 1992. Recently, a SFM and
Forest Certification Cell is created in the ministry of environment and forests (F. No. 1612/2005-SU dated 15.06.06) and setting up of SFM Cells in all the state/ UT forest
departments is under consideration. The Government of India has incorporated the
43
strategy for operationalization of C&I in the National Working Plan Code 2004, which
provides the guidelines for preparing forest working plans at the forest division level in
the country.
Reporting Format and periodicity: For operationalising C&I, related reporting formats
needs to be developed to address the indicators. These formats would follow from the
specific-set of national and state level C&I sets. These reporting formats should
encompass all the relevant aspects of indicators. Also, with respect to each indicator
depending on the requisite assessment frequency, periodicity of each of the indicator
needs to be defined.
Drawing of Detailed Action Plan: Through the project being implemented by GoI
through IIFM, operationalisation of C&I is being done in two states only i.e. Madhya
Pradesh and Chattisgarh. A total of eight Forest Management Units are covered under
the IIFM project. Based on the experience gained and subsequent learning during the
project implementation in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, the project activities have
been extended to two new states namely Gujarat and Orissa. Based on already
developed guidelines, on modules and on learning’s from implementation of the project,
similar activities are envisaged to be carried out in the two states of Gujurat and Orissa.
It will not only give C&I approach for SFM a wider coverage but, will also be an
opportunity for these states to develop, establish and operationalise this approach for
monitoring and evaluation of state forests through implementation of working plans.
The increasing outreach and expansion of C&I to the entire nation thus becomes the next
logical step. For this, detailed plans for coming years need to be prepared. The plan
should include activity details and specific timelines for implementation with specific
responsibilities assigned to institutions and organizations. Budgetary support; and
institutional and individual capability enhancement initiatives would greatly expedite
this process of expansion.
(ii) Strengthening of institutional mechanisms and arrangement for promoting and
operationalising C&I for SFM
Identify National Focal Points: Indian Institute of Forest Management has taken the
lead in promoting SFM in India. Bhopal-India process was launched by IIFM in the year
1998. Later the Regional initiative on developing National level C&I for dry zone forests
of Asia was jointly sponsored with FAO, UNEP, ITTO and USD. As has been mentioned
earlier that IIFM is implementing pilot project on Sustainable Forestry Development
with Community Participation, sponsored by ITTO. It also organized a number of
training programmes to sensitize the stakeholders at ground level and also the forestry
personnel. Today the Institute is actively engaged on SFM, research, and development;
and information dissemination especially through the regularly updated SFM web-site.
Larger initiatives by state forest departments and UT’s are expected in the coming years.
Institutionalisation of C&I: Incorporation in working plans: For operationalising of
C&I, its institutionalisation is imperative. Apart from policy prescriptions, institutional
44
arrangements should also actively advocate implementation of C&I for SFM. In Indian
context, the National Working Plan Code (2004) is the guiding document for planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of forest management interventions. This
can hence serve as an instrument for institutionalisation. Further, the state working
plans are also based on the National Working Plan Code. Hence, incorporation of C&I in
the National Working Plan Code and consequently in State Working Plan Codes would
provide the necessary institutional arrangement for promoting and operationalising C&I
system.
Resource mobilization: For expanding the concept of C&I and SFM to the country’s
forest may require some financial investments for creating awareness and trainings.
Hence, resource mobilization from internal and external sources is required.
(iii) Enhancement of individual and institutional capacities for operationalising C&I
for SFM
Establishment of National level SFM Cell: A Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)
Cell is created in the Ministry of Environment & Forests in the year 2006. The SFM Cell
will act as the nodal agency for all matters related to SFM in the country and to
encourage the development of national programmes aimed at sustainable utilization
and conservation of forests, and maintaining their ecological balance. The SFM cell at
center can take the responsibility of coordinating the output of IIFM research project on
SFM with states and UT’s and also enhance in the member countries of regional
initiatives of Dry Zone Forests of Asia.
State Level SFM Cell: The newly established SFM Cell in MoEF would facilitate the
setting up of similar kind of cells in all the state / UT forest departments to enhance and
improve the technical capacity required at the state level and to monitor SFM. Therefore,
each State Forest Department should be impressed upon to upgrade their JFM cell to
SFM cell. They should be encouraged to network with the IIFM, Bhopal for
implementation of C&I of Bhopal-India process. The state cells should also be
encouraged to take necessary training at IIFM and then in turn sensitize different
stakeholders in their respective states. The cell would develop state-level FMIS based on
C&I of SFM.
Identification of Forestry and Allied Institutions for C&I Research: Forestry and allied
Institutions under Govt. of India as well as those under state Governments, charitable
trusts, NGOs etc need to be networked for short term and long-term research on
‘Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management’. While some forestry
Institutions already have mandate for a specific subject which coincides with a particular
criteria, in some cases there is need to encourage them to restructure themselves as per
C&I of Bhopal-India Process.
Human Resource Development: Promoting SFM research and development would
require sensitized and motivated forestry personnel, community members engaged in
Joint Forest Management, NGOs, academicians etc. Implementation of C&I for SFM is
45
basically to monitor, assess and report the direction of change. For this purpose capacity
building of all concerned should receive priority.
(iv) Functioning participatory arrangements for operationalising C&I for SFM
Inter-sectoral linkages: For sustainable development, forestry sector development is
very important. But, the sector also influences and get influenced by other sectors.
Therefore development of multi-sectoral synergy is essential.
Information dissemination: Information dissemination is the most significant factor
affecting SFM operationalisation, specifically because it can enhance the outreach.
Further, this will sensitize all actors and facilitate eliciting informed participation of all
actors.
Participatory Arrangements: The collaborative forest management regime of JFM is
being envisioned as the vehicle for achieving SFM objectives. In cognizance of this,
extending the concept of C&I to the JFMC level and its implementation becomes
necessary. This would require institutional mechanisms and participatory arrangements
for facilitating community in implementing C&I for SFM. Further, sensitisation and
capacity enhancement become imperative and would concurrently support
implementation.
Multi-stakeholder dialogue: SFM is a multi-stakeholder process and hence participation
of all actors is essential. Informed participation from all actors will also facilitate
reconciliation of the often-conflicting interests. Providing platforms for effective
dialogues would greatly enhance participation of private sector, civil society,
academicians and all those concerned with SFM.
3.3.3.2 Guidelines for Implementing SFM in India
The guidelines are a checklist of prime objectives, principles and recommended actions.
The international efforts to develop guidelines for assessing forest sustainability have
been under way for many years. In India, the Criteria and Indicators (C&I) were
established for country level reporting of SFM in the form of Bhopal-India Process
(2005). In the National Forest Policy (1988), focus was also broadened to look at
integrated resource management, which advocated SFM with participation of local
communities with priority to environmental aspects over economic aspects and aimed at
maintenance and enhancement of whole ecosystem in cognizance of the multiple
functions of forests. As per the nation’s commitment to Agenda 21 and Forest Principles,
made at the UNCED conference in Rio, 1992; National Task Force on Sustainable Forest
Management was appointed by MoEF, has recommended adoption of C&I developed
under the Bhopal-India process for assessing progress towards SFM. Copies of
recommendations of the National Task force on SFM were also sent to all PCCF’s for
needful at their end. In cognizance of the recommendations of the National task force
and the progress achieved in Bhopal-India Process, the states may adapt and take action
on suggested outlines.
46
(i) SFM and forest certification cell
In order to coordinate SFM activities in India, SFM a cell has been set up in the Ministry
of Environment and Forests, Government of India (GoI) and at the States and Union
Territories the process of creating similar cells is under process. The cell established,
supported and run by the respective GoI/State governments would facilitate
streamlining of information/data collection and exchange among/between different
institutions involved in SFM within the state. The cell would also help in coordinating
the implementation of SFM in the state and with the nodal agency and other institutions
involved in SFM for learning and experience sharing. This would facilitate analysis of
state and site-specific management problems and help to remove bottlenecks in SFM
implementation in the state.
(ii) Plan for implementation of C&I
Detailed state specific C&I implementation plan should be developed for the state and
union territories and the constituent FMU. The plan should incorporate the detailed
Implementation scheme of C&I for the state and the resources, both financial and
human, for implementation of C&I in the state.
(iii) Implementation of C&I system at State and FMU level
The C&I developed through the Bhopal-India Process should form the basis of C&I
implementation at both the state and FMU levels. Detailed C&I related implementation
plans should be developed for the states and FMUs (i.e. the forest divisions), and it
should incorporate the detail implementation schedule of C&I, including both financial
and human resources. Data and information needs should be analyzed and appropriate
mechanisms for timely collection of data, analysis and reporting on a continuous basis
should be developed. The gaps in existing information should be investigated and
appropriate action should be taken for improving the reporting and monitoring
mechanisms for collection of required information. Data gap can be filled up with the
support of state forest research institutions or national level institutes.
(iv) Incorporation of C&I in Working Plan
The inclusion of C&I in the National Working Plan Code can be one of the milestones, in
achieving the objectives of SFM, which in turn will used to develop policies that will
support sustainable management of forest. Therefore, the C&I should be incorporated in
the working plans of the divisions. The incorporation of C&I would ensure that
management regimes and prescriptions are in consonance with the ecological, economic
and socio-cultural values that are attributed to the forests. Further, through this process,
the objective of the forest management practices would henceforth become SFM.
Appropriate directives may be issued for incorporation of C&I in the working plans that
are under preparation. The National Working Plan Code 2004 has incorporated C&I and
it is now the state responsibility to use it in their state code.
47
Semblance of B-I process with National Working Plan Code: The C&I of the BhopalIndia process cover all the aspects
of forestry scenario of the country
and has strong semblance with the
21%
chapters of National Working Plan
Data readily available in
Code (2004) that forms the basis for
office records
Data can be generated with
preparation of forest working plans
49%
little efforts
of the forest divisions. Nearly 49%
Requires detail research
inputs
of the data required for C&I are
30%
already
collected
during
preparation of Working Plan while
31% data can be collected with
Fig. 3.3 Availability of Data Relating to the
ease. Collection of remaining 20 %
Indicators in the National Working Plan Code
data on indicators requires some
research/survey inputs (Fig. 3.2).
(v) Implementation of C&I system in Joint Forest Management areas
Involvement of communities living in and around the forest play an important role in
forest management because of their interface with the forest both for livelihood options
and socio-cultural importance. To achieve the goals of SFM, Joint Forest Management
(JFM) is being viewed as a flagship and highly effective management regime. The
concept of C&I should be extended to the Joint Management areas and C&I
implemented therein. Local level modifications of the C&I vis-à-vis applicability,
suitability and relevance to the prevailing ecological, socio-cultural and institutional
conditions should be made. This will help to create mass movement for SFM across the
state. Also, local-working groups should be formed for experience sharing, learning and
information dissemination. Thereafter these working groups can be linked with the state
level SFM cell for information dissemination and technical support in skill development.
(vi) C&I for Trees outside Forest (TOF)
There are significant number of trees outside the forest, growing in different type of
lands viz. panchayat, private lands, avenue plantations, roadside and canal-side
plantations etc. These trees play a similar ecological, economic and social role as of
forests. The approach of SFM also envisions sustainable management of ToF involving
all the stakeholders. Publicity of the law for raising trees in public land can play a crucial
role in motivating peoples for growing more trees outside the forests.
(vii) Stakeholder participation
Active participation of all the stakeholders in SFM is quite essential. The real actors at all
the levels viz. local communities, institutions like Panchayat, other line departments,
Non-Government Organizations (NGO) etc. should be identified and initiatives for
motivation and involvement of all the actors in SFM, at the state, FMU and JFMC level
should be undertaken. Awareness generation exercises should be undertaken for
48
sensitization and eliciting informed participation of the stakeholders. Enhanced
participation of the stakeholders would accelerate progress toward SFM.
(viii) Capacity building
Institutionalization of SFM cannot take place unless there is an adequate institutional
environment and human capital. Institutional strengthening and capacity building
henceforth is of vital importance. Steps should be taken to create and institutionalize
and individual capacity enhancement for effective implementation of C&I and SFM at
all levels. Planning for developing competent human resource and institutional
structures should be undertaken. The same can also be incorporated in the C&I
implementation plan for the state.
(ix) Curriculum development on SFM
Appropriate curriculum on C&I for SFM should be developed and the same should be
incorporated in the forestry training institutions for in-service forest officers at all levels
i.e. supervisory and field level. Similar effort should be made for development and
incorporation of C&I and SFM in the curriculum of universities, research institutions
and academic institutions imparting education and training in forestry.
(x) Research needs
In accordance with the C&I implementation plan, research needs and gaps need to be
identified. This should focus on improvement and enhancement of the management
systems and practices. After assessment of the needs, planning and implementation of
the research activities to enhance the C&I system should be undertaken. Collaborative
research, especially action research following the actor-based approach undertaken with
leading local, state-level, national and international research institutions should be
planned and implemented. Pilot studies need to be undertaken along with selected
forestry institutions and NGO’s, in different parts of the state to develop replicable
models for SFM implementation. At least one Model Forests in each of the forest or
forest management types should be developed in the state based on the principles of
adaptive management. These would serve the demonstration and information
dissemination needs of the various stakeholders in SFM.
(xi) Institutional linkages
Linkages should be developed with agencies and institutions involved in similar and
related endeavors for experience sharing and cross-learning. Linkages should also be for
capacity building and technical assistance in implementation of SFM. Linkages with
international, bilateral and multilateral donor agencies should be established for
mobilization of financial resources.
(xii) Monitoring implementation of C&I
Monitoring standards and guidelines for assessing C&I implementation should be
developed and implemented. The stakeholders should be sensitized about the need for
periodical resource status assessment. This would provide timely and necessary
49
feedback to the decision-makers to take necessary action for improving the system and
practices.
(xiii) Coordination with IIFM
The Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM), Bhopal has been designated as the
Nodal Agency by the National Task Force for operationalising the concept of SFM in the
country. The state and UT’s SFM Cells would coordinate their efforts with IIFM for
operationalising C&I and SFM in the state. In this regards, the role of IIFM would be for
the following:
1. Coordinate with SFM Cells for implementation of SFM and suggest measures for
operationalisation.
2. Provide technical assistance for implementing C&I and SFM in the state and UT’s.
3.
Facilitate creation of institutional capacities and competent human resources
through need based and context specific capacity building measures.
4. Collaboration with the state forest departments in research activities related to C&I
and SFM.
5. Information dissemination on latest developments and innovations for successful
implementation of C&I in the states.
Thus a multi pronged strategy is envisaged for operationalising SFM in India. The C&I
approach of monitoring is provide scientifically sound basis for sustainable forest
management at the national level, state and FMU levels. It is in consonance with the
national policy imperatives. On the basis of pilot level application of this approach at
some FMUs, practically feasible strategy has been evolved involving communities.
50
4
Forest Certification: Concept and Evolution
4.1 CONCEPT OF ECOLABEL
The basic concept of ecolabel is derived from the word eco, which means natural
environment, and label, which means a sign on a product that differs from other
products. Ecolabel helps consumers in selecting environmentally-friendly products as
well as a tool for producers to inform the consumers of their environmentally-friendly
production. Accordingly, it shows that the main function of ecolabel is to help
consumers to make “a selection”, because it creates a comparison between similar
products.
Eco-labels belong to the “second generation” of environmental policy, which
supplemented and partially substituted the previously established environmental policy
instruments. These older approaches were developed in the 1970s when the regulation
of environmental media became dominant. Eco-labels, by contrast, aim directly at
changing the behavior of consumers (“sustainable consumption”) who are enabled to
assess the impacts of a product throughout its entire life-cycle. Environmental labeling
programs can provide consumers with an immediately available, objective, and accurate
evaluation of a product’s environmental impact. They also provide an incentive to
manufacturers to meet the Environmental standards (Sitarz, 1998).
The introduction and implementation of eco-labels, which are usually adopted on a
voluntary basis, comprise two stages: in an initial phase, product categories are selected
and certification criteria for these categories are determined. In a second phase,
companies apply for the certification of single products. Although these procedures vary
significantly between countries, all relevant stakeholders (industry, environmental and
consumer protection organizations, etc.) are allowed to participate in most labeling
schemes. In most countries the number of product categories as well as the number of
certified products has grown rapidly for last few years.
The first national ecolabel was introduced in Germany in 1978 called ‘blue angel’ and it
remained the only label until a similar scheme was developed in Canada ten years later.
In 1989, the Nordic Council of Ministers (Ministers for Consumer Affairs) decided to
create the first multinational ecolabel system which was known as the “Swan Label”.
Rapid diffusion of this policy innovation took place between 1989 and 1992. Eco-labels
were introduced in almost all OECD countries and even in some newly industrialized
and developing countries, such as Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, and India. Crucial to this
dynamic development was the introduction of a European eco-label in 1992 as
“European Flower”.
51
Regional cooperation and coordination represent the main phenomena behind rapid
diffusion of such phenomena. On the one hand, the introduction of the “Swan Label” in
the Nordic countries in 1989 was a very important first step towards coordination and
harmonization as several Nordic Countries had begun to introduce own eco-labels. On
the other hand, the rapid development is due to the introduction of the European
labeling scheme in 1992. The years in which the Nordic “Swan label” (1989) and the
“European Flower” (1992) were introduced can be considered as “critical years” for this
policy innovation because the diffusion process was accelerated significantly by the
introduction of these two labels at the beginning of the diffusion process. Both events
can be interpreted as a form of vertical diffusion in a multi- level-system (EU, Nordic
Council) which was fostered by the need to harmonize emerging national standards.
4.2 CONCEPT OF FOREST CERTIFICATION
The genesis of concept of certification can be attributed to the society’s concern for the
social and environmental significance of forests, furthered by increased environmental
awareness in 1960s and early 1970s (Granholm, 1996 and Hansen, 1997). It was in the
1980s that provided a threshold for development of forest certification, as a tool to
control deforestation and enhance its social and environmental importance owing to the
high social awareness towards loss of tropical forests. Further increasing awareness of
consumers towards environmental, forest certification promises a global solution for
consumers and environment.
Although the basic idea of forest certification is readily understandable, forest
certification is not yet a customary practice or a long-standing tradition. Rather, it is an
emerging practice. This means that its basic elements must be worked out and converted
into standard practices and procedures before forest certification can achieve wide social
recognition. Since efforts to institutionalize forest certification have been going on since
early 1990s, most of the basic process and practice questions have become apparent, as
have alternative ways of addressing them. The two important things in context to forest
certification which provide an overview of the general issues and practices that
characterize forest certification that first, as the above description of forest certification
implies, neither the general idea of certification nor the specific idea of forest
certification is new. Certification programmes have long existed in other economic
sectors, such as appliance manufacturing, quality control, and health care services. The
rise of certification programmes in the forestry sector is striking because nongovernmental actors are taking up functions traditionally claimed by the agencies and
ministries of nation states and the setting and implementation of forestry standards
intended to protect broad public interests in proper forest management. But despite the
traditional state predominance in the forestry sector in most countries, forest
certification programmes did not have to invent themselves out of thin air. Rather, they
were able to draw upon models and techniques that had been developed and
standardized by programmes performing similar functions in other sectors. Thus, forest
certification is inherently linked to developments in other sectors.
52
Second, despite the numerous similarities across certification sectors and programmes,
many differences in terminology exist and can cause confusion. Thus it is essential to
harmonize the terminology and reduce confusion by clarifying them.
Thus, the rules, procedures and activities of the Forest Stewardship Council constitute a
programme, as do those of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. Programmes are
sometimes called ‘schemes’ or ‘systems’ by different authors. The term ‘scheme,’ refer to
the abstract models, plans, and rules of programmes while, the term ‘system’ used in
two ways: (1) by itself to refer to the coordinated behaviors of multiple organizations in
implementing a certification programme and (2) in ‘environmental management system’
to refer to the coordinated behaviors of actors within a particular forest management
operations to develop and implement an environmental management plan for that
organization. The term ‘organization’ refers to a concrete group of people who are
formally organized in a set of roles and responsibilities to achieve a specific purpose. A
forestry enterprise is an organization, as is a certification body, as is the organization
charged with overseeing a certification programme. We use the term ‘forest
management organization’ (FMO) to include the broad range of organizations (forprofit, state-owned, community based, etc.) that manage forests and are potentially
eligible for certification. Further, the term ‘institution’ used frequently in certification
process refers to a standardized set of practices and relationships for performing a given
function. Different certification programmes may use similar institutions. Thus, an
institution is neither a particular organization nor a particular place, but rather a
standardized set of practices and roles.
4.3
DEFINITION OF FOREST CERTIFICATION
Forest certification is explained by a considerable number of structures. Bass (1999),
cited from Indufor (1997) and ISO/IEC Guide stated that forest certification management
was defined as a verification procedure affirmed and recognized to provide certificate
on forest management quality related to a set of criteria and indicators. It is also stated
that the assessment is conducted by an independent third party.
Basically, the verification process is conducted through an audit system directed by an
external and internal forest management team. Internal auditing is carried out to obtain
assurance that the forest management unit fulfills the minimum requirement, which is
assessed by an independent third-party external auditor.
Ghazali and Simula (1994) placed a definition on forest certification as a process which
results in a written statement which is a certificate attesting the origin of wood raw
material, and its status and/or qualifications following validation by an independent
third party. Forest certification is really a single-issue ecolabel or certification that
acknowledges certain environmental quality of a product at a certain stage of its
production life cycle or a particular part of the product.
Thus, Certification is the process of independent third party verification that forest management
has reached the level required by a given standard. In some cases, when combined with a
53
chain of custody certificate, certification allows products from a particular certified
forest area to carry an ecolabel.
Further, certification is a market-based tool that provides the capacity to the customers
to select the commodities based on their social and environmental concerns. This market
opportunity has been a driving force in promoting sustainable management practices in
both forestry and agriculture. The harvest of non timber forest products (NTFPs) has
recently come under increasing scrutiny from certification programmes because of the
key role that it plays in the local economy and sustainable management of community
agriculture and forest resources worldwide.
Forest certification hence, is understood as a means of protecting forests through
promoting responsible and better management practices. It provides a third party
assurance that the forestry operations meet standards set by the certifying authority.
Forests are hence, evaluated based on the defined set of standards and certified by an
independent, qualified auditor.
4.4
ORIGIN OF FOREST CERTIFICATION
Gradual modifications and shifts in the management systems of forests and forestry
resources was led by the escalating rates of deforestation complimented by recognition
of social, ecological and economic values associated with the forests viz, shifting to a
holistic forest management systems. The enhanced social awareness on the values
attributed to the forests forced global consensus and regional understandings on
developing a management paradigm of forest management that ensures its
sustainability. Various international and regional initiatives developed principles,
criteria and indicators to assess and monitor the progress towards sustainable forest
management. Further to ensure consumer transparency and creating the social and
environmental accountability in trading of forest products; forest certification evolved as
a global solution. The two factors that encouraged development and practice of
certification of forests are: global awareness and economic implications.
4.4.1 Global Awareness
During the late 1960s the issues of environmental problems and social pollution reached
the conscious concern of the developed countries. Social concerns linked with the
environmental equilibrium were prominent issues that forced to political commitments
and initiatives, in the society as reflected in various people’s antiwar and nuclear
protests. This is illustrated by the commemoration in the United States of the first Earth
Day in April 1970 (McCormick, 1989; Gottlieb, 1993; Shabecoff, 1993 and Cuomo 1998).
The United Nation’s agencies also responded to this social demand through its
Biosphere Conference in Paris in 1968 attending to the needs for more and improved
researches on ecosystem, human ecology, pollution genetic and natural resources and
further catering to inventory assessment for monitoring of resources.
Following to arrest the social unrest in this era, United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment was held in Stockholm in 1972 wherein the sustainable
54
development paradigm was introduced (which was later published as Bruntland’s
Report). Next in the array of developments, resultant of people’s pressure, the United
Nations created the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) aiming at creating
legal and policy frameworks to bring environmental issues in the forefront in the
international forum as well support developing nations. In 1983, FAO’s World Forest
Appraisal Programme (WFAP) compiled the inventory of forestry resources
incorporating the human impact on forests. This report initiated a global debate on the
rate of forest loss and interventions and systems for implementing sustainable forest
management.
The pressure prompted by global awareness on environmental concerns and social
equalities finally led to United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED) in 1992 in Rio. Also called as Earth Summit, it created a global consensus on
Sustainable Management of Forests (SFM). Furthering, to assess and monitor the
progress and forestry operations towards SFM, various international and regional
processes developed principles, criteria and indicators that would also serve as credible
and globally accepted evaluation tool. Thus, marking the genesis of the concept of forest
certification that would satisfy and assure the society of sustainable practices and
environmental stability.
4.4.2
Economic Implication
The public awareness resulting in various initiatives to cater to environmental issues
and social inequalities also got reflected in the economic forums. The discipline of
environmental economics or ecological economics started growing exponentially and
became the backbone of sustainable development model (Daly, 1980; Constanzo, 1991;
Constanta et al., 1991; Hardin, 1991; John, 1996 and Adomouic et al., 1996).
Developments in the economic forum graduated and started to be ruled by valued
systems. Hence, the social and ecological factors had to be duly assimilated to make the
economy sustainable. The UNDP developed a solution to this by introducing the
concept of environmental accounting that viewed environment as a resource as well as
receptacle of residues from the process of production and consumption in the economy.
Therefore, forest certification is a promising process to operationalise the model opined
by UNDP and also to appreciate the role of the economic sector towards sustainable
forestry.
4.5
EVOLUTION OF FOREST CERTIFICATION
Public concern for the environment has grown remarkably during the last few decades,
both in developed and developing countries and, as a result, environmental issues are
beginning to take more of a center stage in global economic and trade policies. The
emergence of “eco-labeling”; a process that attempts to provide an indicator of how well
a product is environmentally adapted, is a contemporary example of how consumer
interests have driven information processes aimed at differentiating the environmental
appropriateness of goods and services. Eco-label provides information on environmental
55
characteristics of a product, giving consumers the opportunity to use their purchasing
power to promote environmentally friendly products. Labeling wood products with a
mark of quality can be traced back in Europe to a French royal decree of 1637, which
stipulated that members of the guild of cabinet makers had to mark the furniture they
made (Pradere, 1989). Relying on this market driven mechanism, the world's first ecoLabeling programme “German Blue Eco Angel” was created in 1978 (Rametsteiner,
2000). Other forms of Labeling wood emerged in 1990s under forest certification as
market based response to address public concerns related to deforestation, mainly in the
tropics. Over the years, two main policy approaches have been adopted, i.e. top down
and bottom up - to protect forest resources. In the top down approach fundamentals of
policies are formulated at higher levels of government, and implemented under the
authority of the government. The success of these command and control methods
heavily depends on strength of the governing body. The bottom-up approach on the
other hand relies more on a participatory approach where the public agrees on the need
for and forms of the policy and implements it by tradition, cooperative agreement or
local rule. However, in modern complex societies, common interests binding the
members of smaller communities are lacking, which hinders the success of this
approach. Past experiences of ineffectiveness and failures of both these approaches have
led to the third approach called “certification”; one that introduces policy changes
through commercial rather than central or local power and uses market acceptance
rather than regulatory compliance as an enforcement mechanism (Naka et al., 2000).
Forest certification is a process which results in a written certification being issued by an
independent third party, attesting to the location and management status of a forest
which is producing timber (Baharuddin and Simula, 1994). It involves assessing the
quality of forest management in relation to a set of predetermined principals and
criteria. Forest certification also gives consumers a credible guarantee that the product
comes from environmentally responsible, socially beneficial and economically viable
sustainably managed forest. In other words, forest certification promotes economical,
environmental and social benefits.
Forest certification found its roots in the concern over rapid tropical deforestation in
1980s and 1990s (Merry and Carter, 1996 and Kiekens, 2003). The majority of terrestrial
biodiversity is found in forests, and half of it is considered to be located in tropical
forests (Alfonso et al., 2001). As the human population increased, the pressure on the
earth’s tropical forests has also increased. Approximately 17 mha of tropical forests were
cleared in 1990, at a rate of more than an acre per second (FAO, 1990). The strain on the
forest resource comes on two main fronts, commercial use of wood and deforestation
due to land use changes. According to FAO (1999), expansion of agriculture, expansion
of ranching, weakness of tenure systems, uncontrolled fires, development of mining
sector, construction of dams and irrigation schemes and logging have been identified as
the primary causes of tropical deforestation. Poor forest management practices also
create many threats to biodiversity and environment, and the impacts are diverse and
widespread. In this background, stepping up efforts in maintaining biodiversity and
56
environmental quality through improved forest management had emerged as an
important part of an overall strategy (Rametsteiner and Simula, 2003). With the intention
of finding a solution to this growing issue, in 1988, several environmental groups urged
the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) to implement a Labeling
programme to identify sustainably produced tropical timber. The proposal was
forwarded in a background where a little progress has been made to implement the
Tropical Forest Action Plan.
In 1992, a global effort to wrestle with environmental and sustainable development
issues resulted in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(UNED), also known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro. Although no legally
binding commitments were made, the Agenda 21 Forestry Principles set out an action
plan to delve into sustainable forestry issues. While these formal processes of
developing criteria for sustainable forest management were in progress, forest
certification started to take shape through a non-governmental organization (NGO)
channel. This innovative idea was developed during the parallel NGO Rio meetings. The
concept was to develop a system for certifying and labeling forests and forest products.
As a result, a voluntary non-profit organization called the Forest Stewardship Council
(FSC) was launched in 1993 with the coalition of Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF)
and other leading environmental organizations. Since then, several forest certification
organizations have come to the picture and at present, there’s a growing competition
among these certification programmes to become the global leader in forest certification.
The scope of forest certification was originally focused on tropical forests, but has now
broadened to include temperate and boreal forests.
The UNCED Earth Summit in Rio, gathered global attention and further concern
towards hardships on the forest around the world and encouraged actions towards
conservation, management and sustainability of forest resources. However, prior to Rio
Summit in 1992, ITTO (International Tropical Timber Organization) had developed
‘Guidelines for Sustainable Management of Natural Tropical Forests’ in 1990; which got
further impetus and the efforts were recognized after the Earth Summit. At UNCED,
global participants adopted the first global policy on Sustainable Forest Management
(SFM) known as ‘Forest Principles’, that states: ‘forest resources and lands should be
managed sustainably to meet the social, economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual
functions and for the maintenance and enhancement of biological diversity.’ SFM can be
broadly defined as ‘…..a management approach to obtain the full range of forest values
ensuring that the ecological, economic and social values of the present and future
generations can be met from the forest on a continuous basis’.
This global initiative towards sustainability of forest resources metamorphosed into
global practicality led by market force and consumer preferences, by the inception of
processes of ‘Certification’. With its consequential significance on international trade, it
has become an imperative. The objectives of Certification are to ensure the sustainable
management of forest resources with strict global trade implications.
57
As on date, there are a handful of international forest certification schemes and many
regional and national certification schemes setting up standards for measuring better
practices towards sustainable management of forests.
4.6 RELEVANCE OF FOREST CERTIFICATION
Viewing at the rate of deforestation and hitherto public awareness resulting in enforced
social concerns, certification provides a solution towards a responsible trade of forest
products and better management of forests, leading to sustainability of forest resources.
Some aims of the certification can be summarized as under:
 Create a system that assures the public that environmental concerns and values have
been addressed,
 Manage resources holistically so that healthy environments are maintained,
 Control resource management techniques,
 Control resources economically,
 Alleviate poverty,
 Diminish the amount of regulation that is being imposed on a forestland owner,
 Balance the need to extract resources from the environment while maintaining
sustainable ecosystems, and
 Control the values of private forestland owners, or for private forestland owners to
maintain their values in the face of society’s drive to impose its values on them.
4.7
BENEFITS OF FOREST CERTIFICATION
For the forest products industry, certification has a number of benefits, including
company prestige, improved definitions of sustainable forest management (SFM),
greater engagement of stakeholders, improved planning and management practices that
include conservation measures (e.g., for biodiversity conservation, protection of riparian
zones, water catchments and wildlife, adoption of Reduced Impact Logging and the
development of monitoring capacity), and greater access to international markets. For
forest communities, some certification schemes provide benefits to them also. These
benefits can be grouped under three broad categories:
4.6.1 Environmental

Maintenance, Conservation and Enhancement of Bio-diversity

Maintenance and Enhancement of Ecosystem Function and Vitality.

Maintenance and conservation of soil and water resources.
4.6.2 Social

Maintenance and concern of social, cultural, traditional and spiritual values of the
communities related to the forests.
58

Using traditional ecological knowledge in decision making processes
4.6.3 Economic

Maintenance and Enhancement of Forest Resource Productivity

Increased returns compared to uncertified timber to the communities (with
associated price premium)

Wider and larger market accessibility (wider consumer preference for certified
products)
According to the Seminar on ‘Certification and Forest Product Labeling: A Review’,
Eighteenth Session, Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, FAO, the advantages of
certification are as follows:

Increased market share or at least protection from the loss of the existing market
share (mainly against other wood products but also against non-wood products);

A market premium from selling a "green" product;

Greater insurance of the markets against market restrictions;

Long-term supply security because of the sustainability of the supplying forests;

Independent evaluation of forest management practices;

Basis of comparing different management practices, and setting common standards;

Improved commitment to forest resource management;

Improved image with a range of interest groups;

Basis for improved control or policing of resource holders;

Protection from action by environmental groups.
4.8
FOREST CERTIFICATION AND SUSTAINABLE FOREST
MANAGEMENT
International consensus on better management of forests and forest resources for their
sustainability and enhancement of related social and ecological benefits gave the concept
and hence global commitment towards SFM. Following, to address to the economics and
market forces, certification of forests evolved as a promising tool. Certification of forests
or Forest Certification gives the consumers the right to question the social and
environmental accountability of the management practices in the forests hence
contributing towards the cause of certification.
Approaches towards SFM encourage applying and implementing best practices as well
as provide trading incentives. Certification is a methodology providing incentives for
trading of forest products, and hence encouraging good practices of forest management.
•
SFM for Certification: The standards pre-defined, for performance and hence
management practices of forests, provides a measuring tool for good practices.
59
•
4.9
Trade incentives: The certified forest products receive a premium in the market
hence providing incentives for management of forests.
NEED FOR FOREST CERTIFICATION
In the United States and Europe, corporations and NGOs drive the demand for certified
forest products. Through the Certified Forest Products Council (CFPC), a membership
organization created to encourage the purchase of certified products, companies such as
Home Depot, Georgia-Pacific, and B&Q (a U.K. firm) have committed to work toward
dealing in certified wood products (Fletcher et al. 2002).
According to the FAO Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission (2000) and Eba’a Atyi and
Simula (2002), most corporations that encourage forest certification probably are most
interested in the potential marketing benefits and in managing risks that might affect the
corporate image. An important question is not only whether major retailers benefit but
also whether they pass along these benefits to certified producers in the form of higher
prices.
4.9.1 Corporate Commitment to Purchasing Certified Forest Products
The largest retailers of forest products in the United States and Europe have been key
drivers in the global demand for products from sustainable managed forests. Major
multinational enterprises have incorporated a preference for certified wood products
into their own corporate social responsibility policies.
Home Depot, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, is one of the world’s largest home
improvement retailers. Home Depot procures 94% of its wood from North America and
less than 0.15% from the Amazon basin. In its wood purchasing policy issued in 1999,
the company pledged to give preference to wood from responsibly managed forests and
to eliminate wood purchases from endangered regions by the end of 2002 (Home Depot,
1999). The company recognizes the FSC certificate, and claims to sell more FSC-certified
wood products than any other retailer; it also has partnered with suppliers to promote
certified sourcing of wood products (Home Depot, 2001). Home Depot also has pledged
not to purchase uncertified wood products sourced from the 10 most vulnerable forest
eco-regions in the world, as identified by WWF.
Lowe’s, based in Wilkesboro, North Carolina, is one of the largest retailers of forest
products in the United States. Its wood-purchasing policy states that the company’s
long-term goal is to ensure that all wood products sold in Lowe’s stores originate from
well-managed forests that are not endangered. The company has promised to
aggressively phase out the purchase of wood products from endangered forests. Lowe’s
gives preference to the procurement of wood products from independently certified,
well-managed forests; it supports the use of the FSC certification standard and favors it
over other certification schemes.
International Paper, a major forest products firm with headquarters in Stamford,
Connecticut, reports that all of its forestlands in the United States are certified to SFI and
ISO 14001 standards. The operations of Weldwood, International Paper’s Canadian
60
subsidiary in Vancouver, British Columbia, have been certified under CAN/CSA Z809,
and all of its mills and woodlands operations are certified to the ISO 14001 standard.
International Paper’s subsidiary operations in Russia and many other countries are in
the process of being certified to the ISO 14001 standard (International Paper n.d.).
Georgia-Pacific is a multinational forest products company based in Atlanta, Georgia,
with facilities in Canada and 11 other countries. The company’s corporate social
responsibility policy includes a commitment to support sustainable and responsible
forest practices (Georgia-Pacific n.d.). As part of the company’s participation in the SFI
programme, the Georgia-Pacific wood and fiber procurement system has undergone a
third-party audit conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
B&Q, based in Eastleigh, Hampshire, England, is considered the largest do-it-yourself
retailer in Europe and the third largest in the world. Along with Home Depot and
Greenpeace, B&Q collaborated with WWF in creating FSC, and approximately 80% of
B&Q’s wood products are FSC-certified. The company recognizes other certification
schemes, including the U.K. Woodland Assurance Scheme and the Indonesian Lembaga
Ekolabel Institute. B&Q is working with the Malaysian government on the Malaysian
Timber Certification Council (B&Q 2003).
As part of its Global Corporate Investment Policy, the Bank of America, headquartered
in Charlotte, North Carolina, promotes sustainable practices by managing the effects of
financing activities on the environment, society, and the company’s reputation. The
policy includes the use of due diligence measures to ensure that lending proceeds are
not used to finance commercial operations that cut or clear primary (mature) forests or
forests of high conservation value, except under certain conditions.
4.9.2 Price Impacts of forest certification
Consumer willingness to pay a price premium for certified forest products is a function
of many factors that must all align to translate into higher prices. These factors include
the level of environmental awareness among consumers, the perceived importance of
certification, the nature of the product and price, the quality and availability of
information about the certification label on the product, and the credibility of the issuing
organization. Although there is evidence of consumer willingness to pay more for
products from environmentally sound sources, little empirical support is found that
certified suppliers of forest products reap higher prices.
Ozanne and Vlosky (1997) report that people who are members of an environmental
organization are more likely to seek out and buy certified wood products at a price
premium. Anderson and Hansen (2004) found that willingness to pay a premium was
highest among those who consider environmental certification an important attribute
when purchasing wood products. Still, the price premium that informed consumers are
willing to pay for certified products is related to the importance that they attach to the
certificate as verification of sustainable management. And for many consumers,
becoming informed can be difficult. Benefits of forest certification are often not fully
61
understood and are more difficult to market to consumers in as simple and charismatic a
message as, say, “dolphin-friendly tuna.”
The diversity of labels, which reflect the multitude of forest products certification
schemes, can be confusing to consumers and thus weaken the labels’ credibility. On the
basis of a study with focus groups in three different U.S. locations, Teisl et al. (2002)
suggest that consumers are unsure whether to trust the information on an ecolabel. Most
consumers are uninformed about the criteria used for certification and question the
independence and unbiased nature of the verification process. Teisl et al. also report
mixed reactions about the endorsement of labels by government organizations. Different
label formats make it difficult to compare product attributes.
Mario F. Teisl found that consumer demand and willingness to pay for certified forest
products are contingent on the information displayed on the ecolabel carried by certified
wood products (Anderson and Hansen, 2004b). Teisl concluded that the slow
development of a market for certified products might be caused in part by the current
state of ecoLabeling. This conclusion is based on findings that consumers are least
satisfied with simple labels like the FSC logo; rather, consumers prefer labels that offer
detailed information about the specific environmental benefits associated with the
product and contact information for the certifying party. According to Teisl et al. (2002),
many consumers believe that the inclusion of a toll-free number and website on an
ecolabel increases transparency and credibility. These results are still preliminary, and
consumers’ attitudes toward eco-labels and their issuing organizations merit further
analysis. Furthermore, these studies only involved American consumers; similar studies
should be conducted in other markets. According to Anderson and Hansen (2004a,
2004b), Teisl et al. (2002), and Ozanne and Vlosky (1997, 2003), the nature and cost of the
product itself may influence consumer willingness to pay a price premium. Consumers
are less likely to want to pay a higher percentage premium for large and expensive
purchases than for less expensive products. For example, Ozanne and Vlosky (1997)
report that consumers are willing to pay a maximum 50% price premium for certified
forest products ranging from $100 to $5,000 (e.g., a ready-to assemble chair or a kitchen
remodeling job), whereas they are willing to pay only a 10% premium on goods priced
at $100,000 (e.g., a new home built with certified wood). In contrast, Teisl et al. (2002)
stress that consumer tend to be more concerned about forest sustainability for products
that are used often and in large quantities, such as paper, and thus are willing to pay a
higher premium.
These studies suggest that the public and certified producers would benefit from better
education about forest products certification and labeling to address credibility
problems. In practice, the European paper industry has launched Paper Profile, an
initiative to improve business-to-business communication and, hence, industry
credibility. This voluntary declaration includes information about the origin of wood
and the environmental management systems applied. It also covers several
environmental aspects of pulping and papermaking processes, including raw material,
62
emissions, and electricity consumption. This example also reflects the stronger focus on
large businesses, rather than marketing to environmentally conscious consumers.
Still, Sedjo and Swallow (2002) show that a willingness to pay a premium by a portion of
consumers does not ensure that a premium will be forthcoming in the market. Recent
experience seems to bear this out. Collectively, corporate actions that support forest
certification have spurred demand (at least in developed countries) but have not
necessarily created more favorable prices for suppliers. The demand for certified
products on the part of large corporations may arise primarily from interest group
pressure, fear of blacklisting, and desire to protect the value of the corporate image as
opposed to intent to market premium products. Furthermore, as major clients, they are
likely to be able to use their monopoly power to shift more of the compliance cost
burden to suppliers. Product manufacturers, for their part, are not willing to pay a price
premium for certified raw material or for costs associated with chain-of-custody
procedures unless these additional costs can be passed on to consumers (Vlosky and
Ozanne, 1998). Markets studies shows that certified forest products in developed
countries are relatively limited, and the prospects for reaping a price premium can be
poor (Ozanne and Vlosky, 1997; Rickenbach, 2002, Teisl et al., 2002; Anderson and
Hansen 2004a, 2004b). Consequently, with even less indigenous demand and a larger
focus on raw materials, we can only suspect that such prospects are even poorer in
developing countries.
4.10 WHY BECOME CERTIFIED?
The most important reasons why a forest organization might decide to get
certified, each of which is discussed under meeting customer demands, demonstrating
authenticity of claim, and government requirement.
4.10.1 Meeting Customer Demands
There is already significant demand from consumers for wood and paper products from
sustainably managed sources. Independent certification provides credible means of
distinguishing forest products so that both consumers and retailers can be assessed that
the products are generally the result of sustainable forest management.
Several buyers groups have formed in recent years, the members of which are
committed to buying wood and paper products from forests, which have been
independently certified. There is currently a significant demand for certified timber
products and a corresponding fall in demand for non certified products, especially
within the European market place, which is unsatisfied.
Numerous consumer surveys have indicated that a high proportion of consumers are
concerned about environmental problems and are willing to adjust their shopping habits
according to their principles. Some may be prepared to a higher price for
environmentally friendly goods. For example, a survey in Germany suggested that
63
around 60 per cent of consumers were interested in buying environmentally friendly
products, if it was relatively easy for them to do so, whilst 25 per cent of this group
would make a special effort to do so.
For the manager, the main market benefits of certification are enhanced reputation,
maintained and increased market share and better relationship with retailers. In some
cases there may also be price benefits. This is likely to be highly market specific.
4.10.2 Demonstrating Authenticity of Claims
Aware of growing consumer concern about forest destruction, many companies
producing wood or paper products for the European and North American market began
to label their products with reasoning information about the quality of management of
the forest from which the timber used in the product originated.
However, many of these claims are meaningless or even totally untrue. The World Wide
Fund for Nature UK (WWF-UK) investigated such claims (such fake claims includes,
this greeting card has been made from the softwood of sustainable forests, for every tree
cut down at least one or more tree planted, card produced from managed forest, the
materials used in the manufacture of this card and envelopes are supplied solely from
sustainable forests, these cards are printed on cards made from specially farmed and
replanted timber, without destroying any natural resources, etc.) and produced a report
(1994), Truth or Trickery? Timber labeling past and Future, describing the mislabeling
claims of the forest products. In the UK, some misleading claims have been referred to
the Advertising Standards Authority and companies forced to stop making claims,
which they could not substantiate.
Retailers wants and need to reassure their customers that their product are not
contributing to forest destruction, but these claims needs to be accurate and
substantiated. Certification enables claims to be made that are accurate, credible and
easily verifiable.
4.10.3 Government Requirement
Initially many governments saw independent certification of forest management as an
infringement of national sovereignty and were unsupportive of the process. However,
governments in some cases are now looking at the potential of independent certification
for controlling forestry companies. This could be appropriate in private leases, for which
monitoring and enforcement costs are high.
Making certification a prerequisite of a lease or concession reduces inspection and
monitoring costs for the government. Independent certification has been used
successfully in other industries, which are also potentially damaging to the
environment.
64
4.11 EMERGING ISSUES AND TRENDS IN CERTIFICATION
Forest certification has gained wide acceptance ever since its introduction in early 1990s.
The concept gained the strong support of many environmental non governmental
organizations (NGOs) particularly WWF International, and by 2006 the total forest area
certified under any certification scheme reached 271 million hectares. Despite its
promising role as a market based mechanism in supporting sustainable forest
management, many issues still remain to be addressed if certification is to gain a real
momentum in the future. Some of the issues and emerging trends in global forest
certification are discussed in the following paragraphs.
4.11.1 Slow progress of certification in developing countries
Forest certification was initially introduced to reduce the tropical deforestation.
However, vast majority of certifications at present have occurred in Europe and North
America while developing countries where most tropical forests lie contributed a mere
13.10 per cent (Fig. 4.1) to the total certified forests in 2006. The overall direct impact of
certification in timber-producing tropical countries has been very little.
Tr
op
ic
al
N
on
-T
Region
D
D
ev
ev
el
el
ro
op
o
pi
p
in
ca
ed
g
l
Several underling factors have contributed to this situation. Atyi and Simula (2002)
identify inflexibility of certification standards, failure to recognize the broader local
land-use issues, conflicts and incompatibility between legal settings and certification
standards as the key factors for lack of interest shown by developing countries to
certification. Developing countries are in a different position compared to developed
countries with regard
Value (area in mha and share in %)
to their certification
13.10
needs and possibilities
35.20
and in the resources
they have for making
86.90
235.60
use of certification.
Tropical
timber
95.30
producers are more
258.20
concerned
about
4.70
economic aspects of
12.80
certification such as
the expected increase
in production costs
Tropical
Non-Tropical
Developed
Developing
and uncertainties over
4.70
95.30
86.90
13.10
Share (%)
market benefits as
12.80
258.20
235.60
35.20
Total (mha)
well as difficulties
Fig. 4.1 Certified forests by region in 2006 (Source: Durst et
they face in achieving
al., 206)
certification status. For
them, certification is more a market requirement imposed by importers which is difficult
to comply, and a trade barrier rather than an aid for promoting their exports.
65
Latest trends in global forest area shows that rates of forest degradation in developing
countries (especially in Africa and South America) still remain high in comparison to
developed regions (Fig. 4.2) although the rates have been slowed down somewhat
during last few years (FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment, 2005). This underlines
the importance of encouraging and support certification in developing countries in the
future (Fischer et al., 2005).
Fig. 4.2 Trends in forest area by region, 1990–2005 (Source: FAO)
4.11.2 Markets for certified products
Markets for certified products are strongest in Western Europe and USA, and it
continues to grow. For instance, Price Waterhouse Coopers predicts an increase in US
certified forest products market by 100 to 150% per year (Dixon, 1999). These markets
are led by “buyer groups” of forest product retailers and traders, especially retail home
improvement chains. Lowe’s and Home Depot in USA, and UK’s B&Q, Homebase,
Sainsbury and Meyers (members of“1995+ Group”) are some of the most significant
members of such buyers groups. However, in comparison to American and European
markets, certification has not gained any meaningful market share in principal Asian
markets such as Japan, Korea and China. These countries are among the leading tropical
timber importers (ITTO, 2004).
Although certification relies on a market-driven mechanism, with environmentally
concerned consumers sending price signals through the supply chain to the forest
industries and forest managers, it is unlikely that this consumer signal will occur in the
absence of a real commitment by retailers and traders (Kanowski et al., 1999). Therefore,
66
the role of retailers and traders is likely to play a key role in future development of
markets for certified products.
4.11.3 Cost of forest certification
There is an additional cost associated with forest certification to include; changes to
forest management, separate inventories of certified and non-certified products, which
increases the material handling cost, the costs of tracking the certified product through
the system to the customer, and the costs associated with becoming and remaining
certified. This has sometimes proven to be prohibitively high especially for industries in
developing countries and small holders. Certain studies (Gan, 2005) show that
certification can increase the production costs by 5-25 per cent and as a consequence
negatively affect on world’s forestry output, creating a hike in global forest products
prices. According to Gan (2005) the regions that would suffer most from global
certification would not be major timber producing regions, but major net importers of
forest products like East Asia (including China and India). Therefore cost of certification
is among the most important issues to be addressed.
4.11.4 Issue of private non-industrial forests
The majority of certified forests at present are industrial forests and plantations.
According to FAO (2005), North and Central America, Europe (other than the Russian
Federation), South America and Australia have a significant proportion of privately
owned forests. However, certifying the forests owned by smallholders is an issue which
has been given less attention by most of the leading forest certification schemes over the
years and as a result, these groups are generally underrepresented in certification
schemes. The main concern of private smallholders is that the needs and circumstances
of smaller growers as well as regional variations in sustainable forest management are
not easily accommodated in the dominant certification schemes (Kanowski et al., 1999).
Some certification programmes recently have targeted certifying forests owned by
smallholders and taken measures to assist small landowners in meeting challenges
through introducing programmes such as group certification in order to bring down the
cost of certification.
4.11.5 Certification Schemes and Credibility
Since the introduction of the concept of certification, several certification schemes have
been formed and are now in operation. Many have been initiated by forest industries,
forest owner groups and governments who are concerned about conceding too much
control of their forests to environmental NGOs through participation in global
certification schemes such as FSC. The proliferation of certification schemes has several
potential disadvantages. For an eco Labeling programme to be successful, it should hold
a dominant position in consumers’ minds. With increased number of eco-labels in the
market claiming to support sustainable forestry, chances are high that this will lead to
confusion in the market. Furthermore; standards differ greatly between various
certification schemes and this has raised questions over the credibility of many schemes.
67
On the other hand, if a certain industry doesn’t qualify for a certification scheme which
sets higher standards, it can always go for a scheme which is less strict in its criteria and
standards. Since it is not clear which certification schemes would become globally
accepted in the future, industrial forest owners and wood base manufacturers also
facing a dilemma when it comes to selecting a certification scheme for their industries.
Mutual recognition between certification schemes is one way of avoiding these
confusions and setbacks.
4.12 THE WTO AND LABELING (FOREST CERTIFICATION)
There is no official ‘WTO position’ on certification or Labeling, but it is clear that in
general the WTO prefers voluntary labeling requirements above mandatory one. Any
certification scheme that affects trade is by definition a Non-Tariff Measure (NTM) in
WTO terms. However, the question remains whether it is a non-tariff barrier, and if so,
whether it is permitted under WTO provisions. If a certification scheme were to be
challenged in the WTO, it would be against a member government and might allege
failure to meet obligations under the following WTO Agreements:
•
Government Procurement
•
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)
•
Subsidies and Countervailing measures
•
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures.
The only areas under discussion among WTO members in relation to Labeling and
certification in the lead up to the Cancun Ministerial are the TBT Agreement and the SPS
Agreement. For forest certification, the TBT Agreement is the relevant WTO Agreement
(FERN, 2003). Thus, it is because of the lack of clarity regarding Labeling and
certification within the current trade regime, and because of the push by the EU to
promote environmental issues at the WTO, the last WTO Ministerial in Doha put
labeling firmly on the agenda of the 5th Ministerial in Cancun. Paragraph 32 of the Doha
Declaration reads:
“ We instruct the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE), in pursuing work on all items
on its agenda within its current terms of reference, to give particular attention to:…..
(iii) Labeling requirements for environmental purposes.
Work on these issues should include the identification of any need to clarify relevant WTO rules.
The Committee shall report to the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference, and make
recommendations, where appropriate, with respect to future action, including the desirability of
negotiations.”
4.12.1 Labeling and the WTO: the current situation
The discussion between trade rules and product labels has been a contentious issue since
the creation of the WTO in 1994. WTO rules do not prevent countries from imposing
different requirements, including Labeling, on products that have different
68
characteristics. But where the requirements relate to aspects that have no bearing on the
commercial or indeed practical substitutability of the product relating instead to the way
in which the product is produced discrimination may contravene WTO rules. Most of
the discussion within the WTO therefore has focused on Labeling of ‘process of
production method (PPM)’, and much of the controversy has focused on the status of
voluntary eco-Labeling programmes.
Both forest certification and forest-product eco-labeling clearly are voluntary PPM-based
Labeling schemes. As mentioned above, WTO members have until now failed to agree
on the extent to which PPM-based Labeling schemes are covered under the TBT
Agreement, let alone whether they are permissible. It is, however, increasingly argued,
notably in a paper prepared by the OECD that discrimination of products on process
and production measures (PPM) is now allowed under WTO. This follows a WTO ruling
(Appellate Body) in the ‘shrimp turtle case’, which removed the restriction on using
PPMs for the development of environmental regulations. The condition given was that
the process and production measures should be implemented in a manner that conforms
to WTO rules. Therefore the argument runs that if there is no WTO-related restriction on
PPM-based environmental regulations, and then there should be no difficulty with ecolabels and certification schemes using a similar approach. However, this argument has
not been put to the test (FERN, 2003).
Within the WTO it is the TBT Committee that would have to give any interpretation of
(voluntary) environmental Labeling programmes and their legitimacy under WTO rules.
The TBT Agreement applies in principle to both mandatory and voluntary productLabeling standards, including in principle Labeling standards developed by non-state
actors. Although the TBT Agreement itself does not specifically apply to non-state
actors, Article 4 states that “members [i.e. governments] shall take such reasonable measures
as may be available to them to ensure that local governments and non-governmental
standardizing bodies within their territories…. accept and comply with this [i.e. the TBT] Code
of Good Practice”. Furthermore, the Title of Article 3 of the TBT reads ‘Preparation,
Adoption and Application of Technical Regulations by Local Government Bodies and
Non Governmental Bodies’. This assumes that when dealing with Technical
Regulations, which are by definition mandatory, non-state actors would have to apply to
TBT rules. It should be noted that the TBT Code of Good Practice for the preparation,
adoption and application of standards is open to any standardizing body; hence, also for
non-governmental bodies.
4.12.2 The Committee on Trade and Environment and Labeling
The Doha Declaration gave the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) an
extra ‘push’ to discuss Labeling. However, it should be noted that the CTE is a ‘talk
shop’ rather than a body that comes up with recommendations or agreements. As one
representative put it “the CTE has never reached conclusions on anything, not even on the fact
that it did not want to talk about certain things anymore”. Any significant changes or
69
clarifications regarding the status of labeling programmes will therefore come from the
TBT Committee.
CTE report for Cancun
Nonetheless, the CTE has produced a ‘status quo’ report for the Cancun meeting. This
report states: “voluntary, participatory, market-based and transparent environmental Labeling
schemes are potentially efficient, economic instruments in order to inform consumers about
environmentally friendly products”. As a sign that developing countries have increased
their influence over the debate, the report also stresses the need ‘to better involve
developing countries in the setting of environmental standards and regulations’. Developing
countries stated that the recognition of the equivalency of their own certification systems
was an area of particular concern. The CTE report shows the main areas of disagreement
between WTO members are:
What is the basis for environmental Labeling schemes? Familiar differences of view
remained on the root cause of controversy surrounding the Labeling debate: the WTO
compatibility of measures based on non-product-related processes and production
methods (PPMs). The EU was of the view that consumer information per se was a
legitimate objective, but other governments disagreed.
Is more guidance needed or are existing rules sufficient? Some members (the EU,
Norway and Switzerland) considered that there was a need to reach some form of
common understanding, interpretation or guidance with respect to environmental
Labeling and several proposals were put on the table, while most members (including
the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and many Southern countries) were of the view that
existing WTO disciplines (SPS and TBT Agreement) were adequate to deal with the
issue of environmental Labeling.
Where is Labeling being discussed: CTE or TBT? Some members (the EU, Switzerland,
and Japan) argued that considering the mandate given to the CTE by the Doha
Declaration the CTE needed to intensify its work on environmental Labeling, but most
members (US, Canada, Indonesia, and Malaysia) felt the TBT was better suited since it is
already discussing Labeling, including environmental Labeling. It was pointed out that
work could be done in parallel with the CTE giving priority to certain issues such as the
impacts of environmental Labeling schemes on the trade of developing countries.
4.12.3 Barriers to Trade Committee, its Code of Good Practice and Labeling
The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade tries to ensure that regulations,
standards, testing and certification procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles to
trade. The agreement recognizes a country’s right to adopt the standards it considers
appropriate for example to protect human, animal or plant life or health, for the
protection of the environment, or to meet other consumer interests.
In order to prevent much diversity, the agreement encourages countries to use
international standards where these are appropriate, but it does not require them to
change their levels of protection as a result. The agreement sets out a Code of Good
70
Practice for the preparation, adoption and application of standards by central
government bodies, which is applicable to WTO members and open to all non-state
standardizing bodies. The Code of Good Practice requirements include: avoiding
duplication, making every effort to achieve national consensus and (wherever
appropriate) requiring performance-based standards.
Discussions on Labeling have been held frequently within the TBT Committee.
Switzerland, Canada, the EU, Japan and the US have all submitted papers calling for
clarification of the implications of the TBT Agreement for product-Labeling standards
(FERN, 2003).
For Canada, the situation is clear; it believes that the TBT rules are clear and that the TBT
or SPS Agreements cover all Labeling requirements. Canada aims to come out with a
non-paper identifying the key elements of the debate in order to contribute to a
structured and productive discussion of labeling concerns. For Japan the situation is less
clear. It wants to deepen the discussion. Its submission states that there is a gap in WTO
requirements for those non-governmental bodies that have not accepted the TBT Code
of Good Practice, and therefore do not conform to Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, the
Agreement that deals with preparation, adoption and application of technical
regulations by government bodies. According to Japan, all bodies that develop
standards should accept the Code of Good Practice. Furthermore, Japan highlights the
TBT provision spelt out in the Code of Good Practice to specify standards on the basis of
performance characteristics, and asks for adoption of performance-based Labeling
requirements (FERN, 2003).
It is important to note that in its final report to the Cancun meeting the CTE Committee
also stressed the importance of the TBT Agreement’s Code of Good Practice. Moreover it
was recalled that the TBT Committee’s decision on the principles for the development of
standards provided useful guidance. These principles include: transparency,
inclusiveness or openness (that all stakeholders be involved in the development of the
standard), impartiality and consensus, effectiveness and relevance, coherence and
whenever possible responsiveness to the needs and interests of developing countries.
4.12.4 Forests and the WTO
Although forests are affected by numerous trade-related decisions, forests have rarely
been discussed in WTO circles. The Government of Japan in June 2002 took the lead in
getting forests on the WTO agenda by presenting a paper to the CTE “Issues on forestry
products trade and environment”. This paper argues that considering the large amount
of forests lost annually, it is necessary to examine ways to make a positive contribution
to the goal of sustainable forest management, even in the course of trade discussions.
However, these measures need to be WTO consistent and clearly contribute to forest
conservation. Log-export bans, if not accompanied by bans of processed products, do
not contribute to conservation, according to the Japanese paper. With regard to illegal
logging, Japan calls for examining a possible international approach from a trade
perspective. Because of the large quantity of illegally harvested timber, as well as the
71
ongoing discussions with regard to forest certification, the CTE is urged to deepen its
examination of the Labeling of forestry products (FERN, 2003).
During the CTE meeting in October 2002, the Japanese paper was discussed.
Switzerland strongly supported Japan’s position. It also stated it thought limiting export
restrictions to unprocessed logs, while not limiting the export of processed timber
seemed to be doubtful. It called for effective tools for combating illegal logging and
trade in illegal timber products, including Labeling based on transparent and nondiscriminatory processes and principles (FERN, 2003).
The US noted its concern over illegal logging and promoted the Congo Basin Initiative.
The US asked the exact purpose of the paper and queried whether the paper was
relevant to market access effects of trade liberalization or to the maintenance of tariff
and non-tariff barriers for the purposes of forestry management. Japan responded that
while the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) was the major organization with
expertise in this area, this did not exclude the WTO’s contribution from the field of
forestry. Japan continues to prepare further contributions with a view to deepening the
CTE discussions in this respect.
Unrelated to Labeling, but in a new interesting development, the government of Japan
opposes tariff reduction on forest products and argues that because natural and social
conditions surrounding forests vary in each member, tariffs on forest products should be
allowed to play a role of adjusting to these differences. This is strongly at odds with the
US position, which has always advocated the elimination of tariffs.
Inclusion of forest certification under WTO rules (TBT)while may be beneficial for the
forestry /environmental but will certainly impact negatively countries are increasingly
dependant on timber imports and more importantly fast growing economies like India
and China.
72
5
Elements of Forest Certification Programmes
ACCREDITATION
major elements we
subdivide
them
further.
STANDARD
Because the concept of forest certification is fairly commonsensical and because there is
a considerable fund of
experience
with
certification in other
sectors, the basic issues
and institutions of
certification
have
FOREST
emerged rapidly. The
CERTIFICATION
essential
elements
required for a credible
forest
certification
CERTIFICATION
schemes
includes
standard, accreditation
and certification which
have
tracing
and
Product Claims
labeling of product
claims (fig 5.1). To easy
Tracing
Labeling
to familiarize with
Fig. 5.1 Essential element of forest certification scheme
5.1 FOREST CERTIFICATION STANDARDS
Standards provide the basis for the quality of any certification scheme and all claims
which are made relate back to the standard. The ISO definition of a standard is:
‘a document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body, that provides, for
common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed
at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context’. (ISO/IEC Guide 2:1996,
Definition 3.2).
For a forest certification scheme, the standard defines the level of forest management
which must be achieved. A variety of terms are used to describe this, including
‘responsible forest stewardship’, ‘good practice’ and ‘sustainable forest management’.
73
ISO has developed a number of guidelines for standard setting, in particular Guide 59:
Code of Good Practice for Standardization. This provides a widely accepted basis for the
minimum requirements expected of a certification scheme.
Another important factor to consider in standard development and content are the
requirements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which formulates international
rules on trade and defines what constitutes a technical barrier to trade (TBT). Guide 59 is
currently being reviewed to try to ensure that it is compliant with WTO rules on TBTs.
In the interim, anyone developing a certification scheme needs to be aware of WTO
requirements (GTZ, 2000).
For these reasons, as shown in Figure 3.2, all forest standards have to be developed
using a combination of best available scientific and technical knowledge of forests and
the way they function and are affected by management decision-making to resolve how
to address any gaps
identified and to decide
how to balance the
Best available knowledge
Best available knowledge
different
demands
Required to:
Including :
made on forests.
 Fill in gaps in
 Scientific data
The way that these two
are balanced, and the
way in which the
decision-making
is
done are likely to have
a significant influence
on the final standard.
As a result, the process
adopted to develop the
standard
has
a
significant influence on
the final content.




Traditional knowledge
Practical experience
Legal requirements
International
agreements


knowledge
Resolve conflicting
requirements
Deal with variability of
forests
Standard
Fig. 5.2 Inputs into the development of forest management
standard
Since
the
ISO
guidelines for standards development were written based on experience with less
complex standards, they provide only limited guidance on how to deal with this
complex situation and, while providing an important basis, they are not sufficient to
provide complete guidance.
5.1.1 Content of standards
When we are dealing with the content of standards, there are a number of issues to
consider. These issues are given as under:
Types of standard: There are two types of standards, performance and system, each of
which has a different role.
74
Performance requirements: The requirements contained in the standard are crucial in
establishing what the certification scheme actually delivers.
Consultation: Requirements for consultation with external stakeholders are seen ever
more frequently in standards for forestry.
Wording: Standards are technical documents and need to be written in a particular way.
Applicability: Forests are enormously variable in type, location and size, so forest
standards need to be applicable to all the forest types to which the certification scheme is
intended to apply.
5.1.2 Types of standard
There are two types of standard which can be applied to forest management. These
standards are system standards and performance standards.
5.1.2.1 System standards
System standards (also known as process standards) specify the management systems
which must be in place within an organization to ensure that they are managing quality,
environment or even social performance consistently.
Thus, the standard is used to assess the organization itself rather than the outcomes or
results of management. System standards can be very powerful tools for helping
organizations to systematically understand and improve their performance. However,
they do not specify any minimum level of performance which must be achieved. Instead
they require forest organizations to set their own performance targets and then use the
management system to ensure that they reach them. They are easily adapted to forests of
all types and sizes since they specify generic systems and not specific performance
requirements. In addition, certification to a system standard provides recognition of the
commitment to improve while the improvements in performance are still being
achieved. However, the lack of defined performance requirements means that two forest
companies both certified to the same system standard could achieve very different
results in the forest. As a result, since system standards do not provide any ‘guarantee of
product quality’ it is not normal to associate a product label with this type of standard.
Relevant examples include ISO 9000 and ISO 14001.
5.1.2.2 Performance standards
Performance standards specify the level of performance or results which must be
achieved in a forest, but do not specify how this should be done. Therefore, they do not
require an organization to put in place any particular management system, but they do
clearly specify the minimum performance which must be achieved in a certified forest.
Since performance standards provide a ‘guarantee of quality’ it is normal to use them as
a basis for a product label.
A comparison of the two types of standard, summarized in table 5.1, shows that they
deliver totally different benefits are potentially complementary but cannot substitute for
each other. In practice, most standards applied to forestry are a combination of systems
75
and performance requirements. The exception is ISO 14001, a generic environmental
management system standard not specific to forestry, which is a true system standard.
Table 5.1 Comparison between system and performance standard
Particular
System
standard
Performance
standard
Guaranteed minimum level of performance in the
forest
No
Yes
Recognition of ongoing improvements in management
Yes
No
Management framework
Yes
No
Application to all forest types without being adapted
Yes
No
Product label
No
Yes
For example Canadian Standards Association (CSA) specifically developed standards
for SFM which is predominantly a system standard. But it includes some guidance on
performance areas where objectives and targets must be set; to the Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC) standard which is a predominantly of performance requirements. Thus
recognizes the importance of some systems elements and performance standards.
Requirements for Performance standard
The requirements which the standard contains are fundamental in determining what the
certification scheme delivers. For system standards there is considerable international
agreement on what these requirements should be, with ISO 14001 providing a working
model.
For performance standards it is less clear. At an international level, there have been a
number of processes which have made significant progress in identifying the range of
issues which must be considered in defining good forest management and which
therefore need to be addressed in a performance standard.
This process can be traced back to the discussion of ‘sustainable development’ in the
Brundtland report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987) but
has been greatly developed subsequently through UNCED and related processes
(Grayson, 1995), together with work by the International Tropical Timber Organization
(ITTO). Several analyses of these have been done (Nussbaum et al, 1995, Higman et al,
1999) and show that there is considerable agreement about what the relevant issues are.
However, although there is considerable overlap in international processes, there are
also some areas of difference and disagreement. In addition, the requirements are often
very general or designed for monitoring at a national level rather than for
implementation at the forest management unit, leaving scope for widely differing
interpretations.
76
As a result there is no single international set of detailed requirements for good forest
management with universal acceptance.
There are three approaches which can be used to overcome the lack of an internationally
agreed set of criteria for good forest management:
•
The first approach is to develop a definition of good forest management in the
form of a set of requirements. These need to be precise enough to serve as a basis
for assessing whether the requirements contained in a standard are adequate.
This is likely to be one of the most challenging aspects of developing an
assessment methodology and, like the development of standards themselves,
may benefit from being carried out by a representative group of stakeholders.
•
The second approach is to assess the process used to develop the standard. This
approach is based on the assumption that an adequate process will produce an
adequate standard. This method is most likely to be successful if a multi-stake
holder, consensus based standard setting process is being used since the
resulting definition of good forest management provided by the standard will
reflect the consensus views of all stakeholders justifying the absence of a
predefined definition by those assessing the scheme.
•
The third approach is to use a combination of the first two approaches defining
both the requirements for good forest management and the process for
developing standards. This third approach is particularly useful for working
internationally where, some type of process is needed for interpreting standards
at a national or local level.
This leads on to a second critical element of standards, which is the need to ensure that
they are implementable and auditable at the field level.
5.1.3 Issues Relevant to a Forest Management Standard
Since the publication of the Brundtland report (World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987) there has been wide acceptance of the importance of sustainable
development. While no absolute definition of ‘sustainable development ’exists, it is
accepted that it must deliver intergenerational equity (‘meeting the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’) expressed by
the Brundtland Report and the need to balance economic, environmental and social
needs as discussed at the 1992 Earth Summit and in the documents it produced.
As a result, international governmental and standards-type initiatives and debates about
‘sustainable forest management ’have drawn on these concepts, and added more forestspecific detail which provide a useful framework for the development of forest
management standards. Many of the relevant documents (e.g. Agenda 21, The Forest
Principles and the Pan-European and Montreal Processes) are not designed for use
directly as forest management standards at the management unit level but have been
developed to assist with national level planning and monitoring. However, they do
provide a very useful guide to the issues that should be considered in such standards.
77
Other documents such as the ITTO Criteria and Guidelines and the Forest Stewardship
Council Principles and Criteria are designed to apply directly to forests at the
management unit level.
An analysis of the various relevant initiatives and processes indicates a substantial
overlap between initiatives, as well as some differences. The main issues those are
included in one or more of the international debates or agreements on sustainable forest
management are given in table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Issues related to sustainable forest management
Technical and economic
Social
Environmental
Legal compliance
Health and safety
Control of illegal activities
Workers ’rights to
organize
Assessment of
environmental
Economic viability
and to at least minimum
wage
Management plan
Capacity building among forest
local
Protection of biodiversity
workers
including
Assessment of social
• genetic diversity
impacts
• species diversity
Benefits for local
(protection of rare
communities
threatened and
Rights of indigenous
endangered species)
people
• ecosystem diversity
Complaints and dispute
(protected areas and
rehabilitation)
resolution
Operating procedures
Silvicultural guidelines
Monitoring and review
Training and supervision
Tenure and use rights
Sustained yield
impacts
Protection of soil, water, air
and
Participation and
consultation
Control of pollution
including chemicals and
waste
Control of biological agents
including exotic species,
biological control agents and
GMOs
78
5.1.4 Setting Forest Certification Standard
The first and foremost point to certify forest is to define proper forest management
practices, as described by all existing forest certification programmes to promote
sustainable forest management (SFM). SFM has been the subject of continuing debate in
the larger field of forest policy and has undergone considerable change in recent
decades. The basic tendency of that change has been to broaden the set of considerations
that forest managers must take into account, from, ensuring a steady flow of timber
from the forest, to protecting the range of ecological functions, components, and services
provided by the forest, to protecting the many societal interests tied to the forest. Since
the specific requirements of the term are still subject to much debate, it is not surprising
that certification programmes have put great effort into defining it. The basic
institutional options of standards are as under:
First, standards can be set at different levels for the programme as a whole, for local
areas covered by of the programme, or for specific FMUs. In practice, organizations at
each of these levels usually also play a role in standard setting, surprising as it may
sound. This is in part because it is impossible to set standards in sufficient breadth and
detail to dispose of every possible situation. Given the variability of local situations
around the world and rapid changes in knowledge, it often makes sense to leave some
important details to local decision makers.
Second, standards typically specify either performance outcomes or management
systems. Performance standards require the achievement of concrete conditions in the
forest or in human organization as related to the forest. For example, a performance
standard might require that an FMU maintain a specified mix of tree species and age
classes over a given period. Or it might require that workers be protected so as to have
less than a specified number of serious accidents in a given period.
A management system standard, on the other hand, focuses on defining management
responsibilities and processes within the FMO.
The most influential such standard is the ISO 14001 environmental management
standard (EMS), developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
The basic idea in ISO 14001 EMS is to require the FMO to define and implement a
specific set of responsibilities and processes for dealing with environmental and related
issues.
All existing certification programmes employ each of the standard setting options
described above (i.e., central/local/FMO and performance/management system) to at
least some degree, but in quite different mixes as will be described below. Programs also
vary by which kinds of actors participate at each level. While all of them permit
stakeholder participation to some degree, the amount, location, and nature of
participation vary greatly.
79
Finally, the standards of forest certification programmes vary considerably in scope.
While most standards focus on biological conditions, some also include social justice
concerns such as the protection of laborers, indigenous peoples and local communities.
5.1.5 Forest Certification Implementation
Forest management standards may have little effect unless the certification programme
has a way of assuring that FMOs implement them. Given that meeting standards often
entails costs, and that FMOs generally have incentives to minimize costs, certification
programmes must have institutional arrangements for assuring that certified FMOs in
fact comply with the standards. These arrangements are conventionally described in
terms of to three interrelated functions: certification, accreditation, and labeling.
5.2 CERTIFICATION ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS
Certification of FMOs is the core function of forest certification programmes. To carry it
out the programmes must define organizational processes and relationships likely to
assure compliance with applicable forest management standards. To be useful, these
arrangements must also persuade outside observers that they are likely to result in a
high degree of compliance i.e., they must be credible. While all forest certification
programmes rely to some extent on the internal processes of FMOs, they also rely on
outside monitoring. The most conscientious approach is ‘third party verification’,
wherein a person or organization that is neither part of the FMO, nor one of its
customers or suppliers, is given authority to assess compliance with the programme
standards. Not all certification programmes require third party verification. However,
even where it is used variations in how it is implemented may lead to differences in
reliability. Perhaps the most important variable is the degree of control that the forestry
enterprise can exercise over the certification body and its findings. Some programmes
give FMOs much more control over the selection, terms of employment, and findings of
certifiers than do others. Overall, there has been a steady tendency among forest
certification programmes to institute third party verification, but there are still enormous
differences among them. Even the most rigorous programmes still face questions of
credibility deriving from the fact that certifiers are paid by the FMOs seeking
certification.
5.3 ACCREDITATION UNDER FOREST CERTIFICATION
When programmes embrace third party certification, an important question
immediately arises as to who should be qualified i.e., be ‘accredited’ to serve as a
certifier. Some certification programmes make their own accreditation determinations,
while others use accreditation organizations that developed for other purposes and
some allow FMOs to make their own determinations as to who qualifies as a certifier.
Accreditation is the process that provides assurance that a certification body is
competent, that it meets all the requirements of the scheme and that its assessments and
decisions are sound. It is, in effect, the ‘certification of the certification body’, and thus is
often confused with certification itself.
80
More formally, the ISO definition of accreditation is a “procedure by which an authoritative
body gives formal recognition that a body or person is competent to carry out specific tasks”
(ISO/IEC 1996a). Accreditation is generally accepted as an essential requirement for
credible certification. If an organization wants to use certification to communicate their
environmental performance, a certificate issued by an accredited certification body is
likely to be a more effective basis on which to do this. Accreditation bodies offer
accreditation for specific certification services (the scope of accreditation) that are
defined in a legally binding contract between an accreditation body and certification
body. Accreditation of certification services for most international standards is carried
out by national accreditation bodies. In many countries where accreditation services are
offered, one accreditation body is recognized by the government, business and the
standardization community as being the single national accreditation body.
Accreditation services have had to adapt to the demands of international trade. Many
certification bodies offer certification services internationally; they need accreditation
that is recognized in every country in which they operate. Companies that are buying or
supplying from more than one country need to be able to rely on the accreditation
services available in those countries. The organization of accreditation services has
adapted in three ways:
•
International standards for accreditation services: ISO has developed an
international standard for the assessment and accreditation of certification bodies
– ISO/IEC Guide 61 (ISO/IEC 1996b).
•
Mutual recognition between national accreditation bodies: There are
international arrangements that provide for mutual recognition between national
accreditation bodies; for example, the International Accreditation Forum at
global level and European Accreditation at a regional level in Europe. These
arrangements allow a certification body to provide services under a single
accreditation in more than one country as well as providing assurance that
participating national accreditation bodies are operating to the same standards.
•
Accreditation with an international scope offered by international bodies:
Accreditation may also be offered by international accreditation bodies. These
are usually sector specific international bodies, for example the International
Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement’s Accreditation Programme for
organic agriculture (IFOAM 2001) and the Forest Stewardship Council for forest
certification (FSC 2001).
To ease the understanding of the accreditation element of certification schemes, the
accreditation elements can be divided into three parts (Figure 5.3).
81
Accreditation body
Meets international
requirements for:
 Organization
and structure
 Accreditation
process
Accreditation
requirements
Credibility
May be provided by:
Has documented
requirements for
certification body
 Organization
and structure
 Accreditation
process
 Affiliation and
peer review
 Complaints
procedure
 Transparency
Accreditation
Fig. 5.3 Components of an accreditation system
•
Requirements for accreditation bodies: These include guidelines governing the
internal organization of accreditation bodies as well as the accreditation
procedure including ongoing monitoring of certification body performance.
•
Rules for certification bodies: The accreditation body must lay down adequate
requirements for the internal organization of certification bodies and also the
way in which the certification bodies conduct the certification process. These
requirements become critically important when the scope of accreditation
includes activities that are especially complex, as is the case with forest
management certification.
•
Credibility: Because the purpose of accreditation is to provide credibility to
certification, the credibility of the accreditation body itself is vital. An
accreditation body can attain credibility by fulfilling the rules for accreditation
bodies and ensuring adequate rules for certification bodies (above), but may
wish to enhance its credibility further by affiliation to other bodies, having
adequate complaints procedure mechanisms and making its activities
transparent.
82
5.3.1 The Accreditation Process
Application: The certification body applies to the accreditation body. A contract is
signed that specifies the scope of the accreditation applied for and the terms and
conditions under which applicant is evaluated and accreditation granted and
maintained.
Evaluation: The accreditation body carries out an evaluation of the certification body’s
organization, systems, procedures and certification assessments and decisions. The
evaluation team collects objective evidence that demonstrates whether the requirements
of accreditation are being met. At the end of the evaluation the evaluation team holds a
closing meeting with the applicant to present its findings.
Reporting: The accreditation body prepares a report of the evaluation. A copy of the
report is given to the applicant, who is invited to comment on it. The report describes
any non-conformances identified by the evaluation team and the corrective action
requests raised by the team.
Address non-conformances: The applicant certification body may be required to close
out corrective action requests before accreditation is granted. Alternatively, accreditation
may be granted subject to corrective action requests being closed out within a specified
time.
The accreditation decision: The accreditation decision is made on the basis of the report
and the outcome of corrective action requests (if appropriate). Accreditation decisions
must be taken by a person or persons different from those who carried out the
assessment.
Accreditation and surveillance: Following accreditation, the accreditation body
maintains surveillance over the certification body to ensure that any corrective action
requests raised before accreditation have been closed out, and to ensure continued
compliance with the requirements of accreditation and the close of subsequent
corrective action requests.
5.4 FOREST CERTIFICATION AUDITING
For furthering the process towards sustainable forest management (SFM), it is necessary
that there be a regular assessment and feedback on the legal and operational inputs for
management of forests. Auditing is a tool for evaluating forest management
performances and the policy framework. It therefore, helps in assessing and evaluating
the efficiency of the management of the forests determining the progress towards
achieving the global goal of SFM. Auditing framework addresses to the concerns of
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the internal management systems towards
the goal of SFM, also protecting investment in the forest resources. It further enables the
producer to meet the market requirement of sustainability.
Auditing system could be internal as well as external. The internal auditing systems,
carried out internally by the party itself, evaluate the forest management systems and
83
their efficiency and current performance. Internal auditing is based on the internally
developed standards hence, suggests the corrective measures towards improvement of
the management practices. The external system of Auditing provides the stakeholders
with a fair and transparent status and performance of the management practices carried
out by the organization. This system is based on either the standards developed by an
external organization or even developed internally. It has an importance considering
certification process.
Auditing of SFM involves the overall processes involved in management of forests
initiating from planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluation. The attributes
defining the credibility of the auditing systems include:
Compatibility to national and international norms,
Accessibility to all types of forests and forest owners,
Independent,
Participatory,
Competence in auditing,
Transparency,
Requirements of performance
and management systems,
Continual improvement,
Objectives of Auditing
Cost-effectiveness, and
Availability to public scrutiny
The framework for auditing involves,
setting up of criteria, followed by
auditing procedure and eventually the
institutional arrangements required.
To define a set of criteria for auditing,
the following attributes are needed
both at the national as well as FMU
level: compatibility, participatory,
transparency, orderly procedures,
helpful in consensus decision making,
Elements of auditing system
Collection of Evidence
Verification
Reporting
periodic review and meeting the
Fig. 5.4 The auditing procedure (ITTO, 2000)
requirement of audit criteria and
testing. The diagrammatic presentation of auditing procedure is given in fig. 5.4.
Further, more studies and research is required for better verification and also to
encourage international co-operation in facilitating auditing systems in the developing
nations.
84
5.5
FOREST CERTIFICATION AND LABELLING
The important key element of a forest certification programme is how it ties wood
products sold in consumer markets to certified forestry operations. All major
certification programmes have developed programmes for attaching their labels to wood
products. Their rules for determining which wood products qualify, and particularly
how those wood products must be traced through the chain of production (chain of
custody requirements ‘CoC’), are quite variable and remain under development.
The philosophy is that a certification label will result in increased market share for a
private forestland owner. Their higher financial return should compensate for the
increased costs incurred while improving harvesting practices and, at the same time,
increase the environmental services obtained from managed forests (Brockmann, 1996
and Viana et al., 1996). The certification label is useful only if it results in a more
informed consumer who will selectively buy those forest products that reflect his
environmental values. For the producer, the ability to obtain a higher price, or to capture
a market niche, should increase the financial returns from the marketplace. If this were
to occur, forestland owners would definitely pursue certification. The certification label
would be sufficient to give them confidence that forests are being managed in a socially
adequate and environmentally friendly manner.
Though there is no evidence that people are willing to pay a price premium for certified
wood but by and large consumers want standards to be imposed on how forest
management is conducted.
Certification of organically produced food is an interesting issue to briefly mention,
because of its potential relationship to forest certification (i.e. pursuing ecosystem
health.) The increased interest of many segments of society in consuming healthy foods
and/or knowing the origin of their products has captured the attention of large
corporations. The practices used to grow and store food products by large corporations
originally stimulated society to pursue alternative food products that were chemically
and microbiologically safe.
Many new products have been touted as “ environmentally friendly” because of some
improved aspect of the formulation, packaging or manufacturing process that is
believed to reduce negative environmental impacts, such as solid waste, energy
consumption, or toxicity.
There are various claims of what it means to be certified, including claims of
“sustainability.” The unfortunate result is that consumers may become confused by the
different labels and approaches, and in some cases, may be misguided by vague and
even misleading claims about “sustainability”(Kristina A. Vogt et al., 2000).
However the labels such as FSC and PEFC (use of logo by the certified wood product
manufacturers) have gained significance from in last couple of years both from the retail
chain operators as well as the consumers. These labels provide trust to the consumers as
products being made using sustainably managed raw materials. Consumer preference
85
for such labeled products provides incentive to the forest managers and manufacturers
as a means to differentiate their products from the rest.
5.6
CHAIN OF CUSTODY (COC) CERTIFICATION
Where the forest manager and/or buyers of wood from the certified forest wish to
identify the wood as coming from a certified source, it is necessary to apply for chain of
custody inspections. Chain of custody can be defined as “the channel through which
products are distributed from their origin in the forest to their end-use by the consumer” which
is unbroken trails as with certification of the forest area. It is important to differentiate
between a chain of custody ‘system’ that which is installed by the various parties in the
chain; and chain of custody ‘assessment’ which relates to the activities of the certification
body in order to provide a verification of product origin.
The chain of custody must be able to provide physical evidence that the certified
product originates from a particular source; requiring a secure data capture and
communication systems which runs in parallel with and links to the physical evidence.
Chain of custody is a critical element of any certification programme since it provides
the link between buyers and sellers from the forest to the point of final sale (fig 5.3). It is
important for credibility to be maintained that the chain of custody remains intact
throughout, particularly at stages where responsibility for the goods changes.
Essentially, chain of custody is a stock control exercise, which requires the goods to be
secure, and requires transparency for ease of inspection. The chain itself will consist of a
number of links; the number depending on the range of sources, the complexity of the
manufacturing process and the type of market into which the product is sold.
5.6.1 Principle Criteria for CoC
An organization wishing to identify products from certified forests must:
Provide physical evidence that the goods originate from a particular forest that is
sustainably managed,
Identify and segregate the goods concerned.
Document the record system which runs in parallel to the goods, and
Monitor compliance with chain of custody requirements.
86
FOREST
Logs
SAWMILL
PANELBOARD MIL
Lumber
Woods based panels
FURTHER PROCESSING PLANT
Components
FURNITURE FACTORY
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
Furniture
WHOLESALE/ RETAIL STORE
Furniture
END USER
Fig. 5.5 Chain of custody for wood in furniture (Source: ITTO, 2005)
87
5.7
THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS
Certification is a multi-faceted process involving retailers, consumers, producers, mills,
environmental organizations, societies, and certification systems. The ITTO identifies
three main requirements in any working certification scheme; 1) standard which are
used as a basis in assessment of applicants; 2) a clearly defined certification process and
rules regulating the use of certificates and labels and; 3) adequate institutional
arrangements with qualified human resources. The certification standards and criteria
are set by the certification body and, usually accredited independent third party
auditors evaluate the organization’s adherence to the established standards.
Certification schemes can be broadly categorized into two groups i.e. performance based
and process based as already stated. In brief performance based standards define
specific performance levels for various aspects of forest management where as process
based schemes on the other hand provide a systematic approach to developing,
implementing, monitoring and evaluating environmental policies; however, they do not
stipulate performance standards.
A credible certification programme should evaluate the integrity of the producer’s claim
and the authenticity of product origin (Baharuddin, 1995). Credibility is determined by
the quality of forest management and chain of custody assessment, the absence of
conflicts of interests, acceptability of key elements of certification schemes to all the main
stakeholders and the positive impact of certification in improving forest management
(Bass and Simula, 1999). Simula (1997) points out two essential components of any
certification scheme; forest management certification and product certification, in order
to provide the necessary information to the final consumer. Forest management
planning, inventory, silvicultural practices, timber harvesting, forest road construction
and other on-the-ground operations are assessed against predetermined principals and
criteria under forest management certification. In addition, socio-economic and
environmental impacts of forestry operations are also evaluated. Product certification
includes the tracking of timber from forest to final consumer through various
production phases of the supply chain such as transportation, storage, processing and
distribution. This process is also known as ‘chain of custody” certification.
A synthesized process of forest certification is described as under:
Application and proposal: Certification is voluntary, so the first stage is that the forest
manager or management organization interested in having a forest assessed applies to a
certification body, and the certification body prepares a proposal.
Pre-assessment or scoping: It is normal that the certification body makes a brief
preliminary visit to the certification applicant with three main objectives: to ensure that
the applicant understands the requirements of certification, to plan for the main
assessment to identify any major gaps between the applicant ’s current management and
the level required by the standard.
88
Closing gaps: The applicant addresses any gaps between current management and that
required for certification until they are confident that their management is in compliance
with the standard.
Main assessment: This assessment provides the main opportunity to establish that the
standard is (or is not) being met. It is usually carried out by an assessment team whose
job it is to collect objective evidence which demonstrates whether or not the standard is
being met. The collection of objective evidence involves a combination of document
review, field visits and consultation. When noncompliances with the standard are
found, this normally results in Corrective Action Requests (CARs) which must be
addressed by the applicant to bring the forest (or management system if it is a system
standard) into full compliance with the standard.
Reporting and certification decision: The assessment team does not make a decision
about whether or not the forest should be certified. Following the assessment, the team
produces a report setting out the findings and making a certification recommendation.
The certification decision is made based on the report. This should always be done by a
Application
Corrective Actions
Applicant
Assessment Process
Pre-audit
Planning
Audit Team
Reporting Draft Report
NO
Something missing
Yes
Centre for SFM & Forest Certification,
IIFM Bhopal
Certification
Certificate
Provided
provided
89
panel or committee who were not directly involved in the assessment to reduce the risk
of corruption. The report can be reviewed by specialists prior to going to the final
decision-making committee to get some independent feedback on the process and the
results. The report must be made available to the accreditation body. Some or all of the
report can be made publicly available to allow stakeholders access to information on the
certification.
Surveillance: A critical part of the certification process is the ongoing surveillance of
certified forests. Surveillance visits serve two purposes:
•
Ongoing compliance with the standard is checked to ensure that performance
does not fall below the required level.
•
Where improvements have been required through CARs, progress is monitored.
5.8 GROUP CERTIFICATION
A group certification scheme consists of a ‘group manager’ (which can be an individual,
organization, company, association or other legal entity) who develops a ‘group
scheme’. Individual forest owners/managers then join the scheme and their forest is
certified as part of the overall group (Fig. 5.7). The idea behind a group scheme is that,
by joining a large number of small forest areas together in a group, each member can
benefit from the savings of scale, while not losing control of their own forest and its
management.
Most of group schemes have some variation in approach to forest management between
each member providing that the result meets all the requirements of the scheme.
Audit group Manager
Group Manager
Defines management requirements
Support and controls memberships
Monitor member’s performance
Support with
implementation
A
U
D
I
T
O
R
Monitoring of
compliance
Members
Formally join group
Agree to meet required level of management
Implement requirement in their forests
Audit random sample
of group members
Fig. 5.7 A Schematic diagram of group certification scheme
90
5.8.1 Advantages Group Scheme
The cost of certification per member is much lower bringing it within reach of a large
number of small forest owners or managers. This reduction in price is due to two main
factors:
The group manager is responsible for monitoring members. The certification
body then audits the group manager and a sample of members, but does not need
to visit every member as would be necessary for individual certification.
The certification process is a very strict one and involves a number of
requirements such as consultation; report writing and peer review. These only
need to be only done once for a group certification so the costs are shared
between all members instead of being borne in full by each member as would be
the case for an individual certification.
The group manager is able to provide information, training and support to members
and the members themselves can share experience and costs of change and
improvement. This is important because early results have shown that major barriers to
good forest management and to certification are not the direct costs of certification, but:
The costs and difficulty of understanding the standard (and sometimes even
the law)
Lack of knowledge of how to comply with requirements of the standard
Inability to access specialist advice or information in areas such as soil and
water protection, biodiversity and consultation.
Lack of information on what certification is and how to obtain it.
5.9 PHASED APPROACH TO FOREST CERTIFICATION
It has become clear that while many tropical producer countries are now making
significant progress in improving the management of their forests, a very small
percentage of the world’s certified forest lies in these countries. As the market for
certified timber grows, particularly in the higher-value European and North American
markets, this lack of certification may begin to act as a barrier to entry into these markets
for tropical timber. Therefore, it is important to understand what is causing the slow
progress towards certification and to find solutions which address both the need to
increase the area of certified forest, and to minimize interim market barriers for tropical
timber from forests where management is improving.
There are a number of reasons for the slow progress of forest certification in the tropics,
but one of the most important is that in many tropical countries there is a wide gap
91
between the existing level of management and what is required by certification. This
creates a number of problems:
Considerable resources are required to close the gap and implement the
requirements of a certification standard, but tropical timber countries face many
institutional, social, human resource and financial constraints which means that
such resources are often scarce.
The process of implementing the standard can be very lengthy, often taking
several years. If there is no mechanism for periodically assessing the progress
made, forest managers may not realize when it is inadequate until they miss
deadlines or commitments for achieving certification.
There are no intermediate incentives available for forest managers who do
undertake this long and costly process until full compliance is achieved and a
certificate obtained. As a result, the continued investment can seem difficult to
justify.
Forest managers can be overwhelmed by the number of activities to be
undertaken in order to meet the standard’s requirements.
The concept of a phased approach to certification provides the potential to overcome
each of these problems. By dividing full compliance with the standard into a series of
phases, it is possible to focus the limited resources available onto one or two tasks at a
time, instead of trying to begin all the necessary activities at once. In addition, external
support can be focused much more efficiently to coincide with the particular activities
which are underway.
A phased approach can provide a framework for forest managers, helping them to plan
activities so that the process of implementing the standard becomes clearer and more
manageable. Such an approach can make it easy to divide full compliance with the
standard into a number of interim targets or milestones which can be easily monitored
so that forest managers are aware of whether they are on schedule or not. Formulation
of a formal mechanism for implementing the standard through a series of phases,
particularly if it is linked to some form of verification, makes it is much easier to assess
progress. This in turn can provide a basis for the provision of incentives to forest
managers who are making real progress, even before full certification is achieved. For
example:
Where no certified timber is available, buyers can be encouraged to purchase
from forests where demonstrable progress is being made, thereby creating initial
access to markets and market segments where certification is required.
Governments and donor organizations can link grants, aid, tax breaks and other
incentives to the completion of certain phases, even before full compliance with
the standard is achieved.
92
Financing institutions can provide credits at preferential terms tying the release
of funds with the verified progress on the ground as for them certification can act
as a risk mitigation instrument.
Therefore, the development and use of phased approaches to certification may provide a
useful tool to improve forest management and to facilitate access to markets for tropical
timber. The phased approach can be applied to the following areas (Fig 5.8)
Phased standard setting process
Phased approach within a forest management standard
Phased approach to attaining accredited third party certification
PHASED APPROACH TO WHAT?
Standard Setting
Representation
Balance
Consensus
Consultation
Certification
Standard
Sustainable
Good phased forest
management
standard
Conformity
Assessment
Certification
Accreditation
Mutual recognition
Fig. 5.8 A schematic diagram of phased approach as given by PEFC
5.9.1 Phased standard setting process
In this process one could move from a single stakeholder setting a standard, to a certifier
setting a standard for a client with some public consultation (e.g. FSC interim standards)
to a full multi stakeholder standard setting process (e.g. national standards setting
process as required in PEFC).
5.9.2 Phased approach within a forest management standard
In this area the emphasis is in the content of the forest management standard. One may
move from legal compliance towards a “well-managed” forest management standard
and then towards a sustainable forest management standard. Currently most of the
debate on the phased approach is concentrated in this area whereas its combination with
an appropriate delivery mechanism has been given scant regard.
5.9.3 Phased approach to attaining accredited third party certification
93
In this area the phased approach concerns the delivery mechanism or conformity
assessment levels and steps which range from first party to third party accredited
certification as demonstrated in diagram 5.9.
Credibility,
Suppliers self
declaration
(1st Part
declaration)
Assessment
by Customer
(2nd Party
Certification)
Assessment
by
Certification
body
(3rd Party
Assessment by
Accredited
Certification body
(3rd Party
Accredited
Fig 5.9 Phased approach to attaining accreditation third party certification (PEFC)
Theoretically there is a wide range of combinations of these three areas. The most
common example is a combination of the phased approach to all three areas at the same
time. For example some organizations and trusts have been established that encourage
producers to start a phased approach by using second or third part certification to
deliver a standard developed by very few stakeholders, specifically for a client ensuring
legal compliance in the first instance. The producers have to sign a commitment to reach
accredited third party certification, usually to the trusts preferred certification standard
and scheme, but no commitment has to be made that this certification will be to a multistakeholder developed national standard. As a result producers have to use different
labels and claims to that of certification schemes and pay the costs for these before
moving onwards to a higher standard performance requirement and or certification
level. Such an approach requires the use of different chain of custodies, labels and
communications efforts and can add considerably to the overall costs of ultimately
achieving accredited certification to a Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) standard.
94
5.9.1 Implementation and Verification of Phased Approach
There are two components to any phased approach to certification - first implementation
of the requirements of the standard in forest management and second the verification of
the compliance.
Implementation is the process of understanding and then implementing the
requirements of the standard in the forest. It is this component which, if successfully
achieved, actually delivers certifiable sustainable forest management. The most
important feature of the implementation component of any model is that it provides
the best possible framework and support for the forest manager in undertaking all
the tasks required in order to implement management which meets the requirements
of the standard.
Verification is the process of assessing the quality of forest management against the
requirements set. It can also provide confirmation of what progress has been made
towards meeting the standard. Verification is an essential component of the
certification procedure, but it is also an important part of the phased approach for
two reasons:
o
Firstly, it is important that the forest manager has some mechanism for
monitoring the progress of the organization. The process of achieving SFM is
often a long one, taking several years, and if there is no monitoring system,
then it is very likely that progress in some areas will be inadequate but that
this may not be identified. Periodic verification provides the forest manager
with a tool for regularly monitoring progress.
o
Secondly, an important reason for developing a phased approach to
certification is to provide a mechanism for allowing market access for timber
coming from tropical forests which are in the process of improving their
management, but have not yet achieved full certification. In order to
recognize forests which should be included in this category, most buyers will
demand some form of credible evidence that real progress is being made.
This can be provided by ongoing credible verification of the progress being
made. Therefore, in considering any type of phased approach, it is important
to consider how effective it is in providing a solution for both stepwise
implementation and verification.
5.9.2 Product Tracing or Chain of Custody Verification for Phased approach
In order to sell a wood or paper product as coming from a certified forest, it is necessary
to have a mechanism to trace the material from the certified forest through each stage of
processing to the final product. This is usually known as chain of custody. Chain of
custody verification is required because most wood goes through a series of different
manufacturing stages between the forest and the final product and there is usually no
reliable way to ensure that a product really contains wood originating in a particular
forest without a mechanism for tracing through each of these stages.
95
If a phased approach is developed only to support the achievement of certification in the
forest, there is no need for any chain of custody mechanism to be developed. However,
if there is a desire to link markets to the wood coming from forests implementing the
phased approach of certification, then there will need to be a mechanism for tracing the
product from forest to end user as for certified material.
5.9.3 Existing Models and Initiatives for Phased Approach
Although the widespread discussion of phased approaches is relatively new, there have
already been several initiatives to develop the concept in practice. They can be divided
into two types:
Phased approach to implementation of the standard and certification in individual
forest management units
Phased approach to certified timber products in procurement policies
5.9.4 Common Elements and Issues of Phased Approach
5.9.4.1 Phased Implementation
Current Situation and the Goal
There is wide consensus that any approach to phased implementation of sustainable
forest management standards needs to begin with a proper understanding of current
management and of where there are gaps between this and what is required by the
standard. There are a number of possibilities when deciding who should carry out this
type of initial assessment of current practice: forest managers, external experts, or
certification bodies.
The Forest Manager: Forest organizations may carry out the assessment themselves as
part of their internal auditing, monitoring and control system using in-house expertise.
This approach has several advantages:
It is the cheapest option since only internal personnel are used.
The personnel carrying out the assessment are fully engaged with the process
and aware of the results.
It can be very efficient since the people carrying out the assessment are familiar
with the organization and its activities.
However, there are a number of disadvantages as well:
If the staff does not fully understand the standard and what it requires, then their
assessment may be inadequate; this can, of course, be addressed through
training.
Where staffs are already fully occupied, the additional work required may be a
serious problem.
Where the process is being linked to external publicity or incentives, any selfassessment, even of the starting point, may lack credibility.
96
External experts: Another approach which many forest organizations use is to contract
an external specialist/consultant or organization to carry out an initial assessment. This
approach has a number of advantages:
If the experts are familiar with the standard then they are likely to provide an
accurate assessment of current performance relative to the standard
If the experts are familiar with the way other forest companies have
implemented the standard, then they should be able to provide useful advice on
how to address the gaps identified.
However, this approach also has some disadvantages:
There will be additional costs associated with this approach since external
experts must be paid for and their costs are generally higher than those of own
staff. Larger forest owners or organizations may justify such costs but it is often a
particular problem for small and community forests where available funds are
very limited.
External ‘experts’ vary greatly in their quality and effectiveness and are not
necessarily guaranteed to do a good job. Forest managers do not always have
access to information to allow them to select competent experts.
The external experts should always work in close cooperation with the company
staff, to transfer their knowledge and build up internal understanding of what
the gaps are and why they need to be addressed.
Certification bodies: A third approach is to use the initial scoping visit or preassessment carried out by certification bodies as the first stock-taking of gaps and
weaknesses in the forest management system and performance. This would also be the
entry point to the certification process but it would not allow external demonstration of
progress until full compliance has been achieved. A special “modular” or “stepwise”
service would be needed from certification bodies to make intermediate declarations
possible based on progressively expanding audits.
Using the certification body has the great advantage that the information they provide
about compliance with the elements of the standard is likely to be the most accurate
available since this is their core competence. However, a significant disadvantage is that
certification bodies are not allowed to provide any help or advice about what to do to
address the gaps identified. This is because they are required to remain independent at
all times. Providing their clients with help and advice would undermine this
independence and establish a potential conflict of interest. Certification bodies can also
be very expensive and their services are not always locally available in tropical producer
countries.
5.9.4.2 Planning of Improvements of Phased Approach
A common element of all the producer approaches is the need to have a plan within
which improvements are made. It is important that the enterprise makes a formal
97
commitment to implement the plan. The plan is perhaps the single most important
aspect of a phased approach since it provides the basis for both the work carried out by
the forest manager, and the expectations of the verifier (and customer).
All approaches seem to agree that the planning should be based on the analysis of gaps
carried out as part of the initial assessment, and that it should be relatively detailed
including information on:
what will be done – the actions to be undertaken and the objective to be
achieved;
the resources which will be required in terms of materials, people, training,
infrastructure and so on, and where these resources will come from;
who is responsible for ensuring that a particular action is undertaken, whether
this is direct responsibility to do it themselves, or indirect responsibility to
monitor those carrying out the work; and
the timeframe for undertaking and completing the action.
The Modular Implementation and Verification (MIV) approach envisages doing this
through the development of an action plan. Another option is to use the ISO 14001
management system approach within which objectives and targets are set by the
management and the environmental management programme provides a plan of action.
5.9.4.3 Legal Compliance of Phased Approach
It is clear that legal compliance will be increasingly used as a market requirement in
many importing countries both by the industry and governments. Therefore,
incorporating verification of legal compliance into any phased approach would increase
its usefulness for market communication.
Increasingly tropical timber producers are likely to find themselves asked to
demonstrate and provide evidence that their timber is from a legal source. If a
mechanism for doing this can be incorporated into a broader mechanism which could
verify both legal compliance and sustainability of forest management, then it could
make the model much more useful and practical for forest managers and the forest
products industry than delivering only one of the other.
The ‘legality’ module could be one of the steps in such a phased approach. However, as
has been pointed out in the FLEGT process, even verification of legal compliance may
need its own phased approach. This is clearly a very complex issue and one which is
currently being widely debated. However, for natural tropical forests it might be
possible to develop a series of phases with a structure something like below: (depending
on the country’s regulations):
i.
Verification that there is a legal right to be cutting in the forest area, and that
there are no serious conflicts.
ii.
Verification of the chain of custody (e.g. verification of wood transport licenses)
98
iii.
Verification of the management plan and related documentation against legal
requirements (forest and environmental legislation)
iv.
Verification of logging and silvicultural operations (forest and environmental
legislation)
v.
Verification of other legal requirements related to the operations (legislation on
labor, occupational health and safety, taxation, etc.)
Compliance with these components forms part of most certification standards and
therefore establishment of legal compliance contributes directly to progress toward
certification of the FMU and the organization managing it.
5.9.5 Phased Approach for Small and Community Forests
An important issue which needs to be considered in the development and
implementation of any system for implementation of a certification standard is its
applicability to small-scale and community forests which are often managed at a lower
intensity and with more diverse objectives than, for example, industrial concessions.
Particular problem areas in this group are small-scale entrepreneurs which have only
short-term contractual access to the forests they are using. These operators are common
in many African countries.
The complexity and costs of implementing certification standards has been widely
recognized as a potentially serious barrier to small forest operations, yet these
operations are often a key component of sustainable development in the local context
creating income and revenue.
The phased approach should address these situations which are found in many ITTO
producing member countries by providing explicit guidance for small-scale and
community forests as part of relevant modules. In the case of smallholdings and smallscale entrepreneurs, group certification has been applied as a solution to keep costs
reasonable. A phased approach could be also applied for these cases. A specific
verification process could be designed for them covering only those elements of the
standard requirements which are relevant to the specific conditions of each type of
operator. Another strategy might be to use a simplified standard for these situations in
the beginning and then move to a more demanding standard after a specific period (e.g.
in three years). As pointed in the ITTO 2002 Workshop, lowering of standards should
not be targeted at. There has been considerable opposition from many actors to the
introduction of lower standards, with a preference for recognizing pre-certification
phases.
5.9.6 Phased Certification Verification
There is clearly going to be concern about the credibility and reliability of any
verification system based on a phased approach, if there is going to be any type of claim,
declaration or public statement related to quality of forest management, progress
towards SFM or similar aspects. Even statements on links to an incentive, such as access
99
to markets, concessional credit, etc. are likely to be a cause of concern. Any claims made
based on phased approaches or statements should be accurate, credible and truthful in
the same manner as certification claims are.
There are a number of issues which therefore need to be considered:
who carries out verification
how to ensure that verification is credible
what happens if an organization stops making progress or does not meet its
commitments
what type of claims are appropriate
how to arrange verification of product tracing in case claims are related to
products
5.9.5.1 Who Undertakes the Verification in Phased Approach?
An important question, whenever there is a need for verification, is who carries out this
task. There are basically three possibilities which are known as first, second or third
party verification.
•
First party verification is when the forest organization uses its own staff to
assess its own performance and communicates the results. This approach is the
cheapest and easiest to use. However, it has limited credibility since there is no
way of knowing whether the forest organization is reporting truthfully or not.
The most common use of first party verification is an internal monitoring
programme carried out by an organization to monitor its own progress.
However, it can also be useful as a component of a system which includes second
or third-party verification as described below. All internal auditing facilitates
external auditor’s work.
•
Second party verification is when the assessment of the forest organization is
carried out by another organization with which they have some type of
relationship, for example, by customers or investors. This ‘second party’ carrying
out the assessment is then able to collect information for themselves about
whether or not the forest organization is meeting its commitments, in this case
compliance with the requirements of each phase. This approach is used by many
large purchasers of wood and wood products. It is generally cost-effective and is
internally credible for the second party though it may lack credibility with
external stakeholders. However, for the producer this approach can result in an
endless stream of verification visits by one customer after another, each wanting
slightly different information and working in a slightly different way.
•
Third party verification is where an independent body carries out the
assessment of the producer or supplier. Third party verification can be used to
assess implementation of a predefined set of requirements such as a module of
requirements of the standard, or to assess progress against an action plan. The
100
advantage of third party verification is that it is fully independent unlike the two
other approaches and therefore likely to be the most credible. However, it is also
usually the most expensive, and it is not always possible to find third party
verifiers in every country.
5.9.5.2 Ensuring Credible Verification
If the results of the verification process are to be used for any type of external
communication, whether to governments, investors or customers, it is very important
that it is credible. The credibility of verification will be determined by the same factors
as in forest certification:
Who carries out the verification: As discussed in earlier, the credibility of the
verification will strongly depend on the credibility of the persons or organization
carrying out the verification exercise. Independence and competence are key
attributes for credible assessors. In the development of any model, this is an
important issue to consider.
Control of verifiers: The most formal way to control verifiers is through a process of
accreditation, as is the case for forest certification bodies. Under certification
schemes, an independent accreditation body establishes the competence and
independence of certification bodies and continuously monitors their procedures
and work as part of accreditation process. This ensures that all certification bodies
meet an acceptable standard of conformity assessment in their performance.
Consideration needs to be given to whether accreditation is the most appropriate
way forward for any phased approach, and whether other alternatives can deliver
credible assessment procedures. For example, a group of trained local professionals
who can provide a lower-cost, more readily available service in tropical producer
countries could be considered as an option. Their competence could be verified in
the same way as is applied for trained inspectors in forestry or quality graders in the
log and sawnwood trade. A professional organization arranges training, tests of
knowledge and keeps records of qualified professionals. If this type of approach is
adopted, it will be very important to specify which organization compiles and
maintains the register and ensures the quality of the verifiers. This could also be
organized through an existing international body.
Transparency of verification process: An important way of maintaining credibility
is through transparency. This can be achieved in a number of ways, such as public
reporting of the summary results of verification assessments, or consultation with
interested parties, or formal peer review as applied in the certification procedure.
However, increased transparency can also result in higher costs and may be
intimidating for forest managers, particularly in the early stages of the process.
Therefore, careful consideration should be given to the level of transparency needed
for a phased approach, particularly where there is no intention to allow any public
claims or communication to be made.
101
5.10
IMPEDIMENTS TO SUCCESS OF FOREST CERTIFICATION IN
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Forest certification has got impetus and has grown exponentially since the mid-1990s
worldwide. However, the majority of certified forests are in Europe and North America
(91.8%) while, developing countries account about 13.1 % of the total certified area (4.5
% in Asia and the Pacific, 3.0% in South America, and 0.6 % in Africa) (Durst et al., 2006).
Developed countries have regulations in place that support aspects of sustainable
management, and owners and managers of forests that are already following sustainable
management practices are more likely to opt for certification. Additionally,
environmental groups in developed countries demand credible and standardized
systems for evaluating claims about the environmental impacts of industry operations.
This situation seems ironic, because certification was initiated to protect the forests of
the developing world. One setback in forest certification is that the demand for
certification comes from developed countries; it offers benefits only for forest products
destined for export from developing countries. Consequently, certification will not
necessarily slow down deforestation, because forests in these countries are generally
managed to meet local needs. The utmost cause of deforestation in developing countries
is a conversion of forest land for agricultural purposes. Furthermore, about 80% of
marketed wood and wood products produced in developing countries are also
consumed in those countries, where willingness to pay for a price premium for certified
eco-friendly forest products is partially constrained to ability to pay (Whiteman et al.
1999).
In addition to these fundamental market realities, the taking up of forest certification in
developing countries has been slow for many more reasons as describe below:
Ecological and socioeconomic conditions: Uncertain or disputed land tenure,
social and political conflicts involving the use of forest resources, lack of financial
and human resources, and varied forest management practices make uniform
standards difficult to apply. Often only general guidelines can be agreed upon at
the international level.
Lack of information: In developing countries majority of people are illiterate
and they are unfamiliar to technical know how of the certification process
because of lack of information. The implementation of certification norms is often
regarded as cumbersome. A thorough understanding of the certification process
and the potential costs and benefits could encourage adoption in developing
countries.
Insufficient government support: Technical personnel and resources are basic
requirement for implementation of new technologies. But in developing
countries there is deficiency of trained personnel and financial resources
necessary to promote stakeholder participation, auditing systems, and a better
102
understanding of the certification process. Insufficient government support
limits the participation of producers, particularly smaller units whose
landowners cannot afford the costs of certification.
Rigidity of standards: Most of the certification schemes are based on
performance standards that necessitate a performance of a forest management
unit against predefined set of standards, meaning that a forest cannot be certified
until it meets all such requirements. Such rigidity of the standards makes the
certification process troublesome and thus decline interest of stakeholders.
Complexities between laws, human rights and certification standards: National
laws and forest certification standards may be contradict because of intermingled
ownership and usufruct rights over the forest and forest resources. What may be
considered illegal according to public law or incompatible with certification
standards may be the part of the customary law and traditional rights of local
people.
Forest management units: The norms or the basis of forest certification schemes
lies for a contiguous patch of forest that limit the area of certified forest. The
forest certification process is lengthy and involves huge financial assistance. The
high costs of obtaining certification often make its adoption financially unfeasible
for small forestland owners. Current standards tend to favor economies of scale.
Nevertheless, forest certification can offer opportunities for communities in developing
countries to have more control over the marketing and use of their forest resources.
Forest certification can provide access to markets outside local communities, and
potential higher prices and revenues may create incentives to manage natural resources
sustainably (Naka et al. 2000). However, cost and credibility barriers can be substantial
in developing countries.
103
6
Forest Certification Programmes
As the concept of certification began to take momentum, many certification programmes
have evolved. Some of these programmes are focused on global forestry while there is
an increasing trend to develop national and regional certification programmes as well.
Some of the leading certification programmes, their development and progress are
discussed in this section. Before discussing the certification schemes, it is important to
understand types of the forest certification and criteria for credible forest certification
scheme.
6.1 TYPE OF FOREST CERTIFICATION
A. Depending on the party responsible for certification and defining of standards, the
process can be classified as:
i.
First Party Certification: It is an internal assessment where the organization
itself sets-up standard to evaluate its own management system and practices.
ii.
Second Party Certification: In the second party certification, the assessment is
done by the consumer or an outside trade organization.
iii.
Third Party Certification: In the third party certification, the standards are
predefined and accepted, against which performance of the applicant is
evaluated.
B. On the basis of approaches for certification, there two type of certification
standards which are applicable to forestry:
i.
Performance Standards: To meet the performance standards, fixed
specification must be achieved. The way in which the forest is managed is
evaluated against the specification on a pass or fail basis. The certification
standards based on FSC’s Principles and Criteria such as EKO, QUALIFOR, the
SCS forest conservation programme, Smartwood and Woodmark are examples
of performance standards.
Performance standards for forestry are subject to the limitation that it is
impossible to develop a single, global detailed standard, which is applicable to
all forests. Rather, Standard must be developed regionally, or locally, within
the framework of a more general international standard. This seeks to ensure
that, although different regional standards are nonetheless compatible and
equivalent.
104
ii.
Process Standard: Process standards, also known as Environmental
Management System standards (EMS), are based on the use of a documented
management system to implement an environmental policy. No minimum
level of performance is required except compliance with legislation. However,
the organization must make a policy commitment to a process of continual
improvement and sets for itself a number of objectives and targets. An
environment aspects identified must be addressed.
Environmental management system standards includes ISO 14001, the
European Union’s Environmental Management and Auditing Scheme (EMAS),
the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standard for a sustainable forest
management system, Z809-96, and BS 7750 (which has been superseded by ISO
14000).
These two approaches are not mutually exclusive and if the use and limitation of each
are understood, they are complementary. In this context, CIFOR on forestry criteria and
indicators suggested that both performance and environmental management system
standards are necessary in implementing and assessing SFM.
The main advantages of a performance standard are that it guarantees a minimum
acceptable level of performance in the forest. An environmental management system
standard provides a systematic framework for controlling, maintaining and improving
environmental performance level linked to a system for achieving and maintaining that
level.
6.2
CRITERIA FOR A CREDIBLE FOREST CERTIFICATION
SCHEMES
To provide a credible certification scheme that can lead to improvement in forest
management, as developed by a broad spectrum of environmental and social NGOs,
should include:
1. Objective, comprehensive and performance based standards with clear
environmental and social thresholds,
2. Equal and balanced participation of all stakeholders,
3. A labelling scheme and chain of custody,
4. Independent third-party assessments, including adequate consultation with all
stakeholders,
5. Transparency to all concerned parties and the public,
6. Certification at forest management unit level (not at country or regional level),
7. Applicability to all forest sizes and tenures,
8. An effective complaints mechanism,
9. Repeatability and consistency, and
105
10. A transparent and high quality accreditation procedure.
6.3 INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED SCHEMES
6.3.1 Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is an independent non-profit organization formed
as an effort to establish a global system for certifying that products come from well
managed forests. The mission of FSC is to promote environmentally appropriate,
socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world's forests (FSC,
2005).
The history of FSC goes back to 1990 when a group of timber users, traders and
representatives of environmental and human-rights organizations met in California,
USA to discuss the need for a credible system to identify forest products coming from
sustainably managed forests. In this meeting, the need for an independent global
organization to facilitate the process of certification was emphasized. In 1992,
Washington D.C., USA, the interim FSC board of directors was established and the FSC
founding assembly took place in Toronto, Canada with 130 participants from 26
countries in 1993 (FSC, 2004). Since then, FSC has become one of the largest voluntary
programmes for independent third-party forest certification in the world.
FSC is a two-pronged
process including a
forestry
performance
audit and a chain of
custody audit. FSC does
not itself certify forests
and instead it accredits
qualified independent
organizations known as
certification bodies to
Europe
carry out on-the-ground
50%
N. America
inspection
and
31%
certification. The FSC
Africa
3%
certification standards
are based on ten main
Fig. 6.1 Percentage of certified forest endorsed by FSC
principles.
Timber
(FSC, 2005)
coming from sources
that meet the FSC standards are eligible to carry the FSC logo which denotes that the
product come from well managed forests. FSC scheme has also developed a process to
monitor certified timber from forests to the consumer. The chain of custody procedure
monitors the wood products through every stage of their transport, conversion and
further processing. A separate certificate is issued each time it passes from one
Asia-Pacific
4%
Latin America
Caribbean
12%
106
production stage to the other. A paper trail audit is performed to see if products can be
linked back to location of logging. Then, if a set percentage of the wood is clearly linked
back to a certified forest a product eco-label is granted (FSC, 2003).
At present the total forest area certified using FSC standard is 79.28 mha across the globe
but predominantly occur in Europe and North America (Fig. 6.1). A range of national
certification programmes that complies with FSC have been developed, or are in the
process of development.
6.3.1.1 Governance
The organization of FSC is controlled by an elected Board, which consists of
representatives from industry, conservation groups, indigenous groups and other
related personnel. The Board of Directors (9) are elected by FSC members and represent
a balance of social, environmental and economic interest groups. Additionally, these
groups are split along geographical lines with representation from both developing and
industrialized countries. Include the current membership of FSC in the three chambers –
social, economic and ecological. The Social Chamber includes non-profit, nongovernmental organizations, indigenous peoples associations, unions as well as
research, academic, technical institutions and individuals that have a demonstrated
commitment to socially beneficial forestry. This means that they support forest
management and believe in delivering forest products to the market in a way that does
not infringe on the rights of other stakeholders. The Environmental Chamber includes
non-profit, non-governmental organizations, as well as research, academic, technical
institutions and individuals that have an active interest in environmentally viable forest
stewardship. The Economic Chamber includes organizations and individuals with a
commercial interest. Examples are employees, certification bodies, industry and trade
associations (whether profit or non-profit), wholesalers, retailers, traders, consumer
associations, and consulting companies. Applicants with economic interests must have
demonstrated active commitment to implementing FSC Principles and Criteria in their
operations.
6.3.1.2 Standards
The FSC has developed a set of global Principles and Criteria for sustainable forest
management. There are 10 Principles and 57 Criteria (Appendix 7) that address legal
aspects, indigenous rights, labor rights, multiple benefits and environmental impacts
surrounding forest management. Although the Principles and Criteria are applicable to
all forest ecological types throughout the world, FSC encourages national working
groups to adapt these Principles and Criteria to local ecological, economic and social
conditions to create regional or national standards.
In addition to standards development, the national groups are also responsible for
providing public information, offering a national dispute resolution mechanism, and
monitoring certification organizations to ensure compliance with FSC requirements. The
U.S. working group was established in 1995, while the Canadian group was created in
107
1996. The standards are developed by a collection of economic, social and environmental
interest groups.
There are nine approved regional standards in the U.S. and three in Canada.
Additionally, the FSC has specialized requirements for small forestland owners. The
initiative is called Small and Low Intensity Managed Forests at the international level,
but is known as the Family Forests Program in the U.S. Globally it applies to operations
of less than 100 hectares, but in the U.S. it applies to forests less than 1,000 hectares or
2,470 acres.
6.3.1.3 Accreditation
FSC has developed procedures and standards for accrediting certification bodies
qualified to certify forest operations. An internal FSC body conducts an office audit and
interviews the organizations that have already been audited by an application
certification entity. The FSC accredited certification bodies can operate internationally
and evaluate any forest type. Accredited certification organizations are regularly
monitored and required to be re-accredited every five years. FSC has accredited 13
certification bodies worldwide and another are under review for consideration.
6.3.1.4 Certification
The FSC certification process involves a pre-interview between the auditor and forest
manager, a review of documentation and a field assessment to determine conformance
to the FSC standard. Certified entities are subject to annual field audits and must
undergo a full evaluation to renew their certificates every five years. Further, certified
operations are monitored on an annual basis to ensure they continue to comply with the
FSC Principles and Criteria.
6.3.1.5 Product Tracking and Labeling
The FSC has a chain-of-custody (CoC) tracking and labelling system for marking forest
products that meets its forest management standards. The system allows for three
different product tracking approaches:
1. A physical separation model that separately stores and uses certified material.
2. A batch model that uses only certified materials on a temporal basis e.g. production
shift.
3. A mixed model that addresses the simultaneous use of certified and non-certified
materials.
In FSC there are three product labels and provisions, these helps in elimination of
controversial uncertified sources from the supply chain. The controversial sources as
defined by FSC include raw material derived from illegal harvests, ecologically
significant forests, genetically modified trees and forests where social conflict exists.
These three FSC labels are described as under:
 A FSC pure label for products made with 100 percent certified material;
108
 A FSC mixed label for products where the manufacturing processes contains a
minimum of 10 percent certified material and recycled wood and fiber and/or
uncertified raw material that is not from controversial sources; and
 A FSC recycled label for products manufactured with 100 percent recycled content.
6.3.2 Programmes for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC)
The Programmes for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) was founded on 30th
June, 1999 in Paris with the aim of promoting sustainably managed forests through
independent third party certification. PEFC is an umbrella organization which facilitates
mutual recognition among the numerous national certification standards developed in a
multi-stakeholder consultation process. Although initially developed to address the
European situation, the PEFC Council’s approach now has worldwide appeal. The
unique feature of PEFC scheme is that it encourages bottom-up approach to the multistakeholder development of certification standards and respects the use of regional
political processes for promoting sustainable forest management as a basis for
certification standards (ITTO, 2002).
The PEFC is a certifier of certification processes and it assesses the various certification
processes against the standards defined by the PEFC. Timbers from forests certified
under an accredited national process are entitled to carry the PEFC label provided there
is a chain of custody procedure in place.
Area (mha)
The Finnish Forest Certification scheme, the Living Standards and Norwegian Forest
Certification Scheme, and the
Swedish PEFC certification
250.00
187.68 193.81
scheme are the first schemes to
200.00
be endorsed by PEFC in year
150.00
2000. At present, 21 national
100.00
50.86 55.32
certification schemes have been
32.37 41.06 45.10
50.00
endorsed by the PEFC Council.
0.00
Since its establishment, PEFC
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
has gained popularity (Fig. 6.2)
especially in Europe and so
far, there are over 193.81
Fig. 6.2 Progress of PEFC certification: 2000-2006
million hectares of forests
(Source: www.pefc.org)
certified
under
PEFC
programme (PEFC, 2006).
6.3.2.1 Governance
The PEFC is a non profit organization consisting of the general assembly of members, a
board of directors and an executive committee. The board is comprised of the chair of
the PEFC Council, the two vice-chairs and up to 10 members elected by the general
assembly for three years. The board’s composition reflects the geographical distribution
109
of the members; the diversity of the forest types in which PEFC members operate; and a
gender balance.
6.3.2.2 Standards
The PEFC recognizes national certification systems with standards based on
intergovernmental processes for sustainable forest management. Examples include the
Pan European Forest Process and the Montreal Process. Recognized systems must also
be compatible with Pan-European Operational Level Guidelines (PEOLG) or an
equivalent framework. The Pan European Forest Process is based on criteria that
address biodiversity, maintenance and enhancement of forest ecosystems; conservation
of soil and water resources; the contribution of forests to global carbon cycles; assuring
an appropriate balance of wood and non-timber benefits; and maintaining the
socioeconomic values of forests.
National standards are developed by forming a body of interested parties such as forest
owners, processors, environmental groups and retailers. The standards are subject to
public review and consultation. Once a standard has received national approval it is
submitted to the PEFC for its review and mutual recognition process. Each of national
standards goes through a public consultation and independent assessment process to
decide whether it is to be mutually recognized.
The PEFC requires certification organizations capable of carrying out sustainable forest
management audits to be accredited by a designated national accreditation body. Such
bodies must be members of the European co-operation for Accreditation or the
International Accreditation Forum. A national accreditation body operates according to
International Organization for Standardization guidelines that define requirements for
accreditation bodies and carries out a certification body’s documentation review as well
as a field audit. Additionally, accredited certifiers are monitored regularly and required
to undergo subsequent accreditations every five years.
The third-party auditors carry out the certification by using established internal
procedures for auditing forest management so long as they conform to relevant ISO
guidelines for certifying environmental performance. These procedures must adhere to
national forest management standards and applicable standards for chain of custody
tracking, if the flow of raw material is being certified. Certified entities are subject to
annual surveillance audits and are subject to recertification every five years.
The PEFC developed a generic international chain of custody (CoC) standard for
tracking and labelling certified products. Although CoC requirements may vary by
country, entities wishing to use the PEFC label must meet its requirements. In PEFC
tracking of certified raw material it goes through one of two basic channels which are
given below:
110
 A physical separation model that separately stores and uses certified material
 A percentage-based model that allows companies to mix certified and uncertified
raw material but to verify and communicate the percentage of the certified raw
material
The PEFC CoC standard and all of the endorsed national CoC have a controversial
sources policy. Essentially, suppliers of raw materials or products must have a signed
self-declaration that the material or product does not come from a controversial source,
which is interpreted by most systems as an illegal source. However, some national
systems have provisions to limit material originating in ecologically valuable forests as
well.
The PEFC has an on-product label for forest managers and companies that meet the CoC
requirements. The PEFC logo can be used without an accompanying product claim. The
PEFC allows label users that relied on the percentage-based model to state on the label
that the product is “promoting sustainable management” so long as a minimum of 70
percent of the material is certified. Sources that use the physical separation model can
claim that the product “comes from sustainably managed forests.”
6.3.3 International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is an international non-profit
organization that establishes global standards for various products, production
processes and services to ensure that they meet acceptable level of quality. After the Rio
Summit, many national standards to ensure environmental safety have emerged which
prompted ISO to also develop environmental standards. As a result, the ISO develop
ISO 14000 series of international standards on environmental management and were
introduced in 1996.
Of all the standards in ISO14000 series, ISO 14001 for Environmental Management
Systems (EMS) is the only standard against which it is currently possible to be certified
by an external third party certification authority (ISO, 2004). The certification process
includes identification of environmental aspects of the operation which pose high risk to
the environment, setting objectives and targets to reduce the environmental impacts,
identification of changes required to meet the goals and objectives, implementation of
new practices and continuous evaluation of their effectiveness. This is more a process
based certification system and is applied at the level of entire enterprise and it does not
include specific, on-the–ground standards for forest management, but focuses on
improved environmental planning. The ISO 14001 system gained wide acceptance
around the world largely due to the recognition of ISO and many companies prefer their
forests to be certified under dual certification programmes, often one being the ISO
standards.
111
6.3.3.1 Governance
The ISO Guide 65 General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems
offers guidance on issues for bodies to consider in establishing a certification system.
This includes defining and documenting the policy objectives of the system; a
commitment to continuous improvement of the system; disclosure of minimum
certification requirements; and the body’s source of financial support.
6.3.3.2 Standards
The ISO Guide 59 Code of good practice for standardization offers comprehensive guidance
on standards development. This guidance includes providing a forum for public
participation, disclosing standards development procedures, using consensus-based
decision-making, and having procedures for addressing disputes.
The relevant ISO principles are outlined in ISO Guide 61 General requirements for
assessment and accreditation of certification/ registration bodies, Guide 62 General requirements
for bodies operating assessment and certification/ registration of quality systems and Guide 66
General requirements for bodies operating assessment and certification/ registration of
environmental management systems. These guides outline the requirements and
procedures of accreditation bodies. These Guides address the issues such as the
organization of the accreditation body, technical capacity, dispute resolution, and
procedures for carrying out accreditation.
There are two ISO guides that outline the structure and process of entities that
undertake certification activities—Guide 62 General requirements for bodies operating
assessment and certification/ registration of quality systems and Guide 66 General
requirements for bodies operating assessment and certification/ registration of environmental
management systems. These guides discuss the capacity of the verification entity, the
requirements for achieving, maintaining and renewing the certification, the decisionmaking process and the dispute resolution procedures.
The ISO 14000 standard series provides guidance for three types of environmental
claims. A Type I (Environmental labelling programme) claim is rewarded through a
voluntary, multiple criteria third-party verification system and states the environmental
characteristics of the product on a life-cycle basis. The Type II (Self declaration) claim is
an environmental performance statement made by a benefiting entity (manufacturer,
distributor, retailer or other benefiting entity) without third-party verification. A Type III
(Environmental declaration) claim is a presentation of independently verified
quantifiable data on environmental performance.
Forest certification product claims do not completely fit into any of the ISO definitions
for making an environmental product claim. Although the ISO Type I claim describes
112
some aspects common to forest certification—voluntary, multiple criteria and
independent verification—most systems in existence today do not make any claims on
the life cycle impacts of the forest product. Rather, forest certification systems make
claims as to the quality of the forest management—that is, the environmental aspects of
the production of raw material associated with the end use product.
6.3.3.6 ISO on the Ground
The majority of large forestry companies in North America have committed to
implement ISO environmental management system principles in managing their lands
and in operating manufacturing facilities. The Canada follows ISO 14001 standard and
managed its forest. The volume of forest lands in Canada managed in accordance with
ISO 14001 standards is 313.7 million acres. Some of these lands are also certified in
accordance with other forest certification systems as well.
6.3.4 Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI)
The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) programme was established by the American
Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) in 1994 with the intention of promoting
sustainable forestry practices in USA. In 2000, the Sustainable Forestry Board (SFB) was
established to oversee the SFI standards development and certification processes. Also
in 2000, the SFI programme was extended to Canada, to certify the forest to the SFI
standard. Although AF&PA member companies are still required to adhere to the SFI
programme, certification is open to all SFI Program participants.
It is a comprehensive system of principles, objectives and performance measures
developed to integrate both responsible environmental practices and sound business
practices (SFI, 2001). Compliance is a condition of membership in the AF&PA. The SFI
verification includes both first and second party verification as well as independent
third party certification of conformance to the SFI standards. The programme also has an
important education and outreach component geared toward all forest landowners and
requires the public release of an annual progress report. Since its establishment, over 136
million acres of forestland in North America is enrolled in SFI certification programme
(SFI, 2005).
6.3.4.1 Governance
The SFB manages the standards, verification procedures, dispute resolution and
programme quality control. In 2001, the SFB become an independent non-profit entity
with full management authority. The SFB comprises of a 15 person board that includes
natural resource professionals, conservation organizations and forestry industry
professionals. The External Review Panel comprises of 18 independent person group
that serves as an advisory capacity to AF&PA and the SFB, and is responsible for
ensuring the programme’s technical and scientific accuracy.
AF&PA remains responsible for administering the SFI programme, including
communications, licensing, labelling and reporting.
113
6.3.4.2 Standards
The SFI Standard (SFIS) is developed in concert by the Resources Committee, technical
sub-committees and working groups. The Resources Committee falls under the
jurisdiction of the SFB. This committee is composed of environmental groups, SFI
participants, academics, government agency personnel and forestry professionals.
Members of the SFB typically appoint another individual within their organization to
serve on the Resources Committee. Proposed standards are subject to public comment
periods and receive SFB approval before taking effect.
The SFI Program has a new standard valid from 2005 through 2009. The SFIS spells out
the requirements of compliance with the programme. The SFIS is based on nine
principles that address economic, environmental, cultural and legal issues, in addition to
a commitment to continuously improve sustainable forest management. The SFIS
contains 13 objectives covering sustainable forest management, procurement of wood
and fiber, public reporting, continuous improvement and mitigating illegal logging.
The SFI programme requires auditors to be accredited by the American National
Standards Institute or the Standards Council of Canada on a joint programme for EMS
auditors administered by two U.S.-based agencies, Registrar Accreditation Board and
the American National Standards Institute. The Registrar Accreditation Board is a nonprofit focusing on the accreditation and certification processes and the American
National Standards Institute is a non-profit organization charged with administering
and coordinating the voluntary standards system. Additionally, SFI auditors operating
in Canada are required to be accredited by the Canadian Environmental Auditing
Association. This organization is certified by the Standards Council of Canada to
evaluate and certify EMS auditors.
Certification organizations are assessed annually and required to be re-accredited every
three years. A review team from one of the accreditation bodies conducts an office audit
and reviews an environmental management system (ISO 14001) audit conducted by the
certification organization. The accreditation review team's work is then submitted to a
separate unit within the accreditation body for the final decision on accreditation for the
certification organization.
Verification of conformance with SFI programme requirements may be first, second or
third party audited. However, for certification, third party auditing is required to ensure
conformance with the SFIS. Recertification must occur at least every five years. Program
participants may choose a full recertification or surveillance audits periodically that
review each objective, performance measure and indicator at least once during a fiveyear period.
114
The SFI programme uses a sustainable wood procurement auditing system for tracking
certified products through the supply chain. The procurement system assists
landowners in improving their capacity to practice sustainable forestry on all types of
lands.
The SFI wood procurement system certification requires participant companies to have
an auditable system in place to characterize the forest practices on the lands where they
procure raw material. This is done by auditing the on-the-ground practices for a portion
of the wood that is supplied to their processing facilities. The programme emphasizes
reforestation, the utilization of best management practices and enhancing the
professional capacity of wood production operations. The SFI labelling programme also
recognizes landowners certified under the American Tree Farm System who supply raw
materials to SFI programme participants as a source equivalent to forests certified under
the SFI programme.
The SFI programme includes one label for primary producers and four others for
secondary producers in addition to labels for 100 percent content from a SFI certified
forest, and mixed content label with the percentage of content from an SFI certified
forest. In the SFI programme, a primary producer have facility that they produces forest
products and sources at least 50 percent of its raw materials by weight from primary
sources—round wood, wood chips and wood residues. While, secondary producers
produce forest products and purchase more than 50 percent of their raw material from
secondary sources such as semi-finished solid wood, paper, market pulp, recovered
wood fiber, or composite products.
In order to qualify for the label, a primary producer must meet specific criteria,
including, 100 percent of its raw material is sourced from third party-certified forests
(SFI or ATFS) and/or originates from SFI-certified procurement systems; no more than
two-thirds of the raw material by weight is from other credible sources; and, inclusion of
non-acceptable sources will preclude approval for label use.
In order to qualify to use an SFI label, a secondary producer must meet specific criteria,
including, at least two-thirds of the wood or fiber by weight is from a SFI-certified forest,
ATFS-certified forest, or a source that operates an SFI-certified procurement system; no
more than one-third of the wood or fiber is from neutral sources, which are defined as
recovered fiber, recovered paper and wood byproducts of a manufacturing process; and,
if inclusion of non-acceptable sources will preclude approval for label use.
SFI programme participants who have successfully completed independent third party
certification to the SFIS may also choose to have their facilities chain of custody certified
and could then qualify to use labels demonstrating the percent of the fiber used in
producing a product lines(s) that comes from forests independently certified to the SFIS.
The system allows for three different product tracking approaches as given under:
 A physical separation model that separately stores and uses certified material
115
 A batch model that uses only certified materials on a temporal basis—e.g.
production shift
 A mixed model that addresses the simultaneous use of certified and non-certified
materials
6.4 NATIONAL CERTIFICATION SCHEMES
Certain countries involved in timber trading have found it difficult to comply with
certification standards developed by different certification programmes due to their
inappropriateness to the political, cultural, economic and ecological realities of the
particular country. As a result increasing number of stakeholders in countries around
the world have focused on developing their own certification standards based on
principles and criteria of well known certification programmes. Several leading national
and regional certification systems are discussed here.
6.4.1 Canadian Standards Association
The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) is a non-profit voluntary association
established in 1919 with a core focus on the development of a range of standards and
product certification. In 1994, federal and provincial governments and a coalition of
forestry associations assign a task to CSA to establish a multi-stakeholder technical
committee to develop a Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) standard for Canada. The
initial standard, developed by a committee of academics, governmental, industry and
nongovernmental groups, was released in 1996 and is known as Z809-96. It was
reviewed and revised with the Z809-02 standard taking effect in December 2002. The
CSA and the standards it develops are designed on the basis of International
Organization for Standardization (ISO).
6.4.1.1 Governance
The CSA is a membership association opens to individuals and organizations. There are
two types of memberships. First, committee members who are responsible for
developing standards and Second, sustaining members who provide financial support
for the development of standards. The board of directors oversights responsibility for
the CSA. It consists of 27 members from academic, government, industry and the
consulting sectors.
6.4.1.2 Standards
The CSA has a technical committee tasked with coordinating the standards development
process. Representation is divided into four categories which include
professional/academia; general interest (including environmental, consumer, and labor
groups); government; and industry. In addition to public reviews, proposed standards
are also reviewed by an internal steering committee, but final approval comes from the
independent Standards Council of Canada (SCC). The SCC is the focal point for
standardization and conformity assessment in Canada and approves all national
standards.
116
The CSA standard is based on six criteria and 17 elements. The six criteria were adopted
from the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers criteria for SFM, while the 17 elements
are used to define the scope of each criterion. The six criteria address biodiversity,
maintenance and enhancement of forest ecosystems, conservation of soil and water
resources, the contribution of forests to global ecological cycles, multiple benefits to
society, and society’s responsibility toward sustainable development.
The SCC accredits auditors who are qualified to conduct certifications under the CSA
SFM system. Potential certification organizations submit an application that addresses
aspects of independent auditing and certification in accordance with the requirements of
the International Organization for Standardization. The SCC reviews the application,
conducts office and field assessments, and observes the applicant carrying out an SFM
audit. Certification organizations are monitored annually and required to be reaccredited every five years.
The certifiers audit relevant documentation and on-site performance to ensure
conformance to the requirements of the CSA. Certified operations are monitored
annually to review progress toward achieving SFM targets. Such operations must be
renewed at least every three years under the CSA standard.
The key components to obtaining CSA SFM certification are:
Public participation: Involve stakeholders, disputes and objectives, and establish a
timeline for achieving objectives
System requirements: Identify a defined forest area (DFA) that is subject to certification;
lay out the DFA manager’s responsibilities; and commit to continual improvements in
SFM
Performance requirements: Based on the public participation process, establish forest
management area values, goals, indicators and objectives that reflect the Council’s
national criteria and incorporate them into adaptive forest management planning and
practices
The CSA International Forest Products Group develop and manage CSA chain of
custody (CoC) and product mark to link Canada's National SFM Standard to consumers
and promote responsible purchasing,.
The CoC system tracks certified forest products from the time they leave the CSA
certified forest until they reach their final destination, such as a retailer's shelves. The
different CoC tracking options under the CSA system are:
A physical separation model that separately stores and uses certified material
117
A batch model that uses only certified materials on a temporal basis—e.g. production shift
A mixed model that addresses the simultaneous use of certified and non-certified
materials
Thus, companies that meet the CoC requirements can use the CSA SFM mark. To obtain
and use CSA SFM Mark, manufacturers cannot obtain wood-based raw materials from
controversial or illegal sources. A controversial source is defined as raw material from
illegal or unauthorized logging.
The CSA system has three labels for designating forest certified products. In order to
qualify for a CSA SFM Mark, at least 70 percent of the material must be certified. The
three marks are: 100 percent from a certified forest; product line from a certified forest
with a minimum of 70 percent certified; and a product with a minimum 70 percent
certified forest content.
6.4.2 American Tree Farm System
The American Tree Farm System (ATFS) can be considered as one of the oldest
programmes established to promote sustainable forestry practices. This system is more
oriented for small private landowners. ATFS has established standards and guidelines
for property owners to meet to become a certified Tree Farm. The first Tree Farm was
designated in Montesano, Washington in 1941, and currently ATFS has 33.2 million
acres of privately owned forest land and 80,000 family forest owners certified in 46 states
of USA (ATFS, 2005).
ATFS focuses on certifying the forestry practices of non-industrial private landowners in
the U.S. Non-industrial private forest landowners are defined as those who own
between 10 and 10,000 contiguous acres of forestland not associated with a forest
products manufacturing facility.
6.4.2.1 Governance
The American Forest Foundation (AFF) has oversight for the ATFS. The AFF is a
nonprofit education and conservation organization that was established in 1982. The
AFF consists of Board of Trustees, a Tree Farm Operating Committee, Education and
Outreach Committee, National Public Affairs Committee, Executive Committee and a
staff of 14, seven of which work on ATFS activities. The Operating Committee governs
ATFS, and is comprised of National and Outstanding Tree Farmers of the Year and
representatives from forestry associations, state foresters, forest industry, co-sponsoring
associations and state committee volunteers. Committee members, elected to three-year
terms, help determine the strategic direction and initiatives of ATFS.
6.4.2.2 Standards
The AFF establishes the standards of the ATFS. The ATFS implemented new standards
and guidelines in 2004, which consist of nine standards, 15 performance measures, and
21 indicators. The standards address commitments to AFF’s Standards of Sustainability,
118
legal compliance, long term management planning, environmental, aesthetic, and
special sites issues.
Compliance with the ATFS requires that landowners use an accredited Tree Farm
Inspector to inspect the operations. The ATFS established minimum education and
experience requirements for certifying foresters and forest technicians and developed a
national standardized training curriculum for its inspectors.
The property is audited for conformance to the ATFS standards and guidelines by a
volunteer tree farm inspector. A landowner's property is re-inspected every five years to
maintain Tree Farm certification status. There is no charge to the landowner for the
inspection.
6.4.2.5 Product and Tracking Labeling
The ATFS does not have a product tracking or labelling system as its principles focus on
assisting small forestland owners who are not associated with processing facilities. It
does, however, have mutual recognition with the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI)
Program. As a result, under the SFI system, ATFS certified raw material is considered
equivalent to SFI certified material.
6.4.3 Australian Forestry Standard (AFS)
Australian Forestry Standard (AFS) began in 2002. The development of the standard was
supported by the federal government and forest product industry associations. A
membership based company, the Australian Forestry Standard Limited, was established
in 2003 to oversee and manage the standard. The standard is developed and managed
by a steering committee, while a technical reference committee of 19 decides on the
content of the standard. It is voluntary, subject to verification by third-party accredited
auditors and is intended to apply to both native and planted forests regardless of tenure
or scale of ownership. There is also a chain of custody (CoC) standard for verifying the
origin of certified raw material. The AFS is mutually recognized by the Programme for
Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) schemes. To date the AFS has issued a single
certificate covering 543,400 acres (220,000 hectares).
6.4.4 Brazilian National Forest Certification Program (CERFLOR)
CERFLOR was idealized by the Brazilian Silviculture Society, together with several
associations, entities, research institutions and non-governmental organizations, as a
voluntary national program of forest management certification. CERFLOR was finally
lunched in a meeting of the Competitiveness Forum for the Wood and Furniture
Productive Chain, in August 22, 2002, as the official Brazilian program of forest
certification. The CERFLOR began operations in 2003 as a voluntary initiative focusing
on plantation forests. Additionally, the programme has a CoC standard for tracking
certified raw materials. The programme was developed within the guidelines of the
119
country’s national standardization organization, the National Institute of Metrology,
Normalization and Industrial Quality (INMETRO). The development of the standard
and governance of the programme includes representatives from producers, consumers,
governments, NGOs and organizations such as universities and research institutions.
The system is currently developing a standard for natural forests and has been mutually
recognized by PEFC.
The executive body of CONMETRO is the National Institute of Metrology,
Standardization and Industrial Quality (INMETRO). As the sole accreditation body in
Brazil, which is also recognized by the International Accreditation Forum (IAF),
INMETRO establishes guidelines for the accreditation of forest organizations in terms of
conformity assessment based on international accreditation standards. INMETRO also
has set the basic requirements for acceptable group certification and specific rule for
conformity assessment for chain of custody (CoC) within the CERFLOR framework.
CERFLOR is a voluntary program developed together with representatives from
different stakeholders at the national and regional levels; it includes representatives
from producers, consumers, governments, NGO’s and other organizations, such as
universities and research institutions. The Brazilian Government, through the Ministry
of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade (MDIC) and the Ministry of the
Environment (MMA), has supported the development of a national forest certification
program.
6.4.4.1 Structure and Operation
The Brazilian Association of Technical Standards is a non-profit entity recognized by
CONMETRO as the National Standardization Forum and it is a founding member of the
International Organization for Standardization. The Brazilian Association of Technical
Standards is the body responsible for the process of elaboration and revision of
CERFLOR standards.
The program has a voluntary character, and has always being opened to the
participation of the interested parties. During the phase of establishing standards and in
their revisions, the organizations and representatives of the environmental, social and
economical departments take part in the elaboration process. After the conclusion of the
projects of standards, by the Special Commission of Temporary Studies, they are
submitted to pilot tests and public consultation. The suggestions are analyzed and
when they are pertinent, included in the documents, and these ones are published as a
Brazilian standard by Brazilian Association of Technical Standards.
120
SINMETRO
Accreditation for
CONMETRO
Appeals /
complaints
INMETRO
CPRA
CBM
CCAB
TBT / OMC
CBN
ABNT
CB
N
ONS
ISO 9000
ISO 14001
Laboratories
Auditors
Training
CBAC
Voluntary
Technical
Standard
SCT Forest
Management
CEET Forest
Additional rules for conformity
assessment and accreditation for
Brazilian
Technical
Standards
forest management / C-o-C
Brazilian Technical
Forest Management
Standards
certification bodies
CERFLOR
Fig 6.4 CERFLOR structure
INMETRO is a federal autarchy connected to the Ministry of Development, Industry and
Foreign Trade (MDIC). INMETRO, the official accreditation body of the Brazilian
Government is responsible for the accreditation of forest management certification
bodies and of certification of chain of custody of forest products. It operates an
independent and impartial system, with an international and a national credibility,
being recognized by IAF (International Accreditation Forum) for the Quality
Management System and Environment Management System. The elaboration of
accreditation body’s standards and additional requirements for certification of chains of
custody is made by a Technical Sub-commission, with representatives of the interested
parties. INMETRO is the body, which performs the CERFLOR program. CERFLOR
structure may be visualized as presented fig 6.4.
121
6.4.5 Chilean Forest Certification System (CERTFOR)
Chilean Forest Certification System (CERTFOR) began operating in 2003. This system is
overseen by CERTFOR Chile, but Foundation Chile plays an oversight role. The
technical aspects of this system are seen by the Forestry Institute (INFOR). The system
has standards for managing plantation forests and CoC tracking of certified material as
well as group and individual certification options depending on forestland size. Also
natural forest management standard are in developing stage in the CERTFOR system.
The system is mutually recognized by the PEFC. As of June 2004, there were 2.3 million
acres (950,000 hectares) certified.
6.4.5.1 Purpose
The standard is available for SFM certification or for CoC certification in Chile. Both
have to be combined so that a product can carry the CERTFOR logo.
6.4.5.2 Types of forests
The SFM standard is available for plantation forestry. A version for native forest
management is in development process.
6.4.5.3 Type of forest owner
CERTFOR recognizes three size categories for Forest Management Units (FMU).
A small "Unidad de Manejo Forestal" (FMU, Forest Management Unit) is defined as
being under 100 ha in area. A medium FMU presents 100 to 3000 ha of forest. Large
FMUs are over 3000 ha in area. A forest owner may have several FMUs and certify only
some of them. However, it is not possible to certify only part of a FMU.
Small and medium forest owners can form groups and apply for group certification. A
specific Group Certification standard is available to regulate this modality. The
alternative is individual certification.
In all cases, all contractors, subcontractors or group owners, working in the certified area
or CoC, are also subjected to the standard requirements. It is the forest owner/manager
responsibility to guarantee this. These obligations should be mentioned in all contracts
for services/products when directly related to the FMU.
The group certification allows small forest owners to better participate to the Forest
Certification process, by sharing the costs of audits between members of a same group.
The group certification standard requires a good organization and administration, in
particular by designating a group manager.
6.4.5.4 Scoring
The Manual for Auditors is a document that presents the standard along with guidelines
meant to interpret it. It is the central document used by the auditor during audits. While
evaluating criteria and indicators, the auditor shall use a grading scale, ranging from
one to five. A mean minimum score of three is required for each principle. In the case of
122
lower scores, CERTFOR uses a system of non-conformances implying corrective actions.
Not complying with the required corrective actions shall eventually result in a failed
certification process.
6.4.5.5 Certificate Duration, Maintenance, and Renewal
CERTFOR certificates have validity for five-year period. The certificate holder require
annual follow-up audits, unless compliance to corrective actions already resulted in
check-up audits at least every year. Before certificate expiration, a new general
certification audit is necessary to renew the certificate. The cycle then repeats itself as if
the certificate were a new one.
For Performing auditing in the CERTFOR system the lead auditor has to be an auditor
with international experience in ISO 14001 certification, or in another performance-based
certification scheme and must have CERTFOR training and accreditation. Further
certification body he pertains to must have INN accreditation.
6.4.5.6 The Nine Principles Supporting the Chilean Certification System
Principle 1: The use of the forest resources must be planned and managed so as to
provide a sustained flow of products and services in successive rotations, according to a
comprehensive long term management plan appropriate to the scale of operations and
applicable to the Forest Management Unit (FMU), whether it belongs to a single owner
or group of them. The master plan should be prepared before operations commence.
Principle 2: The use of forest resources should be planned and managed so that the
environmental values of the natural ecosystems contained in the Forest Management
Unit are protected and significant negative impacts on biodiversity are avoided.
Principle 3: Forest resources should be managed so as to maintain their health, vitality
and productivity, by protecting them from fires and other damaging agents.
Principle 4: Forest resources are managed so as to promote soil conservation and to
minimize adverse impacts on the quantity and quality of water resources, taking
particular account of the needs of downstream communities.
Principle 5: Forest managers must respect the traditional and customary uses and rights
of local communities, maintaining good neighbor relations with them and supporting
the development of local capacities which contribute to the improvement of their quality
of life.
Principle 6: Forest managers will take into account declared agreements, documented
commitments and respect the legally established rights and the traditional knowledge of
indigenous peoples to use and manage their lands and resources.
Principle 7: Forest managers will respect the rights of the forest workers, compensating
them fairly and equitably, safeguarding their health and safety at work.
123
Principle 8: Forest managers respect the laws of Chile and international agreements and
legally biding treaties and will take into consideration any other agreements and
treaties, to which Chile is a signatory.
Principle 9: Regular monitoring of the forest resources, the management system and the
responsible companies and owners of the FMU, will be conducted with the purpose of
evaluating the progress in achieving the stated principles.
6.4.6 Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute (LEI)
The Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute (LEI) was established as a working group for
developing a sustainable forest management certification system, which was
implemented in 1998. LEI’s SFM Certification System was developed with reference to
the sustainable forest management principles and criteria of the International Tropical
Timber Organization (ITTO) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), as well as the
environmental management system developed by International Organization for
Standardization (ISO). LEI Follow phased approach to forest certification.
6.4.7 Malaysian Timber Certification Council
The Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC) was established in 1999 to develop
a voluntary national timber certification system. It has a Board of Trustees comprising
representatives from academic, research and development institutions; the timber
industry; non-governmental organizations; and government agencies. MTCC started
operating its certification scheme in October 2001. The scheme is being implemented
using a phased approach. The first shipment of MTCC-certified timber was exported in
July 2002 to The Netherlands. The MTCC released a set of criteria and indicators in 2002
and field tested these indicators until June 2004. Additionally, the MTCC has a CoC
standard and is recognize by PEFC recently. As of October 2003, there were seven forest
management certificates covering 10.1 million acres (4.11 million hectares) and 37 CoC
certificates.
6.4.7.1 MTCC Scheme
The MTCC timber certification scheme began operation in October 2001 using a phased
approach. The standard currently being used for assessing Forest Management
Units (FMUs) is the Malaysian Criteria, Indicators, Activities and Standards of
Performance for Forest Management Certification (MC&I). The MC&I is based on the
1998 ITTO Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management of Natural Tropical
Forests. It contains the key elements for sustainable forest management covering
economic, social, environmental and conservational aspects, and incorporates the
corresponding standards of performance for Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsular
Malaysia identified during the regional and national level consultations held in
1999.
6.4.7.2 Overview of MTCC Scheme
124
As the timber certification body, MTCC receives and processes applications for
certification, arranges for assessments to be carried out by its registered independent
assessors, and decides on all such applications, based on the report of the assessors. The
assessment report for forest management certification will be subject to a peer review
process by qualified individuals who are registered with MTCC for this purpose (Fig
6.5).
MTCC Timber Certification Scheme
Department of Standards Malaysia
(national accreditation body)
Malaysian Timber Certification Council
(timber certification organisation)
Peer
Reviewers
Forest
Timber Product
Management Unit (FMU) Manufacturer/Exporter
Independent
Assessor
(applicant)
Fig. 6.5 MTTC timber Certification scheme
MTCC has a Certification Committee which is responsible for considering assessment
reports submitted by independent assessors on applicant FMUs and timber product
manufacturers/ exporters. Based on the recommendations of the assessors, the
Certification Committee will make the decision whether the applicant merits the award
of the MTCC certificate.
6.4.7.3 MTCC Certificates
Certificate for Forest Management
The Certificate for Forest Management is issued to confirm that the Permanent Reserved
Forests (PRFs) in the FMU have complied with the requirements of the forest
management standard used in the MTCC scheme and the timber is harvested legally.
Holders of valid Certificates for Forest Management may use the MTCC logo off-product to
provide an assurance that their FMUs adhere to good forest management practices as
required by the forest management standard.
Certificate for Chain-of-Custody
125
The Certificate for Chain-of-Custody is issued to manufacturer or exporter which has
complied with the RCOC used in the MTCC scheme. Holders of valid Certificates for
Chain-of-Custody issued by MTCC may use the MTCC logo, on-product and off-product,
to provide an assurance to buyers that their timber products are manufactured from
MTCC-certified sources of wood-based materials.
The MTCC certificates are valid for a period of five years. Certificate holders will be
subject to regular surveillance visits by assessors during the period of validity to ensure
that they continue to comply with the requirements of the relevant standards.
Holders of the MTCC certificates are subject to the terms and conditions of the
respective certificates and are eligible to use the MTCC logo in accordance with the
MTCC Logo Guide for Certificate Holders.
The use of the MTCC logo requires the inclusion of the following key elements (Fig. 6.6).
•
The MTCC logo
•
The MTCC copyright claim
•
Certificate for Forest Management or Chain-of-Custody number of the certificate
holder
Trademark Symbol
On-Product Statement
At least 70% of the wood used in
making this product comes from forests
independently certified according to
the rules of the Malaysian Timber
C tifi ti C
il
SM
73% Minimum
Certificate for Chain-of-Custody No. 008
 2000 MALAYSIAN TIMBER CERTIFICATION
MTCC Logo
Mean minimum percentage of
MTCC-certified material
MTCC
Copyright
Claim
Fig 6.6 key elements required by the MTCC logo
Certificate for
Chain-of-Custody
126
•
An approved on-product or off-product statement
•
Mean minimum percentage of MTCC-certified material of the total wood, chip or
fibre used in making the product or in the batch manufacturing process (in the case
of certain products using the minimum average percentage system)
6.4.7.4 Recognition of MTCC Scheme
The Danish Ministry of the Environment, Department for Environment Food & Rural
Affairs (DEFRA), United Kingdom, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New
Zealand, the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) of UK, the French Ministry of
Environment and Sustainable Development and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Rural Affairs describing the MTCC certificate as providing a good guarantee of legal
forest management, on its way towards becoming sustainable.
As at June 2006, 28 holders of the MTCC Certificate for Chain-of-Custody have been
accepted under the Keurhout Protocol for Legal Origin in The Netherlands. The MTCC
scheme is also listed as one of the certification schemes in the Guideline for Verification
on Legality and Sustainability of Wood and Wood Products issued by the Forestry
Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan.
6.4.8 Keurhout Foundation
The Keurhout Foundation with the support of Dutch government in the Netherlands has
developed a system and a logo for timber from sustainably managed forests. It also
assesses existing certification systems and provides a label for forest products produced
from certified forests. The criteria are set by the Dutch government and other existing
schemes such as FSC and ITTO guidelines. At the end of 2003, the foundation ceased to
exist but the Keurhout logo and the scheme that had been developed around it was
taken over by the Netherlands Timber Trade Association. Currently 39,982,337 hectares
of forests have been certified in various countries including Austria, Canada, Finland,
Sweden and Gabon (Keurhout, 2005).
6.5 DISTRIBUTION OF CERTIFIED FOREST AREA
In the years since certification was initially developed, two main international forest
certification schemes have emerged: Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification and
the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes (PEFC). Meanwhile,
numerous national certification schemes have also emerged (e.g., Sustainable Forest
Initiative, Malaysia Criteria & Indicators [MC&I], Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia [LEI],
etc.), or are in the process of being developed.
Globally, some 271 million hectares of forest had been certified as of January 2006 (Durst
et al., 2006). Combined, FSC (25.14 percent) and PEFC (68.69 percent) account for 93.8
percent of all certified forest area (Fig. 6.7). The vast majority of certified forests are in
the temperate and boreal regions of North America and Europe, which together account
for 91.8 percent of the total (Fig. 6.8). Developing countries account for just 13 percent of
127
certified forests, while tropical forests, the original focus of certification harbour just 4.7
percent (Figure 4). Tropical developing countries with the largest areas of certified
forests include Brazil, Bolivia, Mexico and Guatemala. The vast majority of certified
forest areas (both tropical and non-tropical) are industrial forests.
Table 6.1 Certified forest areas (mha) under various certification schemes (January
2006)
Region
FSC
Value (area in mha and
share in %)
Africa
1.70
Asia-Pacific
2.40
Europe
35.00
North America
22.50
South America
6.50
Total
68.10
Market share
25.14
Tropical
8.00
Non-Tropical
60.10
Developed
37.60
Developing
30.50
Source: Durst et al. (2006)
PEFC
0.00
5.20
55.90
123.60
1.60
186.10
68.69
0.00
186.10
186.00
0.00
Others
0.00
4.70
0.00
12.00
0.00
16.70
6.17
4.70
12.00
12.00
4.70
Total
1.70
12.20
90.90
158.00
8.10
271.00
100.00
12.80
258.20
235.60
35.20
% Share
0.60
4.50
33.50
58.30
3.00
100.00
4.70
95.30
86.90
13.10
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
Total area(mha)
FSC
PEFC
Others
68.10
186.10
16.70
25.14
68.69
Share(%)
Fig. 6.7 Certified forest area under various schemes
While certification is intended as a
tool to enhance forest management
practices throughout the world, to
date most certified forestry
operations are located in Europe
and North America. A significant
South America,
3.00%
6.17
Africa, 0.60%
Asia-Pacific,
4.50%
Europe, 33.50%
Africa
North America,
Centre for SFM & Forest Certification, IIFM
Bhopal
58.30%
Asia-Pacific
128
Europe
North America
South America
Fig. 6.8 Certified forest area under various regions
barrier for many forest managers in developing countries is that they lack the capacity to
undergo a certification audit and maintain operations to a certification standard.
6.6 CHALLENGES FOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAMMES
Although the FSC and PEFC alliances appear to be engaged in a broad-scale competition
with each other at present, and are not always on speaking terms, it is important to
remember that they share a number of basic institutional features and face some
common challenges. The common challenges faced by certification in present scenario
are describe below.
6.6.1 Consistency and Decentralization
Perhaps the most daunting challenge facing forest certification programmes is to
construct systems that can claim to be globally consistent and at the same time respond
to local circumstances in very diverse places. The FSC and PEFC started on rather
different ends of this challenge. The FSC began by defining a relatively strong set of
programme-wide requirements and then adapting them to the degree necessary to
respond to local differences. The PEFC began by defining a much looser set of
programme-wide criteria and then building local programmes. Over time, however,
both programmes have had to address the issue of achieving decentralized consistency.
Thus the FSC is facing considerable pressure from some of its national and regional
working groups not to try to make their respective standards so consistent with each
other as to override decisions made in local standard setting processes. The PEFC, on the
other hand, is facing increasing pressure to build greater credibility, which often means
consistency, into its programme.
6.6.2 Reliability and Costs
Similarly, the competition between the alliances intensifies the pressures on each
programme to improve its performance. This often means deploying improved
mechanisms for monitoring and assessing forestry operations, including more detailed
and consistent assessment protocols, better accreditation and auditing systems,
information management systems and the like. But all of these improvements cost
money, and the programmes are simultaneously under pressures to keep costs down,
since they must be remunerated by the forestry operations they certify and are, after all,
in competition with each other. These countervailing pressures create strong pressures
for the programmes to observe each other closely, and to adopt those innovations made
by one programme that can be turned to advantage by the other.
6.6.3 Expanding Scope and Preserving Strength
Third, each certification programme is under constant pressure to improve its
competitive position by expanding its scope while at the same time preserving its
fundamental sources of strength. For the FSC, this currently means addressing issues
such as how to deal with 100% recycled paper and whether to develop some sort of
129
“step-wise” system to facilitate the entry of lower performing enterprises which might
then be induced to attain the higher standard over time. For the PEFC, it means things
such as expanding to include tropical timber and trying to induce environmentally
credible NGOs to get involved. These initiatives and many others pose considerable
risks for the programmes, since they may threaten the primary social and political
supports on which the programmes are founded.
There is a increasing interest in life cycle eco-labelling of many forest products. Such
labels cover standards not only for forest management, but also for pulping, packaging,
manufacture, transport, use and disposal. Example includes the European Commission
regulations that establish criteria for the eco-labelling of toilet paper and kitchen rolls.
Forest certification often presented in a way, which makes it synonymous with ecolabelling. This is confusing, as there is an important difference. Forest certification is
more correctly defined as a single issue eco-label-wood and paper products are labelling
according to whether the forests the forests they originate from are well managed. Forest
certification allows the use of an eco-label, which only considers the production of
particular raw materials virgin fibre for paper products and timber for products using
wood.
More usually, eco-labelling is multiple issues and adopts a credible to grave analytical
framework (life cycle analysis or LCA). The starting point for a life cycle analysis is the
correct identification and prioritization of environmental effects throughout a products
life cycle. Typically, a matrix is prepared which ranks the relative importance of
environmental effects according to the each phase of the product cycle. Criteria, which
set standards for each effect identified as significant, are then developed. An acceptable
identification of effect is one of the main challenges facing LCA for wood and paper
products. A credible forest certification programme could be of assistance in facilitating
this work.
A forest certification programme could fulfill part of the requirement for a multiple issue
eco-label, provided mutual recognition between the two programmes existed. Current
eco-labelling initiative should consider ways in which existing and credible forest
certification programme can be accepted. Such recognition would facilitate the
development of eco-label and reduce the cost of their application.
130
7
Certification of Non Timber Forest Products
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) define Non-Timber Forest
Products (NTFPs) as “a product of biological origin other than wood derived from forests, other
wooded land and trees outside forests that may be gathered from the wild, or produced in forest
plantations, agroforestry schemes and from trees outside forests”.
Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are a collection of biological resources derived from
both natural and managed forests and other wooded areas (Peters, 1996). Examples
include a variety of fruits, nuts, seeds, oils, spices, resins, gums, medicinal plants and
many more products specific to the particular areas from which they originate. NTFPs
are culturally important, cheap and often accessible to local people. Gathering NTFPs
can be both opportunistic and casual, or alternatively planned expeditions. The decision
to collect NTFPs is influenced by the urgency for money, the amount expected to be
earned, the time that can be spared from other activities, the likelihood of obtaining
significant volumes of product and the hardship entailed (de Beer and McDermott,
1989).
The importance of NTFPs has grown with increasing awareness of tropical forest
deforestation and increasing recognition of the need to add value to forest resources, in
order to compete with other land uses. Others have highlighted their existing
importance in world trade (de Beer and McDermott, 1989). However, NTFPs continue to
be regarded by many foresters as marginal goods incapable of competing with timber as
an economically viable alternative use of tropical and sub tropical forests. The aims of
NTFP policy initiatives address much more than economic issues. Through the holistic
management of NTFPs, an attempt is made to maintain and sustain the resource and its
users; contribute to sustainable development; conserve forests and biodiversity, and to
promote non-traditional enterprises to improve local economies and diversify the
economic base of the rural poor (Falconer, 1996, Wollenberg and Ingles, 1998).
NTFPs can be divided into various categories making clear the large variety of products
covered by the term NTFP:
•
•
By user purpose (e.g. food, medicine, spiritual and traditional uses, construction,
etc);
By level of use (self supporting, commercial);
131
•
By type of NTFP harvested (e.g. leaf, fruit, stem, exudates, skin, etc).
Adapted from van Rijsoort (2000).
7.1 IMPORTANCE OF NON TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS
Humans were hunters and gatherers long before they became farmers and loggers. The
fruits of hunting and gathering of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) continue to this
day to make an important contribution to subsistence and market economies alike.
Worldwide, it is estimated that several thousands of species are collected from the wild
for a variety of purposes (Myers, 1988); in the high-diversity forests of Amazonia, for
example, more than two-thirds of all tree species are used by indigenous peoples
(Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2001).
Important non-timber forest products (NTFPs) from the dry forests include gums (such
as gum arabic), fodder, honey and grazing, whose production is included in the
objectives of management of some forests. Other management objectives include
maintenance of populations of wild animals as an important component of biodiversity
conservation and support of eco-tourism.
At the local community level, non-timber forest products can account for 35 per cent
(Cavendish, 1997) to as much as 60 per cent (for example, India; Hegde et al. 1996) of
household incomes. And even at a global level, the estimated value of the market in
herbal medicines alone (a large proportion of which is collected from the wild) is about
US$ 14 billion (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2001). Despite the
long history of NTFP harvest (Moegenburg 2002 and Posey 1982), it is only relatively
recently that management of NTFP has caught the attention of conservation scientists as
a means of ensuring forest conservation and as an alternative to conversion. If one were
to try and attribute this altered perspective on NTFP to any one single event, it would
probably be the most worthy. In this way, Peters et al. (1989), attempted to put a value
on tropical forests, and demonstrated that the potential long-term economic returns
from forests managed for NTFP are greater than the net returns from timber or forest
conversion to agriculture. This analysis justified that conservation of tropical forest was
not only have biological importance, but economic and social as well. Since then, the
idea of linking NTFP harvest with livelihoods of forest-dependent communities as an
alternative to deforestation has become a widely accepted conservation paradigm
(Nepstad and Schwartzman, 1992; Panayotou and Ashton, 1992). Similarly, the idea of
including NTFP in diversified forest management plans to offset the costs of reducedimpact logging (Campos et al., 2001 and Salick et al. 1995) is becoming increasingly
accepted as a part of sustainable forest management. Even so, there is very little
information on the ecological impacts of managing forests for NTFP. It is often assumed
that there is little, or no, ecological impacts of NTFP harvest (Myers 1988) although there
is evidence to the contrary as discussed by Godoy and Bawa, 1993 and Padoch, 1992.
The ecological effects of harvesting NTFP can be varied, and the impacts can range from
the level of genes to individuals and populations, communities and ecosystems, all of
132
which have important consequences (Hall and Bawa, 1993 and Peters, 1994). At one
extreme, the alteration of the genetic composition of wild populations from repeated
selective harvest of the biggest, or most productive, individuals can deplete the vigour
of the wild gene pool. This in turn can compromise the long-term survival of the species;
it can also compromise the vigour of domesticated and cultivated populations of species
drawn from such depleted wild stocks. At the other extreme, harvest of certain NTFP
can lead to ecosystem degradation, for example, nutrient depletion from the export of
large amounts of nutrient-rich plant parts (for example, the harvest of Banksia hookeriana
blooms; Witkowski and Lamont, 1996) or soil erosion resulting from over harvest of
species that help to stabilize soil (for example, harvest of underground portions of Aloe
vera and Asparagus racemosus; Ramakrishnappa, 2002). This can affect not only the
availability of desirable NTFP species, but also jeopardise other values that society
derives from ecosystems, such as soil and water conservation or carbon sequestration.
In a recent review of studies on the ecological effects of NTFP harvesting, Ticktin (2004)
demonstrated that most studies have focused on effects at the level of individuals and
populations of target NTFP species. Few studies have examined effects at the level of
communities, and fewer still at the level of the ecosystem.
Population level studies rely on demographic techniques, such as population matrix
models, which provide a relatively short-term picture of the population structure of a
target species in a particular environment, subject to a particular management regime.
Population matrix models are limited in their ability to predict impacts of NTFP harvest
for populations in conditions that differ from those under which the model was
developed (Boot and Gullison, 1995). The specificity of such demographic approaches,
and the inability to extrapolate from studies of the same species under different
conditions, highlights the importance of monitoring of NTFP populations as an integral
part of any harvest and management system. Ticktin (2004) also highlights the
disproportionate numbers of studies focusing on particular types of NTFP, or on certain
plant life forms or life histories. Thus, there are many more studies on the effects of fruit
and seed harvest than on the effects of resin or root harvest. Similarly, there are many
more studies on the response of palms to being harvested than on the response of lianas
or vines. Certain plant life histories, such as long-lived tropical trees, can make
assessments of the ecological impacts of harvesting especially difficult. A good example
is the poster-child of tropical forest extractivism, the Brazil nut, which is almost
exclusively harvested from the wild. Although studies on individual populations
suggest that present high levels of extraction (as much as 93 per cent; Zuidema and Boot,
2002) have little impact on the demography of wild populations, a recent continental
scale study of Brazil nut extraction shows just the opposite: despite sustained high levels
of seed production in many harvested populations given the long reproductive life-span
of these trees populations with a long history of exploitation show distinct population
bottlenecks (Peres et al., 2004). But it is not biological factors alone that determine the
ecological consequences of managing forests for NTFP. The consequences of
management for NTFP are determined, perhaps as importantly, by the political and
133
socio-economic context in which such management occurs. In a comparative study of
extractive reserves in the Petén of Guatemala, and in Kalimantan, Indonesia, Salafsky et
al. (1993) demonstrated that despite the greater annual revenues from NTFP extraction
in Kalimantan than in the Petén, extractive reserves alone were not likely to save the
Kalimantan rain forest. The greater pressure for alternative land uses, the relatively
poorly developed physical and social infrastructure for extraction, and the nature of
land tenure and political power of harvesters in Kalimantan, may in fact make the
opportunity costs of extractive reserves greater than in the Petén. Wollenburg (1998), in
a state-of-the-knowledge overview of NTFP-based enterprises as an approach to
conservation, highlights the complementary multiple objectives of conserving forests,
enhancing livelihoods and improving social conditions, which must be met for such
efforts to be sustainable. She also discusses the distinctive features of such NTFP-based
enterprises and marketing, which can influence the ecological impacts of NTFP
extraction. Principal among these is that such enterprises are often based on multiple
products, with varying ecological characteristics, availability and market demand, thus
making enterprise development a complex proposition necessitating unique harvest,
processing and marketing arrangements tailored to each product. Moreover, market
demand for products of such enterprises can vary from the local to the global scale,
requiring separate market analysis and strategies. Often these enterprises are by their
very nature located in remote areas, and people involved lack formal business and
financial skills required for enterprise development. Finally, compounding these factors
may be the fact that such enterprises frequently are part of complex social and tenurial
arrangements, with forests managed for multiple objectives (Hiremath, 2004).
7.2 ROLE OF NTFPs IN THE FOREST MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Forests can be managed for many different objectives and products, including nontimber forest products (NTFPs) such as gums, resins, fruits, nuts, medicinal herbs, fungi
and weaving/construction materials. NTFPs encompass a broad range of products. Some
NTFPs are internationally traded while others are critical subsistence resources in many
rural economies. NTFPs may come from natural forests, forest plantations or
agroforestry systems. NTFPs require special management and monitoring
considerations in order to ensure the long-term viability of species and to minimize
adverse social and ecological impacts (www.rainforest-alliance.org, 2002).
NTFP harvest may produce fewer negative impacts on forest ecosystems than timber
harvesting and can provide an array of social and economic benefits, particularly to
community forest operations. NTFPs may maintain or enhance carbon sequestration,
watershed and soil conservation functions in select forest systems. NTFPs have the
potential to diversify income opportunities from forests and often yield income benefits
in shorter time frames than timber. NTFP harvest and management is present in most
forest management systems worldwide, for both commercial and subsistence purposes.
134
7.2 CERTIFICATION OF NTFPs
Certification is the process of evaluating and labelling products against accepted
standards of good management. A new development in the certification movement is
the certification of Non Timber Forest Products (NTFPs). NTFPs may be certified
based on standards for fair trade, organic production, and forest stewardship. A
wide variety of organisations have developed standards for certification. One
main objective of these schemes is to ensure NTFPs policies and guidelines for
assessment and implementation of certification. The other objective is to promote the
certification of NTFPs by a means to achieve better forest management. To ensure the
objectivity of certification, a reputable independent third party conducts the
evaluation. Once certified, a business may promote their business and products
as certified, which is often done by using the distinctive logo of the standards
setting organisation.
Certification of NTFPs has been possible under variety of schemes. The more important
is FSC system doing well for a couple of years and its accredited certifiers are carrying
out assessments on NTFP operations worldwide. The most active certifiers in this regard
has been SmartWood (www.smartwood.org), based in the United States, which has
developed an NTFP certification addendum to their regular forest management
standards. These standards have been used as the basis for developing product specific
standards.
While certification of NTFPs require adherence to the complete set of management
standards, and also include a number of specific references to NTFPs. These include:
•
The need for development of NTFP management standards to be included in any
joint forest management.
•
The forest is managed to produce a variety of non-timber forest products compatible
with site conditions and local economic objectives for strengthening the local
economy.
•
Where the manager harvests or has the ability to control the harvest of NTFPs, the
rate of harvest reflects best available inventory and productivity data and provides
for sustainable production.
Further, the certification programmes associated with NTFPs is also the most
expensive certification programme to implement. In addition, these systems are
difficult to apply to informal community-based NTFP operations that constitute the
vast majority of NTFP harvesting. In this regard, this, FSC certification is probably
still most appropriate for large-scale industrial NTFP operations or for operations
where timber extraction is the primary focus of the forest management plan.
India is home to an amazing diversity of plants, with over 46 000 plant species recorded
to occur there. Many of these species are used for medicinal purposes, with
approximately 760 known to be harvested from the wild for use by India's large herbal
135
medicine industry. There is concern, however, that collection methods for many, if not
most, of these species are destructive and wild populations declining as a result.
Despite various regulations aimed at protecting plant resources, the destructive and
unsustainable collection, use and trade of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (MAPs) pose a
major threat to several important medicinal plant species in the country. In this regards,
it is imperative to look for alternative approach to securing the sustainable use of
country’s medicinal plant resources. The use of forest certification as a tool to promote
sustainable harvest and trade in medicinal plants could be one alternative approach for
sustainable MAP resource availability (Jain, 2004).
Many medicinal plant species in India occur in forest areas and along with other nontimber forest products (NTFP), fall within the scope of certification schemes aimed at
"sustainable forest management". Other prominent types of certification scheme relevant
to medicinal plants relate to ensuring organic, fair trade and quality standards and could
be applied both to raw materials and production methods.
While some independent certification exist for fair trade and organic standards for
medicinal plants in India, but these are largely restricted to teas and other plant
products more usually associated with the mainstream food and beverage industry.
The schemes exploring certification options for sustainable forest management were
found to be underway in India. However, no independent, third-party process for
certifying the sustainability of medicinal plant production exists in India. A review of
the wider certification climate in India provides important lessons for the future
application of certification to medicinal plants and other NTFP.
Some independent certification schemes are taking root in India, notably in the context
of "fair trade", particularly with regard to certain exported items, such as tea, and rugs.
FLO has certified 23 companies in India as operating in accordance with its Fair Trade
Standards and IFAT has several member companies in India. Similarly, IFOAM has 29
members and eight associates in India certifying production according to organic
standards. As in the case of "fair trade", organic certification appears to be geared
primarily toward export markets. (Jain, 2004).
Assessments of current practices for medicinal plant harvests and trade, which derive
from a long tradition within India, indicate that, even if the market conditions were ripe
for third party certification, the complex, informal and often opportunistic nature of the
trade would not be conducive to it. Comparison of practices for collection and trade of
medicinal plants in India with NTFP management requirements according to Criteria of
internationally recognized schemes have a wide gap between current management
approaches, harvest and trade.
Several government certification schemes focusing on product quality, environmentally
friendly and organic production exist in India with over 1100 products certified for
product quality standards by the Bureau of Indian Standards and 16000 licenses issued
to companies meeting these standards.
136
Certification for quality management and environmental management according to ISO
has also been adopted. The Bureau of Indian Standards has adopted the ISO 14000 series
as national standards for environmental management as voluntary environmental
standards. In 1991, the Government launched the 'Eco-mark' scheme aimed at certifying
and awarding a special product label to goods meeting specific environmental
standards. But participation of the companies and recognition by the consumers for this
environmental initiative has been very less.
7.4 ISSUES RELATED TO NTFP CERTIFICATION
7.4.1 Economic relevance for communities
Majority of population in the world and particularly in developing countries located in
rural areas and their dependence, especially the economic dependence of the forest
dependent communities is on the non-timber forest produce. Hence, certification would
provide economic incentive to these communities and contribute to livelihood support
systems.
7.4.2 Low awareness
The communities have been collecting the forest products for consumption and also to
gain economic returns. More of the economic benefits received are from the non-timber
forest produce, which could further be enhanced in form of premiums for certified
products as well as provide much broader market acceptance. Certification would need
to comply with strict standards and hence advocating better management of forests. The
communities, the stakeholders directly responsible for management of forests, lack
improved management techniques that may be required to meet to the standards of
certification.
7.4.3 Lack of knowledge
The certification of NTFPs needs improved and well-defined methodologies and
techniques for assessment and measurement to define standards for certification
especially harvesting. Lack of information on the assessment and measurement of
NTFPs owing to its site specificity and influence of the local factors on the productivity
and use.
7.4.4 Cost intensive
Certification of NTFPs accentuates improved research and studies and better
technological inputs. These inputs hence would increase the cost involved in
certification. Moreover, this would also result in tough trade competition owing to the
increased cost of marketable end product.
Thus, issue of NTFP certification is complex and will require much effort, reflecting the
variety of extraction methods and the socio-economic environment that define NTFP
production.
137
Awareness of NTFP certification shall shed light to the mistaken impression that NTFPs
are ‘inherently green’ products, because logging is not involved in their production. As
it was previously mentioned the fact that NTFP extraction is compatible with forest
conservation, does not mean that care should not be taken, especially when the target is
rather intensive NTFP commercialization than simple production to meet subsistence
needs. Also, many times ‘green consumers’ confuse organic products with NTFPs and
ignore the damage that unsustainable gathering does to forest resources.
NTFP biology and ecology is complex and many times poorly understood. Some NTFPs
are produced irregularly or are highly seasonal making is quite difficult to develop
certifiable management plans. As commercialization of NTFPs will result in
intensification of production, there is a need to investigate its effect on forest function.
Also, as demand for NTFPs is inelastic for locally traded products, cost of certification
may interfere with the ability to pay of rural consumers. Thus, in the best candidates to
start NTFP certification initiatives would be internationally traded NTFPs, such as nuts
or cork. Any certification initiative, especially for medicinal plants, should be done in
collaboration with other initiatives such as TRAFFIC.
7.5 MERITS AND DEMERITS OF NTFPS CERTIFICATION
7.5.1 Merits of NTFPs certification
•
Improve market access;
•
Increase prices paid to harvesters and processors through price premiums;
•
Encourage sustainable harvesting practices and preparation of management
plans for sustainable management of forests for NWFP.
•
Enhancement of income sources for rural people
•
Direct linkage of green consumers to local producers
•
Provide conscientious consumers with a clearer choice of products;
•
Acquisition of legal titles of local producers (address of equity issues)
7.5.2 Demerits of NTFP certification
•
Intensification of production to satisfy green consumerism
•
Creation of a real or perceived impediment to NTFP access by rural poor
•
Disruption of traditional social and economic structures in subsistence
communities
•
Failure to address sustainability issues for many locally consumed NTFPs, for
which no certification will be undertaken
•
Over exploitation of herbs through over commercialization as “inherently green”
products
138
Overall, there are a lot of cases that the prospect of NTFP certification is positive, such as
the developing Green market, which will enhance the economy rural populations and
conservation efforts in the regions where they reside. However, certification efforts
should proceed with caution as many of these populations subsist on NTFPs and any
increase of the demand for the product outside local markets could negatively interfere
with sensitive subsistence patterns. An important positive aspect of any certification
initiative is that it shall increase the knowledge level of landscape ecology in the areas it
will be attempted. Finally, putting an emphasis on NTFP certification will be a way to
concentrate efforts for a real evaluation of the worth of non timber producing
woodlands, which is neglected in the past or not given the deserving attention.
7.6 CHALLENGES FACING NTFP CERTIFICATION
There are a number of challenges facing NTFP certification. Among the most critical
which are given by Mallet and Karmann (2000) are follows:
•
Lack of ecological knowledge about individual species, including baseline data,
sustainable harvesting levels and resiliency levels. This knowledge is often only
relevant to specific ecological niches and is held in part by local harvesters. The
threat to sustainable harvesting comes when a market value is attached to the
individual species and harvesting rates increase.
•
Possible negative impacts of certification on small producers and subsistence users,
including their need to prove or formalize customary tenure and access rights and
even the potential loss of subsistence use rights due to increased market demands.
•
Difficulty in realizing market benefits from certification. Markets for certified
products are not well developed and tend to occupy niche markets for high quality
products. Often quality control measures in NTFP harvesting / processing need to be
developed. Additionally, it has yet to be shown whether certified NTFPs are able to
command a higher price in the marketplace.
•
Lack of overall experience with NTFP certification including absence of skills in
assessing the characteristics of specific NTFPs, lack of standard policies and the
difficulty with integrating timber and NTFP certification.
The primary goal of certification is to bring about positive environmental and social
change in resource stewardship. Certification criteria can be used by producers and
harvesters everywhere as a model for best practices. It must be remembered that the
time and financial costs associated with undergoing a certification assessment often
outweigh the benefits derived from being certified. When considering NTFP
certification, the best option may be not to pursue a formal assessment.
Certification is only one tool among many to move towards more sustainable
production systems. It will take further refinement of certification programs to meet
local realities, more producers and harvesters willing to test the certification market and
increased demand by consumers for certified products before the full benefits of NTFP
certification are felt.
139
In order to promote third party certification of MAPs in India following measure should
be adopted (Jain, 2004):
 A national, multi-ministerial and multi-disciplinary working group on certification
should be established to explore further the potential to establish certification
schemes for medicinal plants. Such a group should be organized in consultation with
internationally-recognized certification bodies and recognize that any process to
develop standards will require several stages, including development of interim
standards, field testing and refinement;
 Experiments to measure management of selected medicinal plants - high-value
species, traded in high volumes, nationally and internationally - against some key
international standards and criteria for forest management should be undertaken in
some forest management divisions, particularly in States like Chhattisgarh and
Uttaranchal, which have declared themselves "Herbal States".
 "Good collection practices" should be developed for medicinal plants, preferably at
the species level, with a priority placed on those taxa for which destructive collection
is reported.
 "Good sourcing practices" should be developed for industry. Industry associations
could take a lead in the development of good sourcing practices, with the support of
the Department of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy and the National
Medicinal Plants Board, and the collaboration of other stakeholders;
 The potential to link the Good Manufacturing Practices requirement (under the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940) to a requirement that medicinal plant materials
should originate from sustainable and legal sources should be explored; and
 Programmes to increase the awareness of stakeholders (particularly forest managers
and members of industry) of criteria for sustainable management of medicinal plants
should be implemented, so that such criteria can be adopted in resource
management as far as possible.
140
8
Role of Government in Forest Certification
To define certification as an exclusively voluntary, market-based instrument might seem
to imply that there is no specific role for governments. However, over the years, some
governments have become involved in a wide range of issues relating to forest
certification. This is because the multiple roles and responsibilities of governments have
led them to reflect further on the issue rather than to ignore it. Not only do they have an
overall commitment to promote sustainable forest management (inside and outside their
own country), they also own and manage forests themselves, procure goods and
services according to agreed rules, set the rules for international trade and provide a
legal framework for domestic trade, standardization, technical regulation and consumer
information. It is for individual governments to decide which of these roles to play. A
more detailed description of the various possible potential roles of government as
evolve in UNECE/FAO Policy Forum on Forest Certification (2005) are given below:
8.1 GOVERNMENT POLICIES THEIR OBJECTIVES
Government policies have many different objectives, including poverty reduction,
economic growth, rural development, conservation of biological diversity, intergenerational equity, security of energy supply, and many others. An increasing concern
is reconciling and harmonizing policies to achieve these ends, as policies serving
different objectives may duplicate or even contradict each other on occasion.
Governments also have many instruments: laws and regulations, fiscal incentives,
subsidies, guidelines, extension and training etc. In considering their role in forest
certification, governments should consider whether forest certification is an appropriate
tool to achieve the above-mentioned objectives, and whether it is the most effective and
efficient approach.
8.2
GOVERNMENTS
MANAGEMENT
PROMOTE
SUSTAINABLE
FOREST
8.2.1 Define of standards through national laws and verification of legality
Since UNCED, most governments have adopted as a policy objective the promotion of
sustainable forest management, through a wide variety of instruments such as laws,
national forest programmes, regulations, extension services, etc. Implicitly or explicitly,
through these instruments and their application, they define what they mean by
sustainable forest management in their national context. Increasingly, national
141
instruments refer to internationally agreed texts, such as criteria and indicators of
sustainable forest management, the Pan European Operational Level Guidelines, etc.
As certification schemes all insist upon adherence with national legislation, governments
thus define at least the minimum requirements for all certified forest products.
Governments could also provide guidance on interpretation of prescriptions stipulated
in laws, rules and regulations for practical, cost efficient and consistent auditing of forest
certification.
8.2.2 Promotion of comparability and equivalence among certification schemes
and standards
The lack of full comparability and equivalence among certification schemes and
standards may hinder consumers’ understanding of and interest in forest certification.
Governments may promote enhancement of comparability and equivalence among
certification schemes e.g. by developing national performance standards compatible
with several certification systems, or by promoting dialogue, at the national or
international levels between schemes
8.2.3 Institutional capacity
The institutional capacity of each country constrains its ability to apply and benefit from
certification. Particularly for developing countries, enhancement of institutional
capacity is a fundamental condition for successful implementation of forest certification.
Without enhancing institutional capacity in the society as a whole, it is difficult to
prevent potential illegal activities such as bribe and false reporting only by auditing. If a
country is unable to establish such credibility, the certification initiative will find it
difficult to establish the reputation of their products in the marketplace. Governments
may take the initiative in improving the situation with respect to capacity building.
8.2.4 Government involvement in developing national certification schemes
Government may be proactive in promoting the development of national certification
initiatives, and desirable quality levels of forest management. Experience has shown that
setting up a certification scheme in any one country (standard writing, stakeholder
consultation, institution building etc.) is a long, complex and expensive process. The
process can be strengthened by a relatively powerful institution taking the lead. In some
cases, a public or quasi-public entity, often in cooperation with other stakeholders, has
played this role.
Another role for governments could be to promote coordination between competing
schemes as regards requirements, so that forest owners are not faced with difficult
choices about management measures which may be acceptable to one scheme but not to
another. If the requirements of the different schemes coincide, forest owners can certify
their management with two different schemes, while having only one set of
management rules. This strategy also avoids any damage to the image of forest products
which may arise from the vigorous competition between certification schemes.
142
8.2.5 Non-discrimination against small scale forest owners
Within the context of promoting sustainable forest management through certification, a
special question concerns the ability of small-scale forest owners to bear the costs of
forest certification, which are normally heavier, on a per hectare basis, than for large
forest holdings. Also, economic, social, environmental and procedural criteria required
by forest certification standards can create disadvantageous conditions for small owners.
8.2.6 Balance between certification and other policy
Governments may have a role to play in evaluating the balance between certification
and other policy instruments and promoting a mix of instruments that fit the country
conditions, in dialogue with the civil society.
8.3
GOVERNMENTS PROVIDE THE FRAMEWORK
EFFICIENT, SAFE AND EQUITABLE MARKETS
FOR
Governments have a number of responsibilities in the establishment and maintenance of
efficient, safe and equitable markets for all products. These include such areas as
consumer safety, consumer information, anti-trust, occupational safety and health etc.
(such requirements are set by governments in mandatory technical regulations which
are respected by all market players, both local and foreign/importers). One principle
underlying much of the legislation in this area is that of non- discrimination, as well as
keeping to the minimum necessary level of government intervention. The government
also has the role of ensuring “fair play” on the market: in the area of forest certification
such a role might be to ensure that there is no abuse in labelling or that there is no
misleading consumer information/labelling (for example, requiring a manufacturer to
indicate if a particular label is a trade mark or a certification mark).
8.4
GOVERNMENTS AGREE
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
ON
THE
RULES
FOR
The international trade regime developed over the past 60 years, through GATT and
then WTO, has been a key factor in the rise of global prosperity. Two key principles
underlying this regime are the progressive removal of all barriers to trade (tariff or nontariff barriers) and non-discrimination (e.g. between suppliers or on the grounds of
production processes), except in very precisely defined circumstances. However, the
core purpose of certification of sustainable forest management is to enable consumers to
distinguish between wood products by providing information on how they are
produced. It is generally understood that, as long as the certification of wood-based
products is voluntary, it is not in contradiction with WTO/ GATT rules.
Non-governmental bodies are not subject to WTO jurisdiction, although the Technical
Barriers to Trade Agreement contains provisions for certification systems of nongovernmental bodies. In general, the relations between WTO rules and the provisions of
multi-lateral environmental agreements, all being intergovernmental agreements, are
the subject of negotiation.
143
8.5 GOVERNMENTS ARE FOREST OWNERS
In cases where governments (or government owned agencies or companies) own and/or
manage forests, they also have to consider whether to seek certification of their forests
by private institutions.
Does seeking such certification imply that the laws and regulations governing public
forests, or the practice of public forest managers, are inadequate? Is it acceptable for
private certifiers to judge whether public forest managers are achieving their stated
objectives? In a situation where publicly owned forests are in fact being managed in a
sustainable way, what is there to gain from certification?
In most tropical countries, governments are the largest owners of forests, although they
are often managed by the private sector. As the forest owners, governments could
decide to support these processes in their countries, they could even wish for more
integral participation in the rule-making process.
8.6 GOVERNMENTS ARE BUYERS OF WOOD PRODUCTS
It is estimated that governments account for a significant part of the total wood
consumption worldwide. The influence of public procurement on timber markets is
therefore very strong. All governments have public procurement policies, aimed for
instance at avoiding corruption and cartel activity through transparent procedures: there
are international agreements and codes of practice in this area. It is a relatively new and
possibly controversial development, however, for public buyers to set conditions
regarding the way in which the wood they purchase has been grown. When public
procurement policies require a proven sustainable origin of wood, this may be an
important signal to producers, which is expected to have a positive influence on forest
management.
Such public procurement policies promoting sustainably produced forest products, are
of increasing importance in many countries of the UNECE region as instruments of
governments to promote sustainable forest management, both domestic and abroad.
Denmark, Germany and United Kingdom have developed sets of rules for wood
product procurement by public institutions, which typically refer in some way to
certification as one means of ensuring that wood comes from a sustainably managed
forest. Even though their policies are already well developed and implemented, their
development has been more complex than expected and many questions are still
unanswered.
Questions that are still under discussion are, for example, which certification schemes
public procurement managers may refer to when seeking assurance that the wood has
been grown in a sustainably managed forest, and the minimum requirements which
non-certified wood products procured by public agencies (if any) should fulfil. It seems
to be commonly agreed that wood should at least be of legal origin. Which
documentation, permits, deeds of ownership, etc., can be accepted is still unclear.
144
An issue complicating the development of public procurement policies promoting
sustainable forest management is that procurement officials must adhere to transparent
and open processes, which usually forbid favouring one supplier over another for any
other reason than performance or price: this makes it difficult to specify one certification
scheme rather than another, or, indeed certified timber over non-certified. Some
governments have decided not to develop any procurement policies involving forest
certification elements, arguing that public procurement should only follow free market
rules.
8.7 GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT PART OF THE GOVERNANCE
OF INTERNATIONAL CERTIFICATION SCHEMES
Despite the complex interaction of government activities with certification issues
governments have not, until now, been stakeholder members of the international
certification initiatives. One reason for this is the need for these schemes to be
“voluntary and market based”, both objectives which might appear to be compromised
by the presence of governments in the governance of certification schemes.
Another is the fear that their presence could unbalance the dialogue between economic,
environmental and social stakeholders.
In a survey among EU member countries there were different opinions on the
appropriate degree of governmental intervention into private certification programmes.
A majority of 54% of respondents from governmental institutions supported
interventions comprising rules of conduct for certification systems and setting
accompanying measures, such as encouraging and supporting private bodies in their
efforts to build efficient and fair systems. Another 38% thought that the role of
government would be fulfilled by setting accompanying measures. A majority of the
non-governmental interest groups (66%) found that the role of government should be
confined to setting accompanying measures. From a governmental point of view, a
central question is whether it is more desirable to install a monopolistic organization
and endow it with sufficient resources to operate, to support more than one institution
in order to induce competition, or simply not to take any position at all.
The role of forest certification in influencing government processes for putting in place
good policy has been recognized, although the available evidence is still limited.
Documentation of changes is only now emerging, mainly identifying the indirect
impacts of certification, and mainly as an indirect result of independent local
certification actions on policies and government processes. Segura (2004) review the
evidence that globally focusing in a case studies from Bolivia, Cameroon, Malaysia, and
Mexico to bring out the lessons of these experiences and to point the way forward for
the role of governments in the coming decade.
Further, ways in which government influence the forest certification including
stakeholder participation and recommendations for future roles and relationships are
described by Segura (2004).
145
9
Forest Certification in India: Options for a
National Forest Certification Scheme
9.1 NEED OF FOREST CERTIFICATION IN INDIA
The global awareness towards the sustainable management of forest products and the
impact henceforth on the trade necessitates that India also takes initiatives in this
direction. Commitment to the concern of Sustainable Forest Management has been put
into practice through developing national level Criteria and Indicators. However, the
impact of Certification of forest products on trade has to be attended to. The C&I would
provide a basis to assess the management practices and lead to developing such
standards for assessment. Criteria and Indicators provide a means for measuring,
assessing and monitoring progress towards SFM in a defined forest area, in a country
over a period of time; whereas certification is a means of certifying of certain pre-defined
standards of forest management in a specified forest area at a given time. However the
C&I at national and FMU level can provide a basis for or a starting point for initiating
certification activities. (F. Castenada, 2000).
Several national level certification standards have been developed the world over, that
meet the requirements of internationally acknowledged certifying agencies. Looking to
the development of global scenario, it has become necessary to go for certification. From
domestic (national) point of view also certification is necessary to ensure the continuity
of forest goods and services through SFM approach.
Looking at the impact of good forests management practices on trade, it is imperative to
initiate a process of certification of forest products (emphasizing on NTFPs as India is
one among the large exporters of NTFPs). To start with, the standards defined in the
form of Criteria and Indicators could be used for auditing and hence certification. India
is committed towards the SFM and for betterment of social and environment concerns
related to forests. India, being a signatory to IITO objective 2000 is committed to
implement sustainable forest management and promote trade of certified forest
products only. This has necessitated for an authentication/certification of products by a
standard process.
In a globalized world under World Trade Organisation, the markets are open for foreign
trade. At the same time, the WTO member countries have legitimate right to set
standards for environmental aspects including eco-levels and forest certification levels.
Such regimes of developed countries requiring forest certification for forestry products
from developing countries is becoming a sort of technical barrier to trade. Since such
146
requirements are compatible with WTO rules and therefore, it is imperative for the
developing countries to adhere to such certification requirements if the foreign markets
are to be accessed.
Therefore, it is a market requirement for India to go for forest certification for those
forestry products, which seek to enter the foreign developed markets and hence the
need for a forest certification scheme in the country.
Certification is carried out using internationally recognized standards such as Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) or Project for Endorsement of Certification Schemes (PEFC)
or any national certification scheme that conforms to international standards. In this
direction, Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal has developed Bhopal India
process that includes 43 indicators under 8 criteria essential for sustainable forest
management, though more baseline data is still required to measure the sustainability of
different forest types of India.
In India, forests are largely state owned and the management is governed by a large set
of rules and regulations. However, it has been the concern of many stakeholders that in
spite of all these regulations, deforestation has not been arrested so far.
Shift in the policy, henceforth the management plans have resulted in increased
importance of non-timber forest produce (compared to the significance of timber harvest
earlier). Moreover, almost 13% of the total exports in the country is in the form of
NTFPs, thus advocating attempts towards certification of NTFPs.
We have already developed national level set of C&I for SFM. Now we need to develop
national level standards and procedures for certification that primarily meet our
requirements. The national standards should also give due consideration to the
international developments. It is necessary for international trade. Alternatively we can
also go for suitable regional standards. Recently there has been a decrease in the export
of wood based handicrafts (mainly bamboo and cane products) from Rs. 700 crore per
year to Rs 680 crore per year, where as it was anticipated that the export value will
increase. The main reason for this was lack of “certification” of these products, which
could not fetch proper prices in the international market. Similarly the NWFPs including
medicinal, aromatic and ornamental plants may not fetch good prices in the
international market due to lack of “certification”
9.2 NEED OF INDIAN FOREST CERTIFICATION AGENCY
It is necessary to have an independent agency in the country to look after the
certification and related issues. IIFM has the potential to be the “Indian Forest
Certification Agency”. Alternatively it could be the Forest Certification authority on the
lines of similar authorities in the country with legal provisions. The immediate main
task of the agency would be to develop national standards and procedures of
certification, recognition by the Government and accreditation by internationally
acknowledged organizations. It would also create awareness, provide guidelines, and
operationalise the system of forest certification in the country.
147
9.3 IMPEDIMENTS TO CERTIFICATION
9.3.1 Inflexibility of certifying standards
The attempts towards sustainability of forests have initiated in 1990 in the tropical
forests including India and are in a development stage. The certification standards relate
to the results of good practices towards sustainability of forests, however they do not
attend to the different stages towards SFM.
9.3.2 Cost intensive
To achieve the standards for certification better technologies inputs and enhanced skills
are required. Hence to achieve certification the developing nations would have to take
this cost burden.
9.3.3 External influences on forests
The forest is intricately linked to various other human activities and is a receptacle of
caused affects. To exemplify, any change in the land use would directly affect the forest
certification limits its assessment and recognizes the performance in the forests. Besides,
the legal framework also often comes in conflict with the certification norms.
9.4 SETTING STANDARDS OF CERTIFICATION FOR
SUSTAINABLE UTILIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF
FOREST RESOURCES (IN INDIAN CONTEXT)
Forest resources have been contributing and efficiently meeting the livelihood social and
traditional needs of the communities besides contributing to the economy of the nation.
The dwindling forest resources and increased deforestation rates created a global
concern and hence gave birth to the concept of SFM, a holistic management of forests
addressing to economic, ecological and social aspects of the forests. India committed for
SFM, evolved its national set of Criteria and Indicators to assess and monitor progress
towards SFM through B-I Process. Further evolving C&I at the Forest Management Unit
level (FMU) through the IIFM-ITTO project at selected sites.
It is imperative to have standards developed for sustainable utilization of the forest
resources. Besides providing better livelihood opportunities to the communities and
ensuring other consumers for availability of forest resources especially of the non-timber
forest resources (being major in terms of variety, necessity and extent of economic
contribution) from sustainably managed forests.
Developing or defining of standards for assessing sustainable utilization of NTFPs
would necessitate a gradual process, starting from identifying the economically
important NTFPs (specific to the site), which would hence provide a concentrated efforts
towards assessment and then improving the management practices. Followed by
assessing the methodology, time and quantum of harvesting vis-à-vis production and
productivity of these products. The production of NTFPs also is influenced by
externalities like human and cattle population, seasonal variations, pest and diseases etc.
148
Therefore, to develop standards for assessment of sustainable utilization of forest
resources it is essential that all the above-mentioned aspects related to production and
collection are adequately addressed for sustainable utilization of forest resources.
In India there are 16 major forest types covering an area of 63.73 million ha. The forest
could be broadly classified as:
Natural forests: Natural Forests in the working plan have been defined as the forests
that have been exist naturally since the introduction of planned management.
Man - Made forests: Man-Made Forests are defined as those, which are created by
human intervention in the form of plantation.
However besides the officially declared forests that include naturally existing forest as
well as plantations done on the officially demarcated forestland, there are forests
existing outside the official forest area. These may be in the form of avenue plantations,
trees in a private farm, road-side trees etc; which also effectively perform the ecological,
economic and social functions. Hence, defining the third category of tree cover
conceptualized as Trees outside Forests (TOF). This concept is still nascent and requires
studies and research to provide a complete assessment of total tree-cover. The ToF
could be natural forests officially not under the legal control of the forest department
and also be created by man (plantations).
Diagrammatic presentation of forest in India is given in fig. 9.1
Forests
On the basis of ownership
On the basis of location
Owned &
`
managed
by
Owned and managed
by Communities
Private
Forest in
Forest land
ToF
Fig 9.1: Ownership of Forests in India
The forest produce can be broadly classified as
Timber
Non-timber
149
Besides other environmental and social benefits accrued from the forests. Importance of
the NTFPs has been recognized owing to its importance to the rural economy as well as
share in the national trade thus, suggesting setting up of standards for certification for
sustainability of non-timber forest produce. However, this needs to understand the
important aspects of these products. The water and eco-tourism in the forests could also
be treated as non-timber forest products.
The FSC NTFP working group, addressing the importance of NTFP and its certification
and developed a draft principle. These principles could be used as guidelines for
developing criteria and eventually standards for certification of NTFPs. The draft
principles developed by FSC NTFP addresses to the social and economic benefits,
particularly to communities, monitoring and assessment to ensure continued benefits
and minimizing of adversities. They can be broadly developed into criteria as suggested
under:
1. Ecological importance of NTFPs: NTFPs contribute to the bio-diversity of the forests,
hence its management and perpetual maintenance would ensure the maintenance of
diversity of biological resources of the forests.
2. Economic benefits: NTFPs account for almost 13% of the total national exports i.e.
4198.11 crores. They also handsomely contribute to the local economy through
NTFPs. The increased economic importance of NTFPs can be understood owing to
their different utility functions. They could be used as food items, medicines, oil and
fatty acids, dyes and colours, fibre, etc.
3. Minimisation of adverse impacts: The important function of NTFPs has resulted in
human activities that had adverse ecological, social and economic effects. Major
cause of such adverse affects can be attributed to the unsustainable methods of
harvesting/ collection, elucidated as:
i.
Over harvesting: harvesting more than what is permissible.
ii.
Immature harvesting: harvesting of NTFPs before their maturity hence, reducing
the benefits accrued.
iii.
Destructive harvesting: destructive harvesting can be explained as use of
collection methods that involve felling of the mother trees or any loss or damage
to the source.
4. Social and cultural benefits: The NTFPs besides providing economic benefits also
contribute to the social functions of the forests. These products often find importance
in the social obligations and functions.
5. Institutional framework: To implement effective management systems for NTFPs
creating conditions and providing adequate institutional structure is an imperative.
This includes a defined assessment and monitoring system, well-written
management plan addressing to all the vivid aspects related to NTFPs and formation
of rules and guidelines, hence ensuring better management practices.
150
Further on these lines, a national set of criteria could be evolved; which would facilitate
developing standards for certification of NTFPs.
9.5 POTENTIAL CERTIFICATION SYSTEM IN INDIA: THE
BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS
The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), empowered through a legislative Act of the
Indian Parliament, known as the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, operates a
product certification scheme, and has till date granted more than 30 000 licences to
manufacturers covering practically every industrial discipline from Agriculture to
Textiles to Electronics. The certification allows the licensees to use the popular ISI Mark,
which has become synonymous with Quality products for the Indian and neighbouring
markets over the past more than 40 years. The Bureau's predecessor, the Indian
Standards Institution began operating the product certification Scheme in 1955.
Presently more than 19000 licences are in operation covering about 1100 products. The
BIS product certification scheme is essentially voluntary in nature, and is largely based
on ISO Guide 28, which provides general rules for third party certification system of
determining conformity with product standards through initial testing and assessment
of a factory quality management system and its acceptance followed by surveillance that
takes into account the factory Quality management system and the testing of samples
from the factory and the open market. All BIS certification is carried out on Indian
Standards, which have been found amenable to product certification. A sizable number
of Indian Standards have however, been harmonized with ISO/IEC Standards and some
are dual numbered as IS/ISO or IS/IEC Standards.
BIS can undertake forest certification in India using Systems Approach.
Alternatively an established institution in forestry management like Indian Institute of
Forest Management can become the nodal agency for developing national standards for
forest certification in India and regular monitoring of its implementation.
9.6
PROGRESS OF FOREST CERTIFICATION IN INDIA
(MOEF, 2005-06)
Even during the pre-modern era, management of forestry was given high importance
and was also in sustainable manner. The very basis of modern management of forestry
in India is and has been sustainable yield, which in real terms is sustainable
management. Thus, the term Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) is not new to the
Indian Forestry but, Forest Certification is a relatively new concept to India.
The Nation Forest policy, 1988 maintains the long term viability of commercial forests,
protects bio-diversity and provides a continuous stream of social and economic benefits.
In India timber markets largely dictate forestry practices. India thus, has to initiate a
process of certifying forest/ forest products to get access to Green markets and receive a
premium price in the international market. This shall ultimately benefit the local
151
communities by sustainable and improved price for the resources and value added
handicraft products.
Bhopal-India process evolved criteria and Indicators for SFM but they are yet to be
implemented at the national level. Looking at the development in the global scenario, it
has become imperative to have a national policy on ‘forest certification’. From domestic
(National) point of view also, certification is necessary to ensure the continuity of forest
goods and services through SFM approach.
The Ministry has constituted a National Working Group/Governing Body to frame the
policy guidelines on ‘Forest Certification’ for timber and NTFPs..The National Working
Group/Governing Body has prepared the ‘Terms of Reference (TOR)’ for the
composition and functioning of the following three committees: Committee for Certificate Criteria
 Committee for Certificate Processes
 Committee for Accreditation Criteria and Process
These sub-committees will further prepare the road map and the necessary criteria and
processes for the National certification of forests, timber and Non-Timber Forest
Products in the country at par with the International standards.
152
Bibliography
Alfonso, A., Dallmeier, F., Granek, E., Raven, P. 2001. Biodiversity: Connecting with the
Tapestry of Life, Smithsonian Institution/Monitoring and Assessment of
Biodiversity Program and President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology, Washington, DC, USA.
Anderson, R.C., and Hansen, E.N. 2004a. The Impact of Environmental Certification on
Preferences for Wood Furniture: A Conjoint Analysis Approach. Forest Products
Journal 54(3): 42–50.
Anderson, R.C., and Hansen, E.N. 2004b. Determining Consumer Preferences for
Ecolabeled Forest Products: An Experimental Approach. Journal of Forestry
102(4): 28–32.
ATFS 2005. American Tree Farm System, 2005. http://www.treefarmsystem.org.
B&Q 2003. Product Integrity: Timber. Environment Fact Sheet 1. http://www.diy.com/
diy/jsp/aboutbandq/social_responsibility/timber.pdf.
Baharuddin, H.J. and Simula, M. 1994. Certification Schemes for all Timber and Timber
Products. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
Baharudin, H. G. 1995. Timber certification: An overview. Unasylva, 46(183), pp. 18-24.
Bass, S. and Simula, M.1999. Independent Certification/Verification of Forest
Management. Background Paper. World Bank/WWF Alliance Workshop.
November. Washington, DC.
Binkley, Clark 1997: Preserving nature through intensive plantation forestry: the case for
forestland allocation with illustrations from British Columbia. Forestry Chronicle
73(5): 553–559.
Boot, R.G.A. and Gullison, R. E. 1995. Approaches to Developing Sustainable Extraction
Systems for Tropical Forest Products™, Ecological Applications, 5: 896-903.
Campos, J.J., Finegan, B. and Villalobos, R. 2001. Management of Goods and Services
from Neotropical Forest Biodiversity: Diversified Forest Management in
Mesoameric, in Conservation and Sustainable Use of Forest Biodiversity (CBD
Technical Series no. 3), pp. 5-16.
Carle, Jim; Vuorinen, Patteri and Del Lungo, Alberto 2002. Status and trends in global
forest plantation development. Forest Products Journal 52(7/8): 12–23.
Carrera, R. and Lohmann, L. 1996. “Pulping the South: Industrial Tree Plantations and
the World Paper Economy”. Zed Books Ltd, London.
153
Cavendish, W. 1997. The Economics of Natural Resource Utilization by Communal Area
Farmers of Zimbabwe™, Ph.D. thesis. Oxford: Oxford University.
Cossalter, C. and Pye-Smith, C. 2003. “Fast-wood Forestry: Myths and Realities”. Center
for
International
Forestry
Research,
Bogor,
Barat,
Indonesia.
http://www.cifor.cigar.org. p 50.
Cozannet, N. and Nussbaum, R. 2001. A System for Modular Verification of Progress.
Technical Working Group Report, 27th July 2001. Draft for Review.
Cubbage, Frederick W., Siry, Jacek P. and Abt, Robert C. 2005. Fast-grown plantations,
forest certification and the U.S. south: environmental benefits and economic
sustainability. New Zealand Jornal of Forestry Science, 35 (2/3): 266-289.
Dixon, A. 1999. Beauty and the Beasts. Timber and Wood Products International. 389:42.
Dogwood Alliance 2005. Letter from concerned scientists. http://www.ems.org/
nws/pf.php? p=1317.
Eba’a Atyi, R., and Simula, M.. 2002. Forest Certification: Pending Challenges for Tropical
Timber. International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) Technical Series No.
19. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
Ebaa’a Atyi, R., Nussbaum, R. and Simula, M. 2002. Interim report on the potential role
of phased approaches to certification in tropical timber producer countries as a
tool to promote sustainable forest management. [Item 16 of the Provisional
Agenda]. Thirty-third session, 4-9 November 2002, Yokohama, Japan.
Ebaa’a Atyi, R., Nussbaum, R. and Simula, M. 2003. Report on the potential role of
phased approaches to certification in tropical timber producer countries as a tool
to promote sustainable forest management. ITTC. Thirty third Session. 4-9
November, 2002. Yokohama, Japan. pp 25.
FAO 2005a. State of the World’s Forests 2005. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO 2005b. Yearbook of Forest Products 2003. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission. 2000. Seminar: Certification and Forest Product
Labeling: A Review. Noosaville, Queensland, Australia, May 15–19.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/X5967E.htm.
FAO, 1990. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 Main Report, FAO.
FAO, 1999Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 Main Report, FAO.
FAO, 2005. Global Forest Resource Assessment, FAO.
FAO, 2006. Global Forest Resource Assessment 2005. Progress towards sustainable forest
management. Food and Agriculture Organization.
FERN 2003. Eco-labelling, forest certification and the WTO. FERN, Belgium.
www.fern.org.
154
Fischer, Carolyn, Francisco, Aguilar, Puja Jawahar and Roger Sedjo. 2005. Forest
certification: Towards common standards? Discussion paper 05-10. Resources for
the future. Washington, D.C.
Fletcher, R., Rickenbach, M. and Hansen, E. 2002. Forest Certification in North America. EC
1518. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Extension Service.
FSC 2004. Forest Stewardship Council, 2004. Ten years of FSC-Looking to the Future.
FSC, Bonn, Germany.
FSC 2005. Forest Starship Council, 2005. http://www.fsc.org
Gan, J. 2005. Forest certification costs and global forest product markets and trade: a
general equilibrium analysis. Canadian Journal of Forestry, 35: 1731-1743.
Georgia-Pacific. 2004. Sustainable Forestry. In Where We Stand. http://www.gp.com/
enviro/ strategy/ stand.html.
Godoy, R.A. and Bawa, K.S. 1993. The Economic Value and Sustainable Harvest of
Plants and Animals from the Tropical Forest: Assumptions, Hypotheses, and
Methods™, Economic Botany, 47: 215-219.
Gupta, B.N. 1994. India. In Non wood forest product in Asia. Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome.
Hagan, J.M., Irland, L.C. and Whitman, A.A. 2005. Changing timberland ownership in
the northern forest and implications for biodiversity. Brunswick, Maine, Manomet
Center for Conservation Sciences Report #MCCS-FCP-2005-1. p 25.
Hall, P. and Bawa, K. 1993. Methods to assess the Impact of Extractions of Non-Timber
Tropical Forest Products on Plant Populations™, Economic Botany, 47: 234-247.
Hegde, R., Suryaprakash, S., Achoth, L. and Bawa, K.S. 1996. Extraction of Non-Timber
Forest Products in the Forests of Biligiri Rangan Hills, India, 1: Contribution to
Rural Income, Economic Botany, 50: 243- 251.
Hiremath, Ankila J. 2004. The Ecological Consequences of Managing Forests for NonTimber Products. Conservation & Society, 2 (2): 211-216.
Home Depot. 1999. Wood Purchasing Policy. http://www.homedepot.com/HDUS/ENUS/
corporate/corp_respon/wood_purchasing_policy.shtml.
Home Depot. 2001. 2001 Social Responsibility Report. http://www.homedepot.com/HDUS/
EN_US/corporate/corp_respon/docs/2001_report.pdf.
Humphries, S. 1999. Forest Certification Handbook: For the Southeastern United States.
The Forest Management Trust, Gainesville, FL.
ISO 14004:1996 Environmental management systems. General guidelines on principles,
systems and supporting techniques.
155
ISO 9000:2000 Quality management systems - Fundamentals and vocabulary MCPFE
Ministerial Conferences on Protection of Forests in Europe, Resolution
H1,Helsinki 1993.
ISO, 2004. http://www.iso14000-iso14001-environmental-management.com.
ISO/IEC Guide 2:1996 (EN 45020:1998) Standardization and related activities -General
vocabulary.
ITTO 2000. Framework for an auditing system for ITTO’s Criteria and Indicators for
Sustainable Forest Management.
ITTO 2005. Annual Review and Assessment of the World Timber Situation 2004. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO 2006. Achieving the ITTO objective 2000 and sustainable forest management in
India. Report of the diagnostic mission. Executive summary of forty-first session
6–11 November 2006, Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO, 2002. Tropical Forest Update. International Tropical Timber Organization 12
(3)1;3.
ITTO, 2004. Annual Review and Assessment of the World Timber Situation,
International Tropical Timber Organization.
Kanowski, P., Sinclair, D., and Freeman, B. 1999. International Approaches to Forest
Management Certification and Labeling of Forest Products: A Review.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia.
Keurhout, 2005. http://www.keurhout.nl/certificaten_duurzaam.htm.
Kiekens, J. 2003. Forest certification in North America: selected developments. 12 th
World Forestry Congress, Canada.
Mallet, P. and Karmann, M. 2000. Certification of Non-Timber Forest Products: An
Emerging Field. www.fallsbrookcentre.cc
Mayers, J. and Bass, S. 1999. Policy that works for forests and people: Overview report.
Policy that Works for Forests and People Series no. 7. IIED.
Mayers, J., Bass, S. and Macqueen, D. 2002. “The pyramid” A diagnostic and planning
tool for good forest governance. Draft paper prepared for World Bank-WWF
Forest Alliance. London: International Institute for Environment and
Development.
Meidinger, Errol E., Chris Elliot and Gerhard Oestn 2003. The Fundamental of Forest
Certification. Social and political dimensions of forest certification, 2003.
Merry, D.F., and Carter, D.R. 1996. Programs and markets for ecologically certified
wood products. Southern Forest Economics Workshop, Gatlinburg, Tennessee,
1996.
156
MoEF, 2006. Annual Report 2005-06. Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government
of India.
Moegenburg, S.M. 2002. Harvest and Management of Forest Fruits by Humans:
Implications for Fruit-Frugivore Interactions™, in D.J. Levey, W.R. Silva and M.
Galetti (eds), Seed Dispersal and Frugivorry: Ecology, Evolution and
Conservation, pp. 479Œ94. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
MTTC, 2001. Malaysian Criteria, Indicators, Activities and Standards of Performance for
Forest Management Certification, Malaysian Timber Certification Council.
Myers, N. 1988. Tropical Forests: Much More than Stocks of Wood™, Journal of Tropical
Ecology, 4: 209- 221.
Naka, K., Hammet, A.L. and Stuart, W.B. 2000. Forest Certification: Stakeholders,
Constraints and Effects. Local Environment 5(4): 475–481.
Nepstad, D.C. and Schwartzman, S. 1992. Non-Timber Products from Tropical Forests:
Evaluation of a Conservation and Development Strategy. Bronx, NY: New York
Botanical Garden.
Nussbaum, R. 2002. Group certification for forests: a practical guide. Forestry Research
Programme, 58 St Aldates Oxford OX1 1ST United Kingdom. Cited from
www.proforest.net.
Ozanne, L.K., and Vlosky, R.P. 1997. Willingness To Pay for Environmentally Certified
Wood Products: A Consumer Perspective. Forest Products Journal 47(6): 39–48.
Ozanne, L.K., and Vlosky, R.P. 2003. Certification from the U.S. Consumer Perspective:
A Comparison from 1995 and 2000. Forest Products Journal 53(3): 13–21.
Pan Europian Forest Certification, 2005. http://www.pefc.org/internet/html.
Panayotou, T. and Ashton, P.S. 1992. Not by Timber Alone: Economics and Ecology for
Sustaining Tropical Forests. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Peres, C.A., Baider, C., Zuidema, P.A., Wadt, L.H.O., Kainer, K.A., Gomes-Silva, D.A.P.,
Salomvo, R.P., Sites, L.L., Franciosi, E.R.N., Valverde, F.C., Gribel, R., Shepard,
Jr., G.H., Kanashiro, M., Coventry, P., Yu, Watkinson, D.W. A.R. and Freckleton,
R.P. 2004. Demographic Threats to the Sustainability of Brazil Nut
Exploitation™, Science, 302: 2112-2114.
Peters, C.M. 1994. Sustainable Harvest of Non-Timber Plant Resources in Tropical Moist
Forest: An Ecological Primer. Washington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program.
Peters, C.M., Gentry, A. H. and Mendelsohn, R.O. 1989. Valuation of an Amazonian
Rainforest. Nature, 339: 655- 656.
Posey, D. 1982. ‚Keepers of the Forest. Garden, 6: 18-24.
157
Rainforest alliance 2002. Non-Timber Forest Products Certification Standards
Addendum
November
2002,
http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/forestry/
documents/ ntfp-addendum-generic-guidelines.pdf.
Ramesteiner, Ewald; Simula, Markku 2002. Forest certification—an instrument to
promote sustainable forest management? Journal of Environmental Management
67(2003): 87–98.
Rametsteiner, E. 2000. Sustainable forest management certification. Frame conditions,
system design and impact assessment. Ministerial Conference on the Protection
of Forests in the Europe, European Commission.
Rametsteiner, E. 2000. The role of governments in forest certification – a normative
analysis based on new institutional economics theories. Institute for
Socioeconomic des Forest UN Holzwirtscaft. Discussion paper P/2000-1. Vienna.
Rametsteiner, E. and Simula, M, 2003. Forest certification – an instrument to promote
sustainable forest management? Journal of Environmental Management, 67: 87-98.
Richards, M. 2004. Certification in Complex Socio-Political Settings: Looking Forward to
the Next Decade. Forest Trends. Washington D. C. pp 33.
Rickenbach, M.G. 2002. Forest Certification of Small Ownerships: Some Practical
Challenges. Journal of Forestry 100(9): 43–46.
Salafsky, N., Dugelby, B.L. and Terborgh, J.W. 1993. Can Extractive Reserves Save the
Rainforest: An Ecological and Socioeconomic Comparison of Non-Timber Forest
Product Extraction Systems in Petén, Guatemala, and West Kalimantan,
Indonesia. Conservation Biology, 7: 39-52.
Salick, J., A. Mejia and Anderson, T. 1995. Non-Timber Forest Products Integrated with
Natural Forest Management, Rio San Juan, Nicaragua. Ecological Applications, 5:
878-895.
Scherr, S., White, A. and Khare, A. 2004. For services rendered. The current status and
future potential of markets for ecosystem services provided by tropical forests.
ITTO Technical Series No. 21.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2001. Sustainable Management of
Non-Timber Forest Resources (CBD Technical Series no. 6). Montreal: SCBD.
Sedjo, R.A., and S.K. Swallow. 2002. Voluntary Eco-Labeling and the Price Premium.
Land Economics 87(2): 272–284.
Sedjo, Roger A. 1999. The potential of high-yield forestry for meeting timber needs. New
Forests 17: 339–359.
Sedjo, Roger A. 2001: The role of forest plantations in the world’s future timber supply.
The Forestry Chronicle 77(2): 221–225.
Sedjo, Roger; Botkin, Daniel 1997. Using forest plantations to spare natural forests.
Environment 39(10): 14–20.
158
Segura, G. 2004. Forest Certification and Governments: The real and potential Influence
on regulatory Frameworks and Forest Policies. Forest Trends.
SFI 2005. Sustainable Forestry Initiative, 2005. http://www.aboutsfi.org
Shiva, M.P. 1995. Collection, utilization and marketing of medicinal plants form the
forest of India with an overview on NWFPs in Asia Pacific region. Paper
presented at the Regional Expert Consultation on NWFP: Social, Economic and
cultural dimensions, 28 Nov. to 2 Dec., 1994. Bangkok (Thailand).
Simpson, Hughes; Donellan, Jacob; Harrington, Shane 2005. Voluntary implementation
of best management practices in East Texas: Results from Round 6 of BMP
Implementation Monitoring [Online]. Texas Forest Service. College Station,
Texas. Available: http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/shared/article.asp?Document
ID= 950& mc=forest.
Simula, M. 1997. “Timber certification Initiatives and their implications for developing
countries” in Zarrill, Simonetta, Veena Jha and Rene Vossenaar, Eco-labeling and
International Trade, MacMillan Press, UK.
Teisl, M.F., S. Peavey, F. Newman, J. Buono, and M. Hermann. 2002. Consumer
Reactions to Environmental Labels for Forest Products: A Preliminary Look.
Forest Products Journal 52(1): 44–50.
Ticktin, T. 2004. The Ecological Implications of Harvesting Non-Timber Forest Products.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 41: 11-21.
Tomberlin, David and Buongiorno, Joseph 2001: Timber plantations, timbersupply, and
forest conservation. Pp. 85–94 in Palo, Matti; Uusivuori, Jussi; Mery, Gerardo
(Ed.) “World Forests, Markets, and Polices”, World Forests Volume III. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
UNECE/FAO 2005. UNECE/FAO Policy Forum: Forest Certification – Do governments
have a role?” 29 September 2005, Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Vlosky, R.P., and L.K. Ozanne. 1998. Environmental Certification of Wood Products: The
U.S. Manufacturers’ Perspective. Forest Products Journal 48(9): 21–26.
Wikipedia 2006. Sustainable forest management. www.wikipedia.com
Witkowski, E.T.F. and Lamont, B.B. 1996. Nutrient Losses from Commercial Picking and
Cockatoo Removal of Banksia hookeriana Blooms at the Organ, Plant and Site
Levels. Journal of Applied Ecology, 33: 131-140.
Wollenburg, E. 1998. Methods for Assessing the Conservation and Development of
Forest Products: What We know and What We Have Yet to Learn™, in E.
Wollenburg and A. Ingles (eds), Incomes from the Forest: Methods for the
Development and Conservation of Forest Products for Local Communities, pp.
1Œ16. Bogor, Indonesia: Centre for International Forestry Research.
159
World Rainforest Movement 2005: “About the (plantations) Campaign”.http://
www.wrm.org.uy/
WWF-India, 2006. Relevance of Forest Certification in woodcarving Industry.
www.wwf-india.org.
Zuidema, P.A. and Boot, R.G.A. 2002. Demography of the Brazil Nut Tree (Bertholletia
excelsa) in the Bolivian Amazon: Impact of Seed Extraction on Recruitment and
Population Dynamics, Journal of Tropical Ecology, 18: 1-31.
160

- Indian Institute of Forest Management

Transcription

Similar documents

2008 Central States Forest Soils Conference

Productivity and cost analysis of skidding machines

Øvre pasvik

WBE Certified - Perna Design

Landowner to Landowner - Forest Landowners Association

Feature 1

effects of climate change on subtropical forests of south america

Efforts to Keep Forest Sustainability and Economic Improvement for

Quarterly

In Business Newsletter Fall Winter 2013