Progress in Timber Certification
Initiatives World-wideSecond Edition - October 1996
Written by R J W Oliver
Published by Forests Forever
Part One
1. Introduction
2. Definitions
3. Development of Forest Management Standards
4. Transnational certification initiativesPart Two
5. National Initiatives (United Kingdom)
6. Other International Institutions Activities
7. AppendixThe purpose of this report is to provide a thorough guide to the latest developments in the certification of forest management and forest products around the world. It is aimed principally at those who are responsible for timber purchasing or specifying, including timber importers and merchants, retailers, furniture makers, architects, and specifiers. By providing accurate and reliable information on progress in timber certification, we hope to ensure that the environmental demands made on timber in the market place, through environmental specification clauses and timber purchasing policies, are achievable and reflect realities in timber supplying countries.
Timber certification today is still very much in a state of flux. There is widespread acceptance of the concept of timber certification around the world, but its implementation is still in its infancy. Most schemes have not yet begun the process of certification, and are still formulating institutional frameworks and standards. Those forests that have been certified to date rely on standards that are not recognised by the majority of interest groups, and therefore suffer credibility problems. Many forests, for example forests owned by small private owners and farmers, still lie outside the capability of existing certification mechanisms. At this stage, the structure of an internationally acceptable framework for timber certification, if such a thing is possible, remains far from certain. However, since mid 1994, when the first edition of this paper was published, the range of national certification schemes has expanded considerably, while those schemes that were already under development are gaining momentum and are beginning to tackle many of the more intractable problems. Levels of understanding are increasing rapidly.
As in the first edition, this report provides definitions of the various terms used in connection with timber certification, and then describes progress in various schemes operating both at a national and multinational level. It also refers to the activities of various international bodies that although not intending to act as certification bodies themselves, are contributing to the development of certification. In addition, the report considers progress in the development of internationally recognised forestry standards, as these are an essential prerequisite to the development of internationally credible certification schemes.
Much of the information in the report comes from two recent reports: Crossley's 1995 Paper, A Review of Global Forest Management Initiatives (World Bank): and Baharuddin and Simula's 1996 Report Study on the development in the formulation and implementation of certification schemes (ITTO). Where necessary, this information has been supplemented by information derived directly from the certification organisations.
Timber certification is generally regarded as involving a two stage process encompassing both Forest Management Certification and Wood Product Certification.
Forest management certification involves an independent third party assessment of forest management practices according to a set of predetermined standards covering some combination of performance standards and procedural/management standards (see below). Certification typically concerns a forest management unit (FMU) or a group of FMUs, but it may also be carried out at national or sub national levels.
Wood Product certification or "labelling" is the second step in the process of timber certification. It involves an independent, third party "chain of custody" inspection to trace wood harvested in certified forests through all stages of transport, processing and marketing to the finished product. In practice this is done by auditing individual companies (processing, industry and traders) to establish that their purchases, or a specified part of their purchases, come from certified sources. Products that can be traced from a certified forest to the point of sale are awarded some form of green label.
A number of terms are often used to describe particular timber certification schemes:
Independent certification involves certification by a third party, usually a certifying company, that is independent both of the supplier (first party) and the purchaser (second party).
Country certification involves the certification of a country as a whole so that all timber deriving from that country is considered certified.
National certification is sometimes confused with 'country' certification, but can, in practice, be very different. In simple terms national certification describes any situation in which the responsibility for certification is retained by the sovereign state. It generally implies that certification is carried out on the basis of nationally agreed standards of forest management, rather than standards imposed from the outside. Responsibility for the assessment of forest management and the issue of certificates may in some instances be retained by a government authority, or transferred to some other 'independent' body, such as a Standards Institute, in order to enhance the credibility of the national certificate.
While this report concentrates on timber certification schemes, it also refers to other generic certification schemes which are schemes that may be applied in all industrial sectors including the forestry sector.
Environmental management system (EMS) certification refers to schemes involving the certification of an organisation or company that has been evaluated in terms of its ability to manage all aspects of its business in an environmentally sound manner. Companies may be certified if they possess an effective environmental policy, covering all the company's significant environmental impacts, and if they can demonstrate that they have the systems in place to ensure the policy is implemented. Examples of EMS certification include British Standard 7750, and ISO14001.
EMS certification has a different role from timber certification The latter may be regarded as 'single issue' certification and is important in those markets where forest management is a major concern of consumers. In contrast EMS certification assures buyers, financiers and other interests that the management system of the enterprise is devised to control environmental impacts and meets legal obligations.
While the term has been used in other contexts, eco-label generally refers to labels on finished products that are designed to promote the marketing and use of products which have reduced environmental impact during their entire life-cycle. Most eco-labelling schemes have been designed to provide information on a given product's effect on the environment following production (e.g. through emissions recyclability etc.). This is in contrast with timber certification schemes, which are essentially systems for informing customers about the method of growing, harvesting and regenerating timber tree species.
3. Development of Forest Management Standards Forest legislation, rules and regulations provide, at the national level, the framework within which forest management performance is assessed. While the legislative framework in most major timber supplying countries is adequate to ensure environmentally responsible management practices, certification is designed to provide market recognition that:
Forest management standards are sufficient to ensure "sustainability" in the way that is internationally understood.The aim of certification is to address these issues through independent, third party assessment of forest management to internationally recognised standards. Due to the immense variety of forestry situations around the world, and very differing views as to the defining characteristics of 'sustainable' forest management, the development of internationally recognised standards is a complex process. The definition of such standards is however a necessary prerequisite to the development of internationally credible certification schemes.Supervision and control are effective in preventing errant forest practices.
Standards for certification must be both locally appropriate, so that they con be applied to specific forest management conditions; and, if the timber is to be exported, internationally recognised. In practice, this has required the elaboration of:
Internationally agreed 'Principles and Criteria' for sustainable forest management which are applicable to a wide range of forest situations.i) International Principles and CriteriaNational, regional and/or local forest standards compatible with international principles and criteria, but which are specific to particular forestry situations and may be used for assessment by certifiers.
Work on the elaboration of Internationally agreed 'Principles and Criteria' for sustainable forest management, is well advanced. An extensive ongoing intergovernmental process to define such Principles has been underway since the early 1990s, which has gained considerable momentum following the 1992 UNCED Conference. This work has now extended into most areas of the world.
In 1990, the International Tropical Timber Organisation drew up guidelines for the sustainable management of natural tropical forest, followed by more detailed criteria and indicators. Since then ITTO has developed similar guidelines for tropical plantation management and for biodiversity conservation in natural production forest.
Following the 1992 UNCED meeting, two initiatives were set in train to develop Criteria and Indicators for the sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests. Agreement has been reached on a set of Criteria and Indicators for European Forests under the Ministerial Conference for the Protection of Forests, known as the "Helsinki Process". This was rapidly followed by the "Montreal Process" involving other countries within the boreal and temperate zone and which resulted in the drafting of the Santiago Declaration. The Declaration included recommendations on criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of non-European temperate and boreal forests.
In February 1995, the countries of the Amazon Co-operation Treaty agreed in Tarapoto, Peru, on a proposal on criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of Amazonian forests to be adopted by the respective governments. Certification has not been the principal objective of the intergovernmental processes just described, the main objective being to provide a common framework for countries to collect aggregate data to describe, measure and assess progress towards achieving forest sustainability at the National level. However, as interest in timber certification has grown, the framework has increasingly been recognised as providing the natural starting point for the development of certification standards.
As a separate initiative, the Forest Stewardship Council (see page 6), have sought to develop a set of Principles and Criteria for Good Forest Management, which are, in theory, internationally applicable. The FSC approach has been to by-pass the intergovernmental approach and industry by reaching agreement between a range of environmental groups and certifying companies on their own Principles for certification. While this approach has allowed rapid agreement and has the advantage of recognition by environmental groups, it means that the FSC Principles are not always compatible with government forest policy and do not adequately reflect the economic aspects of sustainability. Nevertheless, the FSC Principles and Criteria are a valuable contribution to the process of standards development, and are being used in some countries as a starting point for the development of national standards which are acceptable to a much wider range of interests.
ii) Certification standards
To date, no internationally or nationally recognised standards for forest certification have been elaborated. The issues involved in the setting of forest management standards suitable for certification purposes are complex. In addition to the technical aspects of forest management, the following issues need to be resolved:
The size of certification unit: theoretically it is possible to certify forests at any of the following levels: forest stand; forest management unit or estate; region; and country. The forest management unit, usually defined on the basis of ownership, has often been regarded as the natural unit for certification. However, it has become increasingly obvious that certification on this basis is inappropriate where forest lots are particularly small. Regional certification may prove more workable in these areas. The relevance of sustainability indicators also varies depending upon the size of the certification unit - in small management units, only a limited number of criteria will be relevant at a given point of time.The interrelationship between certification standards and forest legislation: existing legislation varies considerably between countries. Forestry practices in certain countries are already subject to strict laws and effective government control. In such countries, the need for certification standards that go beyond legislative requirements will be much less than in unregulated environments. In well regulated countries, certification may simply add an extra layer of bureaucracy to the regulatory framework, increasing costs and reducing efficiency, without greatly improving management.The time-scale for certification: forest management is a very long term process, whereas certification tends to involve brief short term inspections. Drawing up standards that allow relatively quick assessment, but which effectively assess the long term environmental impacts of particular management practices is problematic.
Conversion forest: converting natural forest into agricultural land, or intensive plantations, may form a legitimate component of a national sustainable forest development plan, but on a forest unit basis it is difficult to certify forests which are scheduled for conversion. Opinions differ also on the conditions which enable the certification of plantations on land that was formerly under forest.
The interrelationship between management standards and performance standards: There are two types of standard that may be used for certification purposes:
Performance standards specify the results that an organisation must achieve in order to be certified. For example, a forestry organisation may have to demonstrate that it has left a 50m buffer zone around rivers: or that clearcuts can exceed no more than 50 hectares in size.Performance standards have the advantage of giving forest managers an exact picture of what they are expected to achieve in the forest. They also tend to be advocated by environmental NGOs who believe that the best method of assuring the market is by specifying results (for example, certifying timber as "clear-cut tree"). Management standards have the advantage of flexibility, and provide recognition for commitment to improvement. The forest industry tends to prefer the flexibility and practicality of management standards. In practice, certification will generally require a combination of both performance and management standards.Management standards specify the management processes which an organisation must adopt in order to be certified. For example, a forestry organisation may have to demonstrate that it has a forest management plan or effective forest monitoring procedures.
Participation and involvement in standard setting: sustainable forest management implies different things to different people as attitudes towards the role of forests vary considerably. Forest management always involves trade-offs, so that if the major objective is biodiversity conservation, there will inevitably be some loss in timber production and vice-versa. The relative importance that society attaches to the various social, economic and environmental roles of forests will vary over both time and space. This means that the concept of sustainability is constantly evolving. It also means that ideas about sustainability will vary by locality - in some areas, the economic role of forests will be most valued, while in others the environmental protection functions and recreational values may be regarded as more important. In practice, this means that the definition of sustainability standards can only be carried out on the basis of an ongoing broad-based participatory process, involving input from a range of interests at a local level.
Considerable work is being carried out to resolve the issues just described in order to develop reliable certification standards. This work forms a crucial element of the various national and international certification schemes described in sections 4 and 5 of this report. Such work appears to have progressed furthest in Canada, Indonesia, Sweden and Bolivia. Recent work by the Centre for International Research in Forest Products (CIFOR - see section 5) has also focused on the practical testing of a range of certification standards at Forest Management Unit level.
4. Transnational certification initiatives African Timber Organisation
The ATO has been working on the development of a certification system for its member states since 1993. The ATO comprises 13 African timber producing countries including Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Cote d'lvoire, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, and Zaire. Together, these countries account for 80% of the forest cover of the African continent.
The stated aim of ATO's certification scheme is "to build a genuinely independent certification scheme for African Timber originating from forests under effective management according to the internationally agreed ITTO criteria" - The scheme is intended both to promote sustainable forest management and to improve the competitiveness of African timber in major export markets. The scheme has been backed by funding from the French Government and the European Union.
To date the ATO has undertaken three consecutive studies related to certification. The first study, carried out in 1993, aimed to create awareness amongst member states of the need for certification. The second study, completed in 1994, analysed the political, administrative, technical, and economic implications of certification in member countries, A round table meeting of ATO members was held following the second study, during which the forest management criteria and institutional arrangements for an African certificate were considered. A third study was then executed in association with the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) which involved the testing of a set of draft sustainable forestry management criteria at forest management unit level at two sites in Cote d'lvoire. A draft set of "Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management and Certification" were formulated on the basis of the CIFOR study.
ATO now intend to test the criteria and indicators in a wider range of ATO states, so that they may be elaborated and more closely aligned to the variety of forest types and conditions in ATO countries. This will be followed by a pilot certification scheme. A particular challenge will be to develop a certification programme which is equally applicable to countries where the public forest administration or a parastatal company is in charge of large areas of Permanent Forest Estate, and to countries where production is dominated by small scale entrepreneurs and communities without management planning. Another challenge will be to attract the necessary financial resources to develop the scheme.
While ATO intends to act as the governing body for the certification scheme in its member countries, it has stated that it would wish to work jointly with an internationally recognised certification body and accredited certifiers in order to ensure the credibility of the scheme.
The Central American Council on Forests and Protected Areas
Central American countries have been pursuing a joint regional approach to develop certification programs through the Central American Council on Forests and Protected Areas. The Council is an intergovernmental organisation convened in 1993 to implement the Central American Convention on Natural Forests and Plantation Ecosystems and to take over responsibility for the Tropical Forestry Action Program in the area. In September 1995, the Council endorsed a proposal put forward by the Central American Chamber of Forest Industry, to explore the potential for regional forest management certification in the area.
European Union
i) Domestic Production
The perceptions of member states concerning the EU's future role in timber certification vary considerably. At this stage, no conclusions have been reached as to the need for certification of EU domestic timber production, and the methods by which such certification may be achieved. There is also no consensus regarding the role the EU should adopt in the international harmonisation of the various schemes, although there is a common view that such harmonisation is necessary.
While there has been little or no progress towards a unified system of timber certification within Europe, the Commission have been promoting "generic" certification and labelling schemes which are applicable in a wide range of industrial sectors, including the forestry sector.
The EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) is an environmental management systems certification scheme modelled on the British EMS standard BS7750. EMAS may be applied to companies in all sectors and its requirements include the implementation of a recognised environmental management system (BS7750, ISO14001) and the production of a regular publicly available environmental statement which has been independently validated by a third party. The EMAS scheme was officially launched in the UK in April 1995. A number of European forest sector companies, notably pulp and paper producers, are already EMAS certified.
The EC Eco-labelling scheme is applicable to both imported and community produced goods, rating products according to several environmental criteria (e.g. waste, soil/air/water pollution, noise, energy/resource consumption) throughout the five phases of the product's life cycle (pre-production, production, distribution, utilisation and disposal). Only end products are eligible for the label, with detergents, paper and soil improvers, the first product groups under consideration. A set of criteria for paper and kitchen towels were formally adopted by the Commission in November 1994. These criteria permitted the use of recycled fibre and fibre "from forests where environmentally appropriate management is practised." The eco-labelling scheme for paper products suffered a set back in 1995, when the Confederation of European Paper Industries withdrew their support in favour of the EMAS approach.
ii) Imports
In the area of overseas development co-operation within the Commission, certification is now regarded as a priority area for action in relation to the promotion of sustainable tropical forest management. In 1995, a new Protocol was added to the Lome Convention drawn up between the EU and a range of African, Caribbean and Pacific states, which identified the need to concentrate on "supporting the definition and the development of certification systems for timber produced from tropical forests bearing in mind sustainable forest management principles". Similarly, in November 1995, a Council Regulation on operations to promote tropical forests was adopted which stated that priority support will be given to the "definition and development of certification systems, combined with independent assessment systems". The Commission take the view that the European market has the potential to create demand for certified timber, and that this may assist progress towards sustainable forest management overseas.
In line with this policy, the EU provided back up funding towards the development of the African Timber Organisation scheme. More recently, in 1995, the Commission approved funds of about ECU 750,000 (approximately US$ 940,000) to WWF Belgium to undertake a programme to promote sustainable forest management and FSC certification in Western and Central Africa. The aims of the project are to: i) undertake wide consultation among major partners to obtain a consensus and commitment for a common approach to certification: ii) develop a methodology for certification in a pilot country (Cameroon), including the establishment of an FSC working group: iii) implement a public awareness campaign among consumers in Europe and organise the demand for FSC certified timber. iv) extend the pilot scheme to other countries in the region: and vi) undertake an analysis of the likely impact on forest management in Western and Central Africa.
The WWF Belgium project has been the subject of some criticism because there appears to be no direct link between the project and the African Timber Organisation Scheme. Unlike the ATO scheme, the WWF Belgium project involves certifiers and FSC dealing direct with individual companies and it is not contributing to the development of a co-ordinated regional approach.
Forest Stewardship Council
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), head-quartered in Mexico, is a non profit, non governmental organisation founded in 1993. Its stated mission is to support environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial and economically viable management of the world's forests. It promotes voluntary, independent, third party certification as the primary means to achieve its goal. The driving force behind its development have been environmental Non Government Organisations, notably the WWF, and its decision-making processes reflect these origins. Until mid 1996, the highest decision making body, the general assembly, was divided into two voting chambers: the first with 75% of voting power consisting of social and environmental issues: and the second, with 25% of voting power, representing economic interests. To date, the FSC has generated broad support from the environmental and social community and from commercial certification companies, but has generated very limited support from forest owners, industry and the timber trade. A major stalling point has been the controlling influence of environmental groups in the decision making process. In June 1996, an effort was made to mitigate this problem by raising the voting powers of the economic chamber to 33%.
The FSC has drawn up its own set of Principles and Criteria for Good Forest Management. The FSC process requires that the 10 FSC Principles be adapted into national standards for application in each country where the FSC proposes to operate as certifier. The adaptation should be carried out by a representative, multi-interest process to ensure that the standard adequately reflects local conditions. The FSC is also responsible for accrediting certifiers to certify forests managed according to FSC standards, and to certify the chain of custody in order to allow product labelling. Progress by the FSC to date is as follows:
The FSC has prepared a manual for accreditation and evaluation of certification bodies. The FSC has accredited 4 certifying companies, two in the UK and two in the US. The four certifying bodies currently employ 15-20 people in forest management certification work and there are 14 full time specialists to handle chain of custody verification work. No mechanisms have yet been designed to assess the professional competence of individuals involved in certification.FSC are playing a positive role in promoting the concept of certification, and in their efforts to extend the concept into a range of countries around the world. However a number of factors continue to inhibit the further development of FSC notably; the in built bias towards environmental and social pressure groups within the decision making process: the existing emphasis placed on single forest certification by the FSC, partly stimulated by the commercial interests of the certifiers: lack of trained manpower. the continuing exclusion of all government interests: and the inability of FSC to adequately involve and reflect the needs of small private owners. The current FSC practice of endorsing timber products which have not been certified to recognised national forestry standards, will also serve to undermine the credibility of the organisation. These issues will need to be addressed if the FSC is not to become marginalised in the further development of internationally recognised certification mechanisms.The FSC has begun the process of developing national certification standards in around 15 countries, although no national standards have yet been finalised, Most of FSC national working groups are in the Americas and in North West Europe. At present their coverage does not extend into Africa, most of Eastern and Southern Europe, Russia, or Asia. Participation in FSC national groups varies considerably. Only a few (e.g, Sweden) have succeeded in attracting involvement from forest owners, industry and trade; many continue to be dominated by environmental and social NGOs and certifier interests.
The FSC launched a trademark in London during February 1996. As there are no national FSC standards, no products have been labelled in accordance with the rules FSC has drawn up for certification and labelling. However, in order to ensure that FSC certified timber is first on the shelves, and to satisfy the policy requirements of 1995 Plus Group members, FSC has endorsed a limited range of products certified under various standards drawn up by the certifying companies.
By March 1996, FSC accredited companies had certified 26 forest areas in various parts of the world to a range of standards. The total area certified amounted to 4.7 million hectares, Much of this area has not been endorsed by the FSC, including over 2 million hectares of plantation owned by the Indonesian Parastatal organisation, Perum Perhutani certified prior to the existence of the FSC. The largest area of FSC endorsed forest comprises nearly 1 million hectares of state forests in Poland, certified to standards drawn up by SGS Forestry, and paid for by a UK company.
lnternational Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)
ISO is the primary global organisation for the promotion of international standards. Its members are national standards bodies in more than 100 countries. ISO standards are voluntary but, if adopted by government, may become mandatory. ISO's Conformity Assessment Committee (CASCO) has been set up to ensure adequate harmonised arrangements for certification and accreditation.
ISO has been evolving a series of standards (14000 series) which are designed to provide companies in all industrial sectors with a set of tools for managing environmental impacts and risks. The existing tools can be divided into 3 groups: i) environmental management systems: ii) auditing and performance evaluation tools; and iii) product evaluation including life-cycle assessment and environmental labelling. Draft international standards for EMS (ISO14001) and environmental auditing (ISO14010) have been published.
ISO14001 is a management system specification which enables organisations to achieve a stated environmental policy and associated objectives. The standard is flexible, allowing the certified organisation to set its own performance level. However 3 minimum requirements are defined: (i) compliance with legislation; (ii) commitment to continuous improvement, and (iii) prevention of pollution.
Forest industry organisations in a wide range of timber producing countries are increasingly recognising the potential of the 14000 series as a basis for timber certification. ISO14001 has several strengths in this respect, notably: as a management standard, ISO14001 is designed for and appropriate to industrial enterprises: ISO14001 may be applied in all sectors and will therefore promote more effective comparison of timber with competing materials: and ISO has considerable experience in the effective development of international standards.
While the ISO series may provide a suitable framework for certification, there are a number of gaps to fill before it may be used extensively within the forest sector. A notable gap is the lack of performance standards other than those specified in legislation. This factor has been particularly criticised by environmental NGOs as a weakness of the ISO approach. The lSO approach may also not be appropriate for producers in the developing world where there is little experience in the use of structured management systems. In addition, the ISO approach shares a weakness of the FSC, that the standard may not be easily applied to the certification of small private or community forests.
An Informal International Study Group was formed in 1995 to consider the further development of forest certification under ISO and a series of meetings held. The most recent meeting of the Group was held in London in early 1996 and was attended mainly by industry and forest owner representatives from 24 countries, including most of the major temperate producing countries, Although efforts have been made to involve the environmental NGOs in the process, most have chosen to boycott the meetings. The NGOs, who are keen to promote the FSC process where they have considerable influence, do not want to appear to lend credibility to the ISO process.
The process of developing ISO14001 for use within the forest sector received a considerable boost with ISO's decision, in July 1996, to establish a formal Working Group to prepare guidance material for the implementation of ISO14001 by forestry organisations. While the Working Group is not empowered to specify performance levels or to create its own product label, the availability of internationally recognised guidance material may serve to increase the reliability and credibility of ISO14001 as a forest certification mechanism.
Nordic Forest Certification
In August 1995, the principal organisations of the forest owners and forest industries in Finland, Norway and Sweden established the joint Nordic Forestry Certification Project. The aim was to investigate the prospects for concerted Nordic action in relation to forest certification. Certification is seen as an important marketing tool to promote forest products against substitutes. A joint approach was favoured in order to increase the credibility of certificates, and because there are many similarities in forest management and industry in the three countries. The principal aims of the program are to:
Define a certification system which is appropriate to Nordic conditions.A first report of the project was published in February 1996 with the following major conclusions and recommendations:Prepare a detailed list of requirements for certification with regard to forestry guidelines: organisation structures and the rules, levels and criteria for certification.
Clarify the relationship between certification and (i) forestry regulatory frameworks and (ii) the international work carried out as follow-up to UNCED in 1992.
Hold discussions with environmental organisations, forest scientists and customers.
Study the wood chain to elucidate procedures for the labelling of products from certified forests.
It was acknowledged that joint action should be taken to ensure that a large part of the forest area and forest products from Nordic regions may be quickly certified. Certification should therefore be based on standards which recognise commitment to action.Part TwoCertification in Nordic countries should be developed so that it is compatible with ISO14001 and EMAS.
The starting point for the development of performance standards for forestry should be the "definitions of sustainable forestry set out in the UNCED documents developed in the Helsinki resolutions and the FSC's basic principles which largely coincide".
More work should be carried out to consider the institutional arrangements for Nordic forest certification, the problems associated with the "chain of custody", and particularly the methods by which small private land owners may be certified.
A Nordic Expert Group should be established to draw up a set of general principles for the certification of Nordic forestry.
For further information send email to Graham Bruford [email protected]