The document outlines the objectives and challenges of the PEFC standards revision discussion held on June 1, 2010, in Geneva. It highlights the need for stakeholder engagement, the expansion and distribution of forest certification, and the importance of ensuring flexibility and robustness in certification standards. The revision process aims to address global challenges, improve representation, and streamline requirements for better certification outcomes.

1. Stakeholder seminar Revision of PEFC requirements Part 1: standard setting Geneva, Switzerland (1st June 2010)

2. Objectives of the stakeholders dialogue To inform stakeholders about the results of work of the revision Working Group. To receive feedback from stakeholders on the “enquiry draft” documents. To encourage stakeholders in participation in the formal public consultation.

3. Global Challenges for Certification PEFC Stakeholder Dialogue Geneva 1 st June 2010 Ben Gunneberg PEFC Council Secretary General

4. Over last ten years: Increasing public and consumer awareness and knowledge Increasing involvement by governments at all levels Concept of “ corporate social responsibility " adopted – and implemented – by more and more companies Forest management has become a global procurement issue The rise of issues such as climate change, social issues, biodiversity – and the potential contribution by forests especially in the tropics Forest certification is now a solution provider However….

5. Challenge 1: Expansion of Certification Only 8% of the world’s forests are certified – have we stalled? Only 26% of the world’s industrial roundwood supply is certified – after almost 20 years of forest certification 66% of the total area certified to PEFC 8% 26% 66%

6. Challenge 2: Distribution of certification 180 million ha, 56% of world’s certified forests 82 million ha, 26% of world’s certified forests CIS = Commonwealth of independent states Source: UNECE/FAO Forest Products Annual Market Review 2008-2009

7. Legislation and procurement policies as drivers for sustainable and legal timber stimulate demand for certified product and are welcomed: Legislation (Lacey Act, Due Diligence Proposal EU) Bilateral Agreements – FLEGT; MoU China & Indonesia, etc Public Procurement Policies (CPET, TPAC, ICLEI, EU Ecoflower etc) Green Buildings initiatives Responsible Purchasing Policies & Codes of Conduct Need to ensure they remain drivers and do not become barriers Challenge 3: Securing Market Access

8. PEFC Standards Revision needs to ensure that: Meta standard requirements are flexible enough to be applicable to all national processes, Resulting national certification requirements are feasible, realistic and cost-effective. Both the Meta standard requirements and resulting national certification standards and systems are robust enough to provide confidence to deliver key market and stakeholder expectations Finding the right balance is the challenge

9. Context of the PEFC Revision Governance Review 2008 New Strategic Plan General Review of Statutes and Documents chain of custody and requirements for C-o-C Certification Bodies requirements for standard setting, forest management standards and regional/group certification, requirements for FM CBs and PEFC endorsement process.

10. PEFC ST 1001:20xx: Standard setting – requirements -- establishes governance requirements for national standards processes PEFC ST 1002:20xx: Group forest certification – requirements -- rules for group or regional certification PEFC ST 1003:20xx: Sustainable Forest Management Standards -- requirements for national SFM standards Elements under Review

11. Objectives Incorporate latest knowledge Respond to customer/community expectations Respond to new challenges (global south) Broaden stakeholder involvement Streamline PEFC requirements and structures Simplify PEFC documentation

12. Stages of the revision process (PEFC GD 1003:2009) Proposal stage: “Project” for development of new document or revision of existing is approved by the BoD Preparatory st.: A working group is set up and first draft or analytical papers prepared by the project leader WG stage: Working Group builds consensus on draft documents Enquiry stage: A draft document is released for public consultation (2 months minimum), comments received are considered by the WG Formal approval: Final draft is adopted by the PEFC General Assembly based on recommendation of the PEFC BoD.

13. Timetable of the revision process Timetable

14. Provides for balanced representation of stakeholders 5 meetings 2009-2010 Established four (4) task forces (standard setting and group certification; biodiversity; social issues; and plantation forestry and GMOs) Organised two specialists workshop (social issues in Feb 2010 and biodiversity in March 2010), Prepared draft documents for public consultation Working group stage

15. Three documents published for public consultation (mid April to the end of June 2010), Stakeholder Dialogues (Geneva in May 2010, Malaysia in June 2010) Three webinars (1-3 rd June 2010) Public consultation stage

16. WG will consider all comments from public consultation and will deliver to the PEFC BoD a final draft (September 2010), PEFC Board of Directors will consider the final draft and recommends it to PEFC General Assembly for formal voting or returns it back to the WG (October 2010), PEFC General Assembly will formally vote on the final drafts documents Next stages Participate in online consultation: www.pefc.org , click on Get involved - Public consultations

17. PEFC Standard Setting - Requirements PEFC ST 1001:200X (ED 1.0) Jaroslav Tymrak PEFC Council Head of Technical Unit

18. Components of the Standard: Standardising Body Standard setting process Scope: Compliance with this document is required for the development of national forest management and chain of custody standards.

19. Basic approach The document is using a process approach Example: defines requirements for the standard setting process from its beginning “identification of need for standard setting/revision” to “publication of the standard” The docu ment is a metastandard Requires the standard setting bodies to establish their own procedures in compliance with this document.

20. Requirements for the Standardising Body: To identify a body for building consensus (WG/committee) and a body for formal approval of standards; To have written standard setting procedures, which are publicly available, subject to periodic review; To keep records of the standard setting process; To have a WG/committee, responsible for the standardisation work with balanced representation of stakeholders; To have procedures for any substantive or procedural complaints.

21. Requirements for the Standard Setting Process: To proactively identify stakeholders; To identify “disadvantaged and key stakeholders” and address constraints for their participation; To publically announce & extend invitations announcing start of process, opportunities to engage, etc; Working Group functions in an open and transparent manner and builds consensus on content of standards; Draft standards are send for public consultation; Final standards shall be formally approved and published; Standards shall be revised revised regularly.

22. Critical issues Scope Should the standard setting procedures apply to the development of forest management and C-o-C standards or the whole scheme? 2. Requirements for balanced representation of stakeholders ED requires the WG/committee to be (i) accessible to stakeholders, (ii) balanced representation and decision making amongst interest categories, (iii) single interest shall not dominate nor be dominated, (iv) participation of materially affected persons shall be ensured.

23. Critical issues 3. How to incorporate “disadvantaged and key stakeholders” ED requires the standardisation body to (i) identify interested & key stakeholders, (ii) address constraints and proactively seek their participation, (iii) direct invitation of those stakeholders to the process and public consultation. 4. Building consensus and decision making ED uses the ISO definition of the consensus and requires the WG/committee to resolve “sustained oppositions to substantial issues by important part of the concerned interests”. ED does not define a specific voting model as this is to be decided by stakeholders at the national level, and be compatible with the ISO definition.

24. Key differences from previous Standard: Improved structure following the standard setting process, More attention to: (i) “disadvantaged and key stakeholders”; (ii) ensuring balanced representation; (iii) building consensus; and (iv) transparency of the standard setting process . (e.g. public standard setting procedures, invitations, standard setting report, complaints procedures, etc.)

25. Questions and answers Participate in online consultation: www.pefc.org , click on Get involved - Public consultations