For Group Forest Management there is an additional definition to consider and some additional guidance for Chain of Custody certification as detailed following.

Additional Definitions

The additional definition below applies:

Participant

A forest owner/manager covered by the group forest certificate, who has the ability to implement the requirements of the sustainable forest management standard in a certified area.

Note: The term “ability to implement the requirements of the sustainable forest management standard” requires the entity to have a long-term legal right, tenure right, or traditional or customary tenure rights to manage the forest and would disqualify one-off contractors from becoming participants in group forest management certification.

Guidance for chain of custody

It is required that where a group entity sells or trades in forest products originating from outside of their defined forest area (DFA), and where claims of certification are to be made, the group entity holds valid Chain of Custody certification.

Guidance on contracts between the Group Manager and Group Participants

Under the endorsement requirements of PEFC for Group Schemes, a binding written agreement is required between the Group Manager and Group Participants. The written agreement is required to include the following obligations:

• An agreement to comply with the sustainable forest management standard and other applicable requirements of the forest certification system.
• An agreement to comply with the requirements of the management system.
• Group Participants who have been excluded from any other certification groups are ineligible for group membership for 12 months after exclusion.
• The Group Participant is required to provide the Group Manager with information about previous group participation.
• An agreement to provide full cooperation and assistance in responding effectively to all requests from the Group Manager, or certification body for relevant data, documentation, or other information.
• An agreement to allow access to the forest and other facilities, whether in connection with formal audits or reviews or otherwise related or with implications for the management system.
• An agreement to inform the Group Manager of nonconformities identified under other PEFC certifications.
• An agreement to implement relevant corrective and preventive actions to be established by the Group Manager.

Note: The requirement for “written agreement” may also be satisfied by the commitment of and written agreement of a pre-existing organisation or group such as a forest owners’/managers’ association or SFM program, where the organisation can demonstrate that it has a legal mandate to represent the participants and where its commitment and the terms and conditions of the agreement are enforceable.

The following guidance is in relation to Clause 11.7.12 Public access and shall be applied in conjunction with requirements of AS/NZS 4708:2021-Sustainable Forest Management.

Access to the forest

The intent of Clause 11.7.12 is that a forest owner will allow access to the forest provided it does not conflict with ownership and cultural rights, safety and the rights of others, or adversely affect forest resources and ecosystems, and other functions of the forest.

Click here for a list of relevant legislation that forest managers have obligations to meet in Australia and New Zealand.

This was discussed with the New Zealand stakeholders, during the standards development process, however it was agreed to keep the two standards separate and to use the PEFC International Chain of Custody Standard for New Zealand.

During the PEFC re-endorsement process, organisations that receive certification through an independent third-party audit against AS/NZS 4708:2021 – Sustainable Forest Management, will receive a certificate for both AS/NZS 4708:2021 – Sustainable Forest Management and AS 4708:2013.

RW will ensure that certificates to AS4708:2013 are not withdrawn during the endorsement process and transition to ensure that PEFC endorsement is maintained.  PEFC recognition of AS4708:2013 will remain in place for quite some time, and until transition to and endorsement of AS/NZS 4708 is completed.

Please note there is a Transition Policy on the Responsible Wood webpage, which provides further information.

A term of a contract is unfair if it:

• would cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract;
• is not reasonably necessary in order to protect the legitimate interests of the party who would be advantaged by the term; and
• would cause detriment (financial or otherwise) to a party if it were to be applied or relied on.

Examples of unfair terms include a term that:

• only permits one party to avoid or limit performance of the contract;
• only permits one party to vary, renew or terminate the contract;
• penalises only one party for a breach or termination of the contract;
• only permits one party to vary the upfront price payable under the contract without the right of the other party to terminate the contract;
• permits one party to unilaterally determine whether the contract has been breached or to interpret the meaning of the contract;
• permits one party to assign the contract to the detriment of the other party without that other party’s consent; or
• limits one party’s right to sue the other party.

Note1: Further information on fair contracts is available from the following sources:

https://www.accc.gov.au/business/business-rights-protections/unfair-contract-terms

https://www.accc.gov.au/business/business-rights-protections/unfair-contract-terms

Note 2: Other information may be taken into account when contracting for forest related services. For example in Victoria there is a tripartite process to manage the Rates and Costs Schedule for Forestry Operators.

The forestry contractors and hirers Introduction page can be found on the following link: https://www.business.vic.gov.au/setting-up-a-business/owner-drivers-and-forestry-contractors/forestry-contractors-and-hirers

The rates and costs schedules can be found on the following link: https://www.business.vic.gov.au/setting-up-a-business/owner-drivers-and-forestry-contractors/forestry-contractors-and-hirers/understanding-your-costs

The Information Booklet can be found on the following link: https://www.business.vic.gov.au/setting-up-a-business/owner-drivers-and-forestry-contractors/forestry-contractors-and-hirers/practical-assistance-for-forestry-contractors

Rates and schedules have been published in the Victorian Government Gazette (from page 1552 onwards): http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2019/GG2019G032.pdf

Note 1: The forest manager carries a comprehensive responsibility towards society as a whole, but particularly towards the employees working in his forest. See: Guide to good practice in contract labour in forestry, Report of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Best Practices in Forest Contracting, 2011, available online @ http://www.fao.org/3/i2231e/i2231e.pdf p 8: Best  Practice 3. Social Criteria of the PEFC Scheme Criterion 6: Maintenance of other socio-economic functions and condition

Note 2: for further information see guide to good practice in contract labour in forestry report of the unece/fao team of specialists on best practices in forest contracting http://www.fao.org/3/i2231e/i2231e.pdf

Note 3: ILO’s Recommendation on Collective Agreements of 1951 (R91) defines a collective agreement as:

“Agreements in writing regarding working conditions and terms of employment concluded between an employer, a group of employers or one or more employers’ organisations, on the one hand, and one or more representative workers’ organisations, or, in the absence of such organisations, the representatives of the workers duly elected and authorised by them in accordance with national laws and regulations, on the other.”

Note 4: The 2012 General Survey the CEACR endorsed a number of measures which are set out in the Collective Bargaining Recommendation 1981 (No 163) as appropriate means for the promotion of collective bargaining for purposes of Article 4  including ensuring that collective bargaining is possible at any level whatsoever (eg ‘the establishment, the undertaking, the branch of activity, the industry, or the regional or national levels’);

Note 5: The ILO Governing Body’s Committee on Freedom of Association:

“Has emphasized that the said Recommendation stresses the role of workers’ organizations as one of the parties in collective bargaining. Direct negotiation between the undertaking and its employees, by‐passing representative organizations where these exist, might in certain cases be detrimental to the principle that negotiation between employers and organizations of workers should be encouraged and promoted”

And that:

“The Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), also contain explicit provisions guaranteeing that, where there exist in the same undertaking both trade union representatives and elected representatives, appropriate measures are to be taken to ensure that the existence of elected representatives is not used to undermine the position of the trade unions concerned.

Note 6: The preparatory work for the Collective Agreements Recommendation, 1951 (No.91) which shows that the possibility for representative organizations of workers is envisioned in the Recommendation only “taking into account the position of those countries in which trade union organizations have not yet reached a sufficient degree of development, and in order to enable the principles laid down in the Recommendation to be implemented in such countries.”

Removal of International legislation references:

The long standing precedent is for international law to be formally ratified by signatory countries. An individual country will formally agree to be party to an international treaty. That country then reviews its domestic legislation and where needed, makes specific changes including the introduction of specific statutes in a process called ratification.

The nature of international agreements is that they tend toward the subjective, often because of significant legitimate difference in demographics, economics and geography. Australia and NZ are active internationally and make strenuous efforts to reflect international agreements in practical terms in domestic legislation. It is therefore reasonable to assume that a forester complying with Australian and NZ law is complying in an applicable and appropriate way with international agreements.

Other Notes

• Determination by an auditor as to the legality of a certified operation shall not assume or usurp the responsibility of the applicable regulatory authority.
• Identification by the auditor of non-compliances under this section shall be limited to matters of record and where all due legal processes are complete.
• Nothing identified under this section can be interpreted as proof of an illegal act other than where that is the prior determination of a duly authorised authority.
• Non-compliances with other parts of the standard do not imply or impute illegal actions under this part of the standard. Conversely, a duly authorised record of illegal action or inaction can be a consideration in an auditor determining non-compliance with another directly relevant part of the standard.
• Some notes around the issues of particular interest that Auditors should pay attention to, and some others that they do not need to get caught up in?
• References to agreements with state agencies, lease agreements etc. provisions of which can be very specific and different to their legal requirements?
• Ensure that processes are in place for identifying the obligations, documenting them, including them in relevant planning and instructional documentations and providing the necessary training (or communication) or organising the requisite training for the workers so that they fully understand their obligations.

The performance requirement is: The sustainable forest management policy shall:……be available to stakeholders. There are several ways this can be demonstrated; examples include the following:

• The policy can be made available on the organisations webpage
• Upon request from a stakeholder the policy can be provided

Section 11 lists a broad range of sustainability criteria/performance requirements. It is understood that not every performance requirement is relevant to every forest manager. For those performance criteria that are relevant, they need to be considered in the forest management plan. For some requirements, a simple procedure noting how they are considered in the plan is all that is required while for others a more detailed plan is required that may include measurement, monitoring, and continual improvement processes. A summary of the plan is made publicly available excluding confidential or sensitive information.

The performance requirement is: The forest manager shall take action to minimise anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. There are many ways this can be demonstrated; examples include the following:

• Move to biodiesel or ethanol-based fuels.
• Install solar in offices
• Buy more fuel-efficient vehicles
• Encourage multi-passenger trips, rather than single occupant
• Where possible, purchase power from renewable sources

Yes this clause does include and refers to native forest salvage operations.

Significant biodiversity values (SBV) is defined within the terms and definitions under clause 3.74.

As noted in the standard under clause 11.3.2: ….the application of the precautionary approach….may include protection areas, set asides, connectivity maintenance or other spatial or temporal measures as appropriate. The measures shall be consistent with actions specified in relevant recovery, action or threat abatement plans; codes of practice; or recognised interim guidelines. They shall also take account of known information and relevant scientific advice. Therefore, forest managers can demonstrate application of the precautionary approach through relevant recovery, action or threat abatement plans; codes of practice; or recognised interim guidelines.

In applying the Precautionary Principle, decisions should be guided by;

• scientifically credible evidence of a threat, and
• assessing whether the threat is irreversible and/or disproportionate;

If so, applying a remedy sufficient to prevent that threat arising, otherwise, making a decision based on an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options.

Traditional Owners from New Zealand were involved in the standards development process, including the Federation of Maori Authorities.

The intent of this requirement is to ensure that due recognition, acknowledgment and enjoyment of traditional owners’ culture is maintained. It allows for the maintenance of ecosystems based on traditional land use methods, where appropriate to the forest management objectives of an organisation. As noted, where appropriate Traditional knowledge can include the knowledge of non-government organisations, local communities and Indigenous peoples.

As noted in the clause: Where unit rates are paid, an operation cost model can convert piece-rate productivity into an equivalent annual, daily or hourly rate of pay. The intent of the standard is to not tie forest managers down to one set of remuneration and conditions. For instance, a forest manager will pay a contractor an agreed amount for services rendered, in some cases a contractor will employ staff and/or subcontractors and these arrangements are outside the control and scope of the forest manager.

The Standard does not define what is considered local. The intent of local is to show support for local and regional communities that rely on the local forest sector for their livelihood. The intent is to support local business and suppliers where practical and possible. The expectation is that when all things are equal including price, quality of service, deliver etc. are equal, that a local supplier is given opportunity.

As noted in the Appendix TOF encompass a wide range of arrangements, such as agroforestry, farm forestry, avenue trees, trees planted within riparian zones, shelterbelts, windbreaks and urban trees. Therefore, yes this does include trees within local parks, within an urban setting.

There is no minimum and maximum threshold for forest managers to participate in a group forest management certification scheme.

The relevant legislation in Australia is the Modern Slavery Act 2018, this Act requires entities based, or operating, in Australia, which have an annual consolidated revenue of more than $100 million, to report annually on the risks of modern slavery in their operations and supply chains, and actions to address those risks.

As at 11 July 2022, the New Zealand Government is undertaking consultation on modern slavery and worker exploitation, the relevant webpage is:  https://www.mbie.govt.nz/have-your-say/modern-slavery/ According to the webpage all submissions will be analysed and the results will be reported to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for consideration.

Australian and New Zealand entities must undertake appropriate due diligence, to ensure that there is negligible risk that the material is sourced from controversial sources. Including undertaking due diligence to prevent, mitigate and remedy modern slavery and worker exploitation by Australian and New Zealand entities. Specifically Australian entities must comply with the provisions of the Modern Slavery Act 2018. Whilst legislation for New Zealand is currently pending.

For Australian and New Zealand Sustainable Forest Management and Chain of Custody certificate holders, please refer to the following clauses, which contain provisions preventing modern slavery:

• Clauses 3.46 Living wage and 11.7 Social and economic benefits and shall be applied in conjunction with requirements of AS/NZS 4708:2021 – Sustainable Forest Management.
• Clause 2.10 Social, health and safety requirements in chain of custody and shall be applied in conjunction with requirements of AS 4707:2021 – Chain of Custody of Forest and Tree-based Products – Requirements.
• Clause 4.10 Social, health and safety requirements in chain of custody and shall be applied in conjunction with requirements of PEFC ST 2002:2020 – Chain of Custody of Forest and Tree-based Products – Requirements.

First and foremost, any clearing of native vegetation must be done in accordance with relevant Commonwealth, State or Territory legislation and, or, regulations.

Our sustainable forestry management is committed to ensuring there is no conversion of natural ecosystems. This is based on the principle that conversion of native vegetation to plantations or to non-forest uses is not sustainable. There are however some limited and justifiable exceptions to this, which are outlined in our standard (refer to AS/NZS 4708-2021 at 11.1.3 a). In addition to this, the development of infrastructure required for forest management is not considered a conversion.

This is primarily because there are direct requirements around constructing and maintaining infrastructure to support the sustainability objectives of the standard. For example, an organisation that is certified to our standard is required to construct and maintain infrastructure to help minimize biodiversity impacts, minimize adverse soil and water impacts, and be necessary for the delivery of goods and services.

In the standard AS 4708-2013 the issue of clearing for infrastructure is outlined in a Guidance document here (refer to pages 56 & 57): https://www.responsiblewood.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/AS4708-2013-GN01-Publish.pdf

In the standard, infrastructure is defined and provides the following as examples: buildings, communications networks/facilities/easements, depots, energy supply with associated easements, fences, fire towers, nurseries, product storage areas, quarries, transport networks (including roads, bridges, culverts, landing strips) and water storage facilities.

Note 2 is informative only, it provides guidance and an example of how a commitment to SFM could be demonstrated.  As the note is guidance only, an area does not have to remain in the DFA for an audit cycle where:

1. Other means have been used to demonstrate a commitment to SFM and/or
2. There are justified circumstances where an area does not remain in the DFA.

The commitment to SFM could be demonstrated by/where:

• The forest manager supports/recognises other forms of environmental management in the areas in question. These could include ISO 14001, sustainable agricultural schemes, and other offset and biodiversity programs.
• Areas are covered by State Regulations or permits that have long-term SFM objectives and include monitoring and remediation.

Examples of justified circumstances.

• Where an area is sold or the leaseholder no longer participates in an SFM program and the forest manager can no longer exercise control.
• Where the principles of SFM are demonstrated in a specific area through other means e.g. effective regulation, other SFM schemes, and other environmental management processes.

Clause 4.3 paragraph 4 of AS/NZS 4708:2021 provides the following requirement.

“The forest manager shall demonstrate control and influence though documented legal land ownership or control arrangements and a commitment to sustainable forest management.”

Note 2 to Clause 4.3 provides the following guidance.

“A commitment to sustainable forest management should be demonstrated by keeping forest areas in the defined forest area at least for the full duration of a certification cycle or providing justification where this is not the case.”

How can a commitment to sustainable forest management (SFM) be demonstrated if Note 2 is mandatory and must areas remain in the Defined Forest Area (DFA) for a minimum of a certification cycle?

GUIDANCE

Note 2 is informative only, it provides guidance and an example of how a commitment to SFM could be demonstrated. As the note is guidance only, an area does not have to remain in the DFA for an audit cycle where:

1. Other means have been used to demonstrate a commitment to SFM and/or

2. There are justified circumstances where an area does not remain in the DFA.

The commitment to SFM could be demonstrated by/where:

a. The forest manager supports/recognises other forms of environmental management in areas in question. These could include ISO 14001, sustainable agricultural schemes, other offset and biodiversity programs.

b. Areas are covered by State Regulations or permits that have long-term SFM objectives and include monitoring and remediation.

Examples of justified circumstances.

Where an area is sold or leaseholder no longer participates in an SFM program and the forest manager can no longer exercise control.

Where the principles of SFM are demonstrated in a specific area through other means e.g. effective regulation, other SFM schemes, other environmental management processes.

Clause 10.2(e) requires that the forest manager “notify the certification body in the event of any nonconformity that may bring the standard into disrepute”. This ensures transparency and accountability in maintaining the integrity of the Responsible Wood standard and allows a certification body to respond promptly to serious non-compliance.

Any nonconformity that could harm the reputation or credibility of sustainable forest management is considered to have the potential to bring the standard into disrepute.

These could include:

• · Major breaches of laws and regulations, including Codes of practice, environmental regulations, workplace regulation, workplace health and safety, cultural heritage etc.
• · Wilful and intentional breaches of any laws and regulations
• · Serious failure to comply with the principles of sustainable forest management with objective evidence of failure to meet sustainability criteria listed in Chapter 11 of AS/NZS 4708.

Forest managers should assess the nature and impact of the nonconformity, considering its potential effects on the standard’s reputation. The severity of the nonconformity should guide the decision to report, ensuring that the response aligns with the significance of the effects. The extent and severity of any environmental harm, if present, and the degree to which it can or cannot be repaired may also inform the decision. The involvement of other parties or landowners, and/or the interest or likely interest of the media, should also be considered.

The forest manager is required to react promptly to the nonconformity, control and correct it, evaluate its causes, and implement corrective actions. Additionally, they must review the effectiveness of these actions and make changes to the forest management system if necessary.

Forest managers must retain documented information regarding the nature of the nonconformities, , subsequent actions taken, and the results of corrective actions. This documentation serves as evidence of compliance with the Responsible Wood standard.

Once notified, the certification body will likely conduct a review or investigation to assess the reported nonconformity. The forest manager should cooperate fully during this process, providing any necessary information or documentation.

The 2021 version of AS/NZS 4708 introduced new restrictions on the certification of plantations developed through the conversion of native forest. This included removing unclear wording in the 2013 Standard that had been used to allow the certification of plantations that had undergone a change in ownership and the new owner was not responsible for conversion.

The following guidance applies to plantation areas certified against the 2013 version of AS4708 transitioning to the 2021 version of AS/NZS 4708.

The new requirements of Clause 11.1.3 of AS/NZS 4708 will not be applied retrospectively to plantations certified to AS 4708:2013, and affected areas may remain within the forest managers’ defined forest area at transition.

New requirements of Clause 11.1.3 of AS/NZS 4708 will apply to all new plantations entering the defined forest area for the first time.

In summary, any land/coupe/block certified under AS 4708-2013 can remain in the DFA during the transition to AS/NZS 4708:2021.

Please refer to the 13 September 2022 Transition Policy for further clarification on the applicability of this clause.