J. For. Sci., 2025, 71(6):269-285 | DOI: 10.17221/3/2025-JFS

Forest certification management experience in Asia Pacific and Europe: A case study of Malaysia and SwedenOriginal Paper

Shah Badri Mohd Nor1,2, Ahmad Fariz Mohamed2, Shamsul Khamis3,4
1 Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
2 Malaysian Timber Industry Board (MTIB), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
3 Fraser's Hill Research Center, Natural and Physical Laboratory Management Center (ALAF-UKM), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bukit Fraser, Pahang, Malaysia
4 Department of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

The forest certification is a voluntary programme to ensure that the timber harvested from forests is processed in a sustainable manner by following specific standards. The Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) was introduced in 1999 using the bottom-up approach, and it gives flexibility for a country to set up their own PEFC standard based on current practices in sustainable forest management (SFM), regulation, and governance. This practice has led to the development of various PEFC standards for each country; thus, the impact of PEFC certification differs from country to country. In accordance with that, this study aimed to evaluate the PEFC standard application in developed and developing countries, namely in Sweden and Malaysia. The study also analysed the impact of forest certification on governance and economic aspects within Asia Pacific and Europe. The outcome of this study indicates that the PEFC standards developed by these countries showed similarities; for example, both countries are focusing on social and environmental requirements. Meanwhile, the differences were shown in the criteria, terms used, and the focus area. The impact analysis exhibited that countries are facing similar issues, especially market access and premium prices. This study revealed that each country develops different standards based on current practices, forest diversification, and regulations.

Keywords: economy; governance; Malaysian Timber Certification Scheme; Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification; sustainable forest management

Received: January 10, 2025; Revised: March 29, 2025; Accepted: May 12, 2025; Prepublished online: June 27, 2025; Published: June 30, 2025  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Nor SBM, Mohamed AF, Khamis S. Forest certification management experience in Asia Pacific and Europe: A case study of Malaysia and Sweden. J. For. Sci. 2025;71(6):269-285. doi: 10.17221/3/2025-JFS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Bartley T. (2003): Certifying forests and factories: States, social movements, and the rise of private regulation in the apparel and forest products fields. Politics & Society, 31: 433-464. Go to original source...
    2. Bass S., Simula M. (1999): Independent certification/verification of forest management. Background Paper for the World Bank-WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use Forest Certification/Verification System Workshop, Washington, D.C., Nov 9-10, 1999: 20-32.
    3. Bass S., Thornber K., Markopoulos M., Roberts S., Grieg-Gran M. (2001): Certification's Impacts on Forests, Stakeholders and Supply Chains. London, International Institute for Environment and Development: 134.
    4. Basso V.M., Jacovine L.A.G., Nardelli A.M.B., Alves R.R., Silva E.V., Silva M.L., Andrade B.G. (2018): FSC forest management certification in the Americas. International Forestry Review, 20: 31-42. Go to original source...
    5. Bernstein S., Cashore B. (2007): Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regulation & Governance, 1: 347-371. Go to original source...
    6. Bhattarai B.P., Kunwar R.M., Kc R. (2019): Forest certification and FSC standard initiatives in collaborative forest management system in Nepal. International Forestry Review, 21: 416-424. Go to original source...
    7. Cashore B.W., Auld G., Newsom D. (2004): Governing through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-State Authority. New Haven, Yale University Press: 250.
    8. Dingwerth K. (2008): Private transnational governance and the developing world: A comparative perspective. International Studies Quarterly, 52: 607-634. Go to original source...
    9. Elliott C. (2000): Conclusions. In: Elliott C.: Forest Certification: A Policy Perspective. Bogor, CIFOR: 228-236.
    10. Galati A., Gianguzzi G., Tinervia S., Crescimanno M., La Mela Veca D.S. (2017): Motivations, adoption and impact of voluntary environmental certification in the Italian Forest based industry: The case of the FSC standard. Forest Policy and Economics, 83: 169-176. Go to original source...
    11. Gulbrandsen L.H. (2004): Overlapping public and private governance: Can forest certification fill the gaps in the global forest regime? Global Environmental Politics, 4: 75-99. Go to original source...
    12. Gutierrez Garzon A.R., Bettinger P., Siry J., Abrams J., Cieszewski C., Boston K., Mei B., Zengin H., Yeşil A. (2020): A comparative analysis of five forest certification programs. Forests, 11: 863. Go to original source...
    13. Halalisan A.F., Marinchescu M., Popa B., Abrudan I.V. (2013): Chain of Custody certification in Romania: Profile and perceptions of FSC certified companies. International Forestry Review, 15: 305-314. Go to original source...
    14. Halalisan A.F., Abrudan I.V., Popa B. (2018): Forest management certification in Romania: Motivations and perceptions. Forests, 9: 425. Go to original source...
    15. Halalisan A.F., Popa B., Heras-Saizarbitoria I., Ioras F., Abrudan I.V. (2019): Drivers, perceived benefits and impacts of FSC Chain of Custody Certification in a challenging sectoral context: The case of Romania. International Forestry Review, 21: 195-211. Go to original source...
    16. Hysing E. (2009): Governing without government? The private governance of forest certification in Sweden. Public Administration, 87: 312-326. Go to original source...
    17. ITTO (1992): ITTO Criteria for the Measurement of Sustainable Tropical Forest Management. ITTO Policy Development Series No. 3. Yokohama, International Tropical Timber Organization: 8.
    18. Iwanaga S., Duong D.T., Ha H.T., Van Minh N. (2019): The tendency of expanding forest certification in Vietnam: Case analysis of certification holders in Quang Tri Province. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly, 53: 69-80. Go to original source...
    19. Klarić K., Greger K., Klarić M., Andrić T., Hitka M., Kropivšek J. (2016): An exploratory assessment of FSC chain of custody certification benefits in Croatian wood industry. Drvna Industrija, 67: 241-248. Go to original source...
    20. Kollert W., Lagan P. (2007): Do certified tropical forest logs fetch a market premium? A comparative price analysis from Sabah, Malaysia. Forest Policy and Economics, 9: 862-868. Go to original source...
    21. Laclau P., Meza A., Garrido Soares de Lima J., Linser S. (2019): Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management: Lessons learned in the Southern Cone. International Forestry Review, 21: 315-323. Go to original source...
    22. Maesano M., Ottaviano M., Lidestav G., Lasserre B., Matteucci G., Mugnozza G.S., Marchetti M. (2018): Forest certification map of Europe. iForest, 11: 526-533. Go to original source...
    23. Maraseni T.N., Son H.L., Cockfield G., Duy H.V., Nghia T.D. (2017): The financial benefits of forest certification: Case studies of acacia growers and a furniture company in Central Vietnam. Land Use Policy, 69: 56-63. Go to original source...
    24. MENR (2022): Malaysia Policy on Forestry. Putrajaya, Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. Available at: https://www.nres.gov.my/ms-my/pustakamedia/Penerbitan/ (accessed Aug 08, 2024).
    25. Michal J., Březina D., Šafařík D., Kupčák V., Sujová A., Fialová J. (2019): Analysis of socioeconomic impacts of the FSC and PEFC certification systems on business entities and consumers. Sustainability, 11: 1-17. Go to original source...
    26. MTCC (2018): Annual Report 2018. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian Timber Certification Council: 78. Available at: https://mtcc.com.my/annual-reports/ (accessed Aug 11, 2024).
    27. MTCC (2021): Malaysian Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian Timber Certification Council: 53. Available at: https://mtcc.com.my/certification-standard/ (accessed Aug 08, 2024).
    28. Ota I. (2006): Experiences of a forest owners' cooperative in using FSC Forest certification as an environmental strategy. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 5: 111-126. Go to original source...
    29. Ota I. (2010): Ecology-oriented house builders and FSC-certified domestic timber in Japan. Small-scale Forestry, 9: 81-92. Go to original source...
    30. Owari T., Sawanobori Y. (2007): Analysis of the certified forest products market in Japan. Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff, 65: 113-120. Go to original source...
    31. Owari T., Juslin H., Rummukainen A., Yoshimura T. (2006): Strategies, functions and benefits of forest certification in wood products marketing: Perspectives of Finnish suppliers. Forest Policy and Economics, 9: 380-39. Go to original source...
    32. Paletto A., Notaro S. (2018): Secondary wood manufactures' willingness-to-pay for certified wood products in Italy. Forest Policy and Economics, 92: 65-72. Go to original source...
    33. Paluš H., Parobek J., Dudík R., Šupín M. (2017): Assessment of chain-of-custody certification in the Czech and Slovak Republic. Sustainability, 9: 1898. Go to original source...
    34. Pattberg P.H. (2005): The Forest Stewardship Council: Risk and potential of private forest governance. The Journal of Environment & Development, 14: 356-374. Go to original source...
    35. PEFC Sweden (2017): Certification System for Sustainable Forest Management. Stockholm, PEFC Sweden: 5-6. Available at: https://cdn.pefc.org/pefc.se/media/2021-02/943d15e8-5404-406f-8ab1-6ad6250559f8/d94ba434-aa43-5c12-89fd-343b87fa008f.pdf (accessed Aug 11, 2024).
    36. PEFC Sweden (2023): Swedish PEFC Forestry Standard. Stockholm, PEFC Sweden: 31. Available at: https://www.pefc.org/discover-pefc/our-pefc-members/national-members/pefc-sweden (accessed Aug 10, 2024).
    37. Rametsteiner E., Simula M. (2003): Forest certification - An instrument to promote sustainable forest management? Journal of Environmental Management, 67: 87-98. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    38. Ratnasingam J., Macherson T.H., Ioras F., Abrudan V. (2008): Chain of custody certification among Malaysian wooden furniture manufacturers: Status and challenges. International Forestry Review, 10: 23-28. Go to original source...
    39. Rawson Clark M., Kozar J.S. (2011): Comparing sustainable forest management certifications standards: A meta-analysis. Ecology and Society, 16: 3. Go to original source...
    40. Saadun N., Noor K.M., Azhar B., Omar M., Hishamudin S. (2019): Export performance of tropical timber products certified by the Malaysian Timber Certification Scheme. Journal of Sustainability Science and Management, 4: 115-127.
    41. Savilaakso S., Cerutti P.O., Montoya Zumaeta J.G., Ruslandi, Mendoula E.E., Tsanga R. (2017): Timber certification as a catalyst for change in forest governance in Cameroon, Indonesia, and Peru. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management, 13: 116-133. Go to original source...
    42. Shukri M. (2008): Marketing certified wood products to Malaysian consumers: Exploring issues for the local wood-based industry. Malaysian Forester, 71: 45-49.
    43. Shukri M., Ainul Mardhiah A. (2014): Willingness to pay for certified wood materials among builders' joinery and carpentry manufacturers in Malaysia. Malaysian Forester, 77: 19-30.
    44. Sugiura K., Oki Y. (2018): Reasons for choosing forest stewardship council (FSC) and sustainable green ecosystem council (SGEC) schemes and the effects of certification acquisition by forestry enterprises in Japan. Forests, 9: 173. Go to original source...
    45. Sugiura K., Yoshioka T., Inoue K. (2012): Effects of acquiring FSC forest management certification for Japanese enterprises using SmartWood Audits. Journal of Forestry Research, 23: 165-172. Go to original source...
    46. Sundstrom L.M.I., Henry L.A. (2017): Private Forest governance, public policy impacts: The Forest Stewardship Council in Russia and Brazil. Forests, 8: 445. Go to original source...
    47. Swedish EPA (2024): Swedish environmental objectives. Stockholm, The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket). Available at: https://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/om-miljoarbetet/swedish-environmental-objectives (accessed Aug 10, 2024)
    48. Ulybina O., Fennell S. (2013): Forest certification in Russia: Challenges of institutional development. Ecological Economics, 95: 178-187. Go to original source...
    49. Vogt K.A., Larson B.C., Gordon J., Vogt D.J., Fanzeres A. (2000): Forest Certification: Roots, Issues, Challenges, and Benefits. London, Routledge: 394. Go to original source...
    50. Werndle L., Brown N., Packer M. (2006): Barriers to certified timber and paper uptake in the construction and paper industries in the United Kingdom. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13: 121-134. Go to original source...
    51. Zhao J., Xie D., Wang D., Deng H. (2011): Current status and problems in certification of sustainable forest management in China. Environmental Management, 48: 1086-1094. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content