IBQA was established in the Forest Etalon in the end of 2023 to ensure high quality of the work of certification bodies (CBs) authorized to work in the System.

Key IBQA activities:
● assessing risks for all certificate holders;
● evaluating certification bodies that applied for authorization in Forest Etalon;
● conducting original research regarding certification quality; and
● overseeing the work of certification bodies in the form of evidence and other assessments.

Basic results:
● total risk assessment was conducted for all certificate holders (CH);
● CBs were informed about the results of original research to help them to eliminate some shortcomings in work;
● evidence assessments were conducted for the work of all CBs according the Forest Management scheme (on-site format); and
● jointly with System’s Central Authority (SCA) CBs were trained on assessing the quality of reforestation.

SCA conclusions:
● The CBs and IBQA work well but there is a space for improvement; and
● Partial revision of documents regulating IBQA work is required.

High certification quality is the priority for the Voluntary Forest Certification System Forest Etalon and is assured by a complex of measures, including supervision from the System’s Central Authority (SCA), Independent Body for Quality Assurance in the Voluntary Forest Certification System Forest Etalon (hereafter IBQA)*, and Federal Accreditation Service of the Russian Federation (FAS) and stakeholders. This text is devoted to IBQA work.

IBQA was established in the end of 2023. The organization for performing IBQA functions – Tefra LLC managed by D. Zh. Kutepov – was selected based on the results of open competition.

Physically IBQA started to operate in November 2023. This structure oversees the quality of the key aspects of activities of CBs authorized in the Forest Etalon.
Delegation of these functions to an independent and professionally competent organization permits Forest Etalon to comply with best international practices, to guarantee our clients the uniformity of requirements and promote better implementation of certification requirements. A similar approach is used by FSC (Forest Stewardship Council), where such functions are performed by international organization ASI (Assurance Services International). At present, ASI does not operate on forest issues in Russia.

Noteworthy that IBQA in Forest Etalon is not a full analogue of ASI in FSC. In contrast to ASI, IBQA in Forest Etalon is not involved in CBs authorization (accreditation of in terms of FSC) – this function remains in the hand of SCA. The most important compliance criterion for applicants for authorization shall is that they shall be accredited as CB in the National Accreditation System as required by the national legislation. This accreditation is given by FAS**. Furthermore, FAS has its own procedure to regularly supervise activities of all accredited CBs. Taking this into account, IBQA, in turn, focuses its work on specific Forest Etalon certification requirements for CBs, both general, as well as for forest management evaluation, and chain of custody evaluation.

Besides that, in Forest Etalon, corrective measure requests to CBs are issued by SCA, with IBQA just controlling their closing. In addition, only SCA is eligible to make decisions regarding the CBs authorization status.

The procedure of IBQA selection, specific requirements for this body and its activities are regulated by Provisions about the Independent Body for Quality Assurance of Certification Bodies in Voluntary Forest Certification System Forest Etalon.

The supervision of CBs activities performed by IBQA is regulated by a separate normative, The procedure for conducting assessments and own research by the Independent Body for Quality Assurance of Certification Bodies in Voluntary Forest Certification System Forest Etalon.

IBQA has two main instruments for CBs supervision, namely assessments and original research***. In addition, Provisions about IBQA stipulate that supervision activities by IBQA shall encompass so called key areas of quality control, which include:
− Illegal and wrongful harvesting activities, including salvage harvesting;
− Insufficient protection of High Conservation Values (HCV), primarily intact forest landscapes (IFL), including their fragmentation;
− Poor quality of forest restoration by target species; and
− Unsustainable harvesting.

According to the Provisions, assurance assessments regarding key areas of quality control shall stipulate additional measures of supervision activities.

During the period IBQA made risk assessments regarding key areas of quality control for all forest management CHs. The assessment was based on open data. For each key area of quality control the determined severity of risk was used for setting further priorities in more detailed research of forest management CHs. In addition, risk assessment with respect to all chain of custody CHs permitted to identify basic risks.

Later IBQA conducted detailed original research, first of all with respect to key areas of quality control. Based on it, special information sheets*** – 70 sheets in overall – were send out to CBs during 2024. Monitoring of the efficiency of information sheets showed that many CBs considered this information during regular surveillance audits of forest management CHs, including issuing corrective action requests and observations. However, in general, the efficiency of the instrument was considered insufficient.

On September 25-26 2024, with active participation of IBQA, field training workshop for CB on assessing the quality of forest restoration was conducted. Efficient restoration of forests with target species is one of the key areas of quality control in Forest Etalon. Workshop participants were trained to assess the quality of reforestation in line with Guidance for assessing the quality of thinning in young stands.

In addition, IBQA conducted several original research to learn how auditors assess implementation of requirements on the quality of reforestation and reflection of the related information in public summaries of certification reports. As a result, conclusions (correction measure requests and opportunities for improvement) were developed and communicated to CBs on behalf of SCA. In turn, CBs took measures to eliminate incompliances.

As a background activity, IBQA assessed risks associated with CHs. Additional information was routinely collected, including regarding conducted evaluations and auditor teams and statistics on identified non-compliances. The collected information was used to develop a plan of evidence assessments in 2025.

During 2025 – first half of 2026, the main IBQA activity was conducting evidence assessments of CBs using onsite format. The main goal of an evidence assessment is to ensure the CBs ability to provide certification services to CHs in full compliance with all normative documents of Forest Etalon. Over the reported period evidence assessments on forest management scheme were conducted for all CBs authorized in Forest Etalon, including one assessment was conducted as part of an CB authorization process. IBQA evaluated how CBs implemented requirements of guidance for CB Conformity assessment – requirements for certification bodies authorized in the system Forest Etalon и Forest Management Evaluation. SCA staff took part in IBQA evidence assessments as observers, altogether SCA staff took part in 5 of 7 evidence assessments.

Summary of IBQA conclusions is presented in Table 1.

The relation between IBQA conclusions and Criteria of the Forest Management Certification Standard

Table 2 shows the number of IBQA conclusions (as a sum of major non-compliances, minor non-compliances and observations with opportunities for improvement) in relation to the Criteria of the Forest Management Standard. The relation between the IBQA conclusion and the Standard Criterion does not in all cases mean that CH failed to implement the Criterion. Such a relation was identified also in cases when CB did not properly fulfil its job on assessing requirements of the Criterion. Therefore, the number of IBQA conclusions reflects rather the general picture in relation to poorly implementable and auditable Criteria of the Standard.

The general number of IBQA conclusions in the table does not coincide with a number of conclusions formulated for the reported period. This is because of two factors:
− some IBQA conclusions could relate to two and more Criteria of the Forest Management Standard; and
part of IBQA conclusions could not be attributed to Criteria of the Forest Management Standard.

In addition, the joint analysis by IBQA and SCA showed that the number of non-compliances issued by CBs during audits conducted with IBQA supervision (e. g. during IBQA evidence assessments) appeared to be higher than during audits conducted without it. The same picture was observed in FSC as demonstrated by the analysis of FSC public summaries in Russia. This indirectly indicates in the absence of the IBQA supervision the quality of CB work may decline, and there a room for improvement.

The comparison shows that the number of non-compliances issued to CBs by ASI in FSC in Russia was higher than those issued by IBQA in Forest Etalon. This is because the scope of the IBQA supervision is narrower than that of ASI in FSC, since implementation of significant part of requirements is currently handled by FAS. It also necessary to mark that IBQA completed only a first cycle of evidence assessments and its results show the need in improvement of normative documents that regulate IBQA work and assessment techniques.

In the middle of 2026, SCA conducted a poll of CBs to collect their feedback about IBQA work. CBs could provide feedback regarding the procedure of IBQA evidence assessment, objectivity of IBQA conclusions and the effect IBQA work on the quality of CB work in general. The majority of CB evaluated IBQA work as “positive” or “rather positive”, but some responses contained serious critics of IBQA and pinpointed specific shortcomings.

Based on IBQA reports to SCA, SCA staff participation in IBQA evidence assessments and the aforementioned poll, SCA made a conclusion that the quality of work of both IBQA and CB is overall positive, but there is a significant room for improvement. In particular, SCA noted as a positive moment that during the whole period of Forest Etalon functioning, there was no acute conflicts and appeals from representatives of NGOs, local communities and other interested and affected stakeholders to SCA and IBQA.

Based on these findings:
− SCA to consider partial revision of normative documents that regulate IBQA work;
− IBQA to consider engaging additional non-staff auditors;
− To ensure that the IBQA section on the Forest Etalon web site is filled, including publishing IBQA plans;
− CB polls about IBQA work be conducted om a regular basis (not less that once a year).

At the same time, the IBQA work will be still focused on key areas of quality assurance; perhaps new key areas of quality assurance will appear if IBQA and SCA decide that they require stronger attention.

* Independent Body for Quality Assurance (IBQA) is the organization, which on a contractual basis with Responsible Forest Management LLC assures certification quality in Forest Etalon.

The IBQA functions include assessment of CB applications for authorization in Forest Etalon, e.g. their assessment against authorization criteria and drafting recommendations on their authorization for SCA, supervision of activities of the authorized CBs to assure certification quality and drafting recommendations for SCA to improve overall certification quality.

Note:
In this document “control” is used in the context of supervision over activity of the authorized CBs.
(The provision about the Independent Body for Quality Assurance of Certification Bodies in Voluntary Forest Certification System Forest Etalon).

** IBQA in its work does not duplicate the activity of the Federal Accreditation Service of the Russian Federation (FAS), which is in charge of accreditation of legal bodies and individual entrepreneurs in the National Accreditation System, including as certification bodies, and performs supervision over the activity of accredited bodies.

*** IBQA conducts two types of CB assessments:
− evidence assessment; and
− compliance assessment.

During evidence assessment IBQA observes and assesses the work of a CB auditor team that evaluates the management system of a CH against Forest Etalon certification requirements. During compliance assessment IBQA directly evaluates a CH to assess whether CB certification process and CH management system meet certification requirements.

Based on the results of assessments and/or original research IBQA formulates either Information Sheets or IBQA Conclusions. An Information Sheet is an official letter sent to CB with information about a situation that could affect the certification quality in Forest Etalon. The Information Sheet may be sent to CB on behalf of IBQA; in this case CB can, but does not have to answer it. The Information Sheet prepared by IBQA may be sent to CB on behalf of SCA as a stakeholder; in this case CB shall to undertake all necessary activities stipulated in normative documents of Forest Etalon regarding engagement with stakeholders.

IBQA conclusions are the analytic results of evidences whether the CB management system is complied with assessment criteria collected by IBQA. Based on the IBQA conclusions CB may receive corrective action requests that shall be eliminated during a defined period of time, otherwise CB work in Forest Etalon may be suspended, their authorization scope may be narrowed or the authorization may be cancelled. This is regulated by the Procedure for authorizing certification bodies in Voluntary Forest Certification System Forest Etalon.