The PEFC and SFI certification schemes have rejected accusations in a report from Greenpeace and other green groups that they not sufficiently transparent and have inadequate complaints procedures. In its rebuttal, PEFC also points out that most of the NGOs associated with the document are involved with the FSC certification scheme, which it says Greenpeace does not make clear.
The report, On the ground; the controversies of PEFC and SFI, says that the PEFC “failed on key ecological and social parameters ”. Notably, it said, the scheme had “dismissed indigenous people’s rights” and sanctioned destruction of old-growth forest as “sustainable” and conversion of Indonesian rainforest to plantations.
In a blow-by-blow response, PEFC said that its key forest conservation values had been accepted by the WWF as “fulfilling the requirement of its Forest Conservation Assessment Guide (FCAG)”. In fact, the WWF said it was the only scheme to meet its ‘criterion 2’ standards completely, as meeting “Global Forest Alliance requirements” and being “compatible with globally applicable principles that balance economic, ecological and equity dimensions of forest management”.
The certification scheme also rejects the greens’ allegation that it is “weak in consulting and listening to stakeholders”.
In fact, it says it is “unique among global forest certification systems in requiring stakeholder participation in the development of all sustainable forest management standards”.
PEFC said its audit practices are in line with ISO requirements and sanctioned by the UK government-backed Central Point of Expertise on Timber and Dutch TPAC operation. And it points out that, when audits of certified forest and timber operations show ‘non-conformities’ these have to be rectified in two to four months.
In the case of a specific Indonesian certification highlighted by Greenpeace, the PEFC said the NGO failed to provide the evidence “substantiating its serious allegations”.
PEFC International secretary-general Ben Gunneberg said Greenpeace’s report contained “inaccuracies and misleading suggestions”. But he added that his organisation and the NGO shared a “common vision – sustainably-managed forests”.
“We hope, notwithstanding criticisms, we can engage in constructive forward-looking dialogue, for the benefits of forests and people,” he said.
Karen Brandt, vice president market affairs of the North American SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative) scheme, which is accredited to PEFC, said that by presenting misleading, inaccurate information the reports NGO backers were diverting resources and attention “from the goal we should all support – improving forest management globally”.
“SFI and its participants are making a difference on the ground – educating loggers and landowners, promoting best management practices and supporting conservations groups and forest communities across North America,” she said. “With just 10 percent of the world’s forestland certified, Greenpeace should be working in partnership with PEFC, SFI and the other credible standards to address the remaining 90 percent.”
