Back     Latest news from Green Building Press    Subscribe to our newsletter

FSC good PEFC and CSA bad!

Posted: 02/03/2005

Greenpeace recently welcomed the UK Government’s review of forest certification schemes (1) and urged the public and private sector to clearly specify the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification scheme on contracts to guarantee legal and sustainable timber sourcing. However according to a recent report (2) almost all government departments have refused funding for a cross Whitehall unit to advise them on procurement of sustainable timber. A move that was intended to stem the flow of embarrassing incidents where departments have been accused of buying unsustainably produced or even illegal supplies.

This sticking point aside, The UK Government has confirmed that timber products certified by the FSC meet Central Government procurement guidelines for legal and sustainable timber. Greenpeace say that it is delighted that the Government has confirmed their view that the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) cannot offer the same guarantees.

The PEFC standard, say greenpeace, not only allows unsustainable logging in ancient forest areas and other ecologically valuable ecosytems, but also the forest management standards required to receive PEFC certification are very low and vary considerably from country to country. Moreover, unlike the FSC - which was developed by social, environmental as well as business groups - the PEFC scheme was solely developed and is dominated by the forest sector. Stakeholder representation from environmental organisations and indigenous peoples groups is totally inadequate.

However, Greenpeace is astonished that the Government report also concluded that the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) system, which is currently facing heavy criticism from Canadian environmental and indigenous peoples’ groups, has also been given the green light. These groups launched appeals against forestry operations covering over 13 million hectares of forest certified by the CSA. The appeals follow a systematic review of how CSA certified companies are failing to live up to the claims made within the standard (3).

Even when the CSA standard is being properly adhered to, no major environmental group in Canada working on certification believes that CSA can offer any real assurance that the timber is from sustainably managed forests. Under the CSA system, companies set their own forest management standards and no consistent minimum standard is required by the CSA.

The scheme also fails to provide any reasonable measures to ensure that indigenous peoples’ rights are respected (4). The CPET report did not take into account social issues, such as indigenous people’s rights in its assessment.

“The Government is providing direction that strong certification systems, such as FSC, should be the standard for the industry,” said Pat Venditti, Greenpeace Forest Campaigner. “UK wood buyers should take note that wood certified by the PEFC should be avoided. We urge both the public and private sector to clearly specify FSC on all contracts in order to guarantee that the timber they are using is from legal and sustainable sources.”

1. Five certification schemes analysed in the report commissioned for the Central Point on Expertise on Timber (CPET) were the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC) and Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI).
2. Ends report 360 January 2005 Whitehall fails to support timber initiative.
3. This appeal was launched on 29th October 2004 by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, on behalf of the Sierra Club of Canada and the National Aboriginal Forestry Association.
4. The UK report is also out-of-line with a new four-year study on certification systems released just two weeks ago. The book, written by Yale professor Benjamin Cashore and two other authors, contrasted four out of five of these same systems, and found that for almost all elements of the systems evaluated, only the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) provides any clear and measurable objectives for defining sustainable management. The book, entitled Governing Through Markets, found that the CSA system does not provide any regulation for the size or location of plantations, of the size or location of clearcuts, and fails to mandate specific direction for introducing new protected reserves.
For a detailed comparison of the main certification schemes please read ‘Footprints in the Forest: Current practise and future challenges in forest certification’ (FERN, 2004) www.fern.org/pubs/reports/footprints.pdf
For a comparison of the CSA, SFI and FSC read ‘On the Ground: Forest Certification: Green Stamp of Approval or Rubber Stamp of Destruction’ (Forest Ethics, Greenpeace, Sierra Club of Canada, BC Chapter, 2003) www.greenpeace.ca/e/campaign/forest/documents/cert_report_0303.pdf
GBP  
 
www.greenpeace.ca/e/campaign/forest/documents/cert_report_0303.pdf

Back     Latest news from Green Building Press    Subscribe to our newsletter

549