Footprints in the forest - Fern

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1- Weak participation of all interested parties in standard setting processes Environmental and social interests have in most cases refrained from participating in the PEFC standard setting processes and governing structures. The exception is France where a large coalition of environmental organizations (France Nature Environment) was involved in the national standard setting process and is currently actively participating in the setting of regional PEFC processes. In other countries (Germany, Latvia), small environmental and social NGOs are participating in the PEFC process but no large environmental organizations has been involved. In Sweden, a bridging document between FSC and PEFC was produced in collaboration between PEFC, FSC and environmental NGOs and the exercise did lead to a few improvements in the Swedish PEFC standard. However, no Swedish environmental NGOs are directly participating in the Swedish PEFC process. The PEFCC encourages the “consultation” of all interested parties during the standard setting process at the national level but active participation is not required. 2- Decision making and voting procedures which favor forestry interests In all the PEFC schemes, which were reviewed, decision-making power rests largely with forest industry/forest owners during standard setting as well as system development and maintenance. Even if/when social and environmental interested parties participate in decision making processes, the distribution of voting power is such that they can always be overruled by the joint votes of the forest owners and forest industry representatives. There is still no example of a PEFC scheme where social, environmental and economic interests have equal voice and decision-making power. 3- Lack of transparency and multi-stakeholder consultation during the certification process Neither full assessment reports nor summaries thereof are made publicly available to interested parties in any of the schemes, which were reviewed, expect in Germany. None of the national PEFC web sites visited contained any assessment/summary report (except in Germany, although NGOs complain that the excerpts which are published are not very informational) and in France, WWF reported that PEFC declined their request for getting copies of certification reports. However, PEFC Sweden will require the web publication of summary reports from the beginning of 2004. 4- A new International CoC certification standard expected CoC certification at the national level is currently based on the general CoC procedure, which were developed by the PEFCC in February 2000 and revised in November 2002. It is planned that this document will be replaced by an International Chain of Custody Standard, which is currently being developed. In the meantime, national schemes continue to apply the three approaches that were already in use in 2001 (input-output system; minimum average percentage system; physical segregation). 5- Voluntary certification at the regional level The vast majority of PEFC schemes continue to certify entire regions at once (exceptions being Sweden, Norway and Switzerland). Although the procedures and terminology vary slightly from country to country, a regional certificate is usually issued by a third party certifier to a regional applicant entity, which in effect implies that all forests included in the region become automatically “certifiable”. Field visits of all participant forest owners 5
efore a regional certificate is issued are not required. However, forest owners have to take an active (and voluntary) step in order to join the regional certification by signing an agreement with the regional entity. Only the forests of those forest owners who committed to minimum requirements (by signing the agreement) are considered as certified forests. Internal monitoring visits carried out by the regional applicant (and certificate holder) take place on a regular basis although the sampling procedures are most of the time vague and do not seem to ensure that all forests within a regional certification schemes are checked. In Sweden, field visits are mandatory before a forest is certified, which is not the case in most regional certification schemes (France, Germany). Stakeholders consultation during the certification process is not required in any of the PEFC schemes which were reviewed. 6- A system-based approach Although a proper comparison of the national PEFC standards currently operational in Europe was beyond the scope of this study, it seems like the majority of the PEFC schemes still lack performance based requirements (except for Sweden). Certification is based on a process, which focuses on assessing documents provided, by the applicant entity rather than on an evaluation of forestry practices on the ground. The regional and individual applicants alike make certain commitments as regards to environmental aspects of forest management, for the most system rather than performance based. The commitments determine the goals the operation will strive to achieve and the certification body assesses compliance with the steps defined to reach these goals. 7- Unclear complaints procedures The responsibility for handling complaints as regards to PEFC certification is usually divided between the accreditation body, the certification body and PEFC. The accreditation body usually has procedures in place to handle complaints regarding the accreditation process, but nothing specific for accreditation of PEFC certifiers. Certification bodies are also required to have mechanisms in place to deal with complaints. However since neither accreditation reports nor certification reports are publicly available, it is difficult for third party to bring forward complaints. Most of the complaints are therefore coming directly from applicants. There has hardly been any so far. 8- Lack of guidance for certification bodies Sweden is the only country where the national accreditation body developed a (relatively weak) document in cooperation with PEFC Sweden with specific requirements to guide certification bodies certifying against the PEFC criteria. In all the other countries, there are no forest-specific, PEFC specific guidance for certification bodies apart from the general policy document on certification and accreditation procedures of the PEFCC. Because the PEFCC procedures are very general, it is questionable whether two certification bodies would come up with the same outcome if they were asked to certify one same entity against the same national standard. 9- Uneven quality of the accreditation procedures PEFC requires that certification bodies be accredited by the national accreditation bodies in their respective countries. In some cases (France) any certification body which has 6
Page 1 and 2: PEFC Footprints in the forest Curre
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents Introduction 3 Co
Page 5: II. Conclusions The main purpose of
Page 9 and 10: III Overview of all PEFCC members a
Page 11 and 12: 3.2. Decision making structure and
Page 13 and 14: Decision making structure/voting wi
Page 15 and 16: owners association) after a third-p
Page 17 and 18: of the private forest owners in Lat
Page 19 and 20: SWITZERLAND This is the web site of
Page 21 and 22: IV. PEFC Sweden Author: Elisa Peter
Page 23 and 24: A new standard for group-certificat
Page 25 and 26: Because registers are not publicly
Page 27 and 28: SWEDAC has its own regulations to h
Page 29 and 30: VI PEFC Finland This section will b
Page 31 and 32: Criteria II: Equal and balanced par
Page 33 and 34: The second step is the verification
Page 35 and 36: Criteria XII: A transparent and hig
Page 37 and 38: PEFC Germany - status of certificat
Page 39 and 40: assessed during field visits then s
Page 41 and 42: The complaints mechanism is based o
Page 43 and 44: Annex 1 - List of PEFC members (fro
Page 46 and 47: Annex 2 - PEFC Belgium Charter CHAR
Page 48 and 49: and grazing, where the dimensions a
Page 50 and 51: 5-3 Are summary reports of certific
Page 52: References Dahl, L. April 2002. Bak

Footprints in the forest - Fern

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?