Memorandum submitted by PEFC UK Limited
MEMORANDUM BY THE PROGRAMME FOR ENDORSEMENT
OF FOREST CERTIFICATION SCHEMES
I. BACKGROUND
TO PEFC AND
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
1. Introduction
PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest
Certification schemes) is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental
organisation, which promotes the sustainable management of the
world's forests through independent, third party certification.
Sustainably managed forests are those whose management implements
performance standards based on internationally agreed environmental,
social and economic requirements that form the cornerstones of
sustainability. Since its foundation in 1999 to better promote
sustainable forest management amongst small scale forest owners,
PEFC has become the world's largest forest management programme
umbrella organisation for national forest certification schemes.
It provides an open and transparent assessment and endorsement
scheme for national forest certification schemes with the same
high level of standards and credibility. Currently millions of
tonnes of wood are being delivered to the processing industry
and then on to the market place from over 210 million hectares
of certified forests.
We note that the Committee is also planning
to follow up on its 2006 report into sustainable timber. As PEFC
gave both written and oral evidence to this enquiry and also submitted
a detailed response to the final report in February 2006 which
is attached as Appendix One, it might be interested to learn of
recent developments to the PEFC programme since the 2006 timber
inquiry was undertaken.
2. Developments to the PEFC Programme since
2006
Since 2006, in a drive for continual improvement,
PEFC has made a number of changes to its programme:
— Relocation of PEFC's international
headquarters from Luxembourg to Geneva.
— The development of a new strategic
plan.
— The commissioning of a comprehensive
Governance Review.
— The development of a new stakeholder
forum offering membership to all stakeholder groups.
— The commissioning of a study of Social
Criteria in public procurement policies.
2.1 Relocation of PEFC's International HQ
In January 2008, PEFC's international office
relocated from Luxembourg to Geneva to enable the Secretariat
to collaborate more closely with its stakeholders in international
organisations, ENGOs and other partners.
2.2 The Development of a Ten-Year Strategic Plan
The PEFC strategic plan, summarising the organisation's
core objectives was adopted by the PEFC Council General Assembly
on 5 October 2007. The strategy will be reappraised annually and
detailed plans for its implementation will be submitted to the
PEFC Council's General Assembly as part of a regular strategic
review. The strategy defines PEFC's mission statement, core values,
beliefs, principles and sets out its strategic objectives for
the next 10 years. In the interests of transparency, the document
has been made publicly available on the PEFC web site and can
be found at: http://www.pefc.org/internet/resources/51177_1719_file.2023.pdf.
2.3 Governance Review
The Governance Review, published in July 2008,
outlines thirty nine recommendations aimed at further improving
PEFC's effectiveness. The review will support the restructuring
of the organisation's governance to ensure that PEFC meets the
objectives set out in the 2007 Strategic Plan.
The review was conducted by London-based consultants
ZYen, which convened an international Governance Review panel
to undertake the review. The panel, chaired by Lord Lindsay, Chairman
of UKAS (United Kingdom Accreditation Service), included Björn
Andrén of Holmen Skog AB, John Dee of Planet Ark, Hans
Drielsma of Forestry Tasmania, Dr Maharaj Muthoo of the Hari Environment
& Development Society, Frederick O'Regan of the International
Fund for Animal Welfare, and Dirk Teegelbekkers of PEFC Germany.
A copy of the report is available on the PEFC
web site at: http://www.pefc.org/internet/resources/5_1184_1877_file.2187.pdf
2.4 New Stakeholder Forum
One of the key recommendations which arose from
the Governance Review was that PEFC establish a stakeholder forum
to provide stakeholders, with whom PEFC has until now not been
able to engage with directly, with rights and responsibilities
within the organisation's governance process (including voting
rights and the right to appoint board members). It is expected
that this forum will become operational in November 2008 following
approval by the PEFC's 2008 General Assembly, which will be held
in October.
2.5 Social Criteria Study
In 2007, PEFC commissioned Chatham House to
conduct a study into social criteria in public procurement policies.
This report will examine the development of government procurement
policies with regard to social issues in general; the social criteria
which could be included in timber procurement policies; the extent
to which these criteria are already included in practice; experience
from including social criteria in other aspects of government
procurement policy; and the interaction of timber procurement
policies with WTO and EU procurement rules. Since several countries'
procurement policies implicitly accept standards set by the voluntary
certification schemes, these will also be examined. A draft version
of the report is available at http://www.illegal-logging.info/item_single.php?item
=document&item_id=634&approach_id=8.
II. PEFC POSITION
ON CARBON
TRADING
PEFC greatly welcomes the opportunity provided
by the Select Committee of the Environmental Audit Committee to
submit evidence to their inquiry into the timber trade and the
future of carbon markets in protecting forests.
With the increasing emphasis on forestry as
one of the tools towards mitigating the effects of global warming,
most recently emphasised through the UNCCC Bali conference in
December 2007, questions have increasingly been asked about the
role of forest certification in clean development and carbon credit
trading mechanisms.
PEFC believes that any credible mechanism of
carbon credit trading must recognise and reward the carbon sink
created by forests managed in a sustainable manner as demonstrated
by independent credible certification. The PEFC sustainable forest
management certification programme can provide the carbon trading
market with the required confidence on sustainable forest management.
1. Forestry represents important climate change
mitigation potential
In the context of global change and sustainable
development, forest management activities play a key role through
mitigation of climate change.i The forest mitigation options include
reducing emissions from deforestationii and forest degradation,
enhancing the sequestration rate in existing and new forests,
providing wood fuels as a substitute for fossil fuels, and wood
products, as a substitute for more energy-intensive materials.
Therefore, forestry activities should also play
a more important role in Kyoto mechanisms such as Clean Development
Mechanisms (CDM)iii and Joint implementation (JI), and any new
mechanisms post Kyoto. Forest owners and managers should be actively
motivated through regulatory and voluntary carbon emission trading
schemesiv to enhance or maintain the forestry mitigation of climate
change. In addition to the current "project" approach
applied to carbon credits, which is characterised by high transactional
costs and prices,v the focus should be shifted towards developing
simple and cost effective eligibility criteria for forest owners/managers
to access and trade the carbon credits.
2. Only sustainably managed forest should
qualify for carbon credits
The latest IPCC report states that "Forest
mitigation strategies should be assessed within the framework
of sustainablevi forest management, and with consideration of
the climate impacts of changes to other processes such as the
albedo and the hydrological cycle."vii The largest sustained
mitigation benefit will be generated through; in the long term,
sustainable forest management. Aimed at maintaining or increasing
the forest carbon stock, while producing an annual yield of timber,
fibre or energy from the forest, maintaining soil and water quality
and biodiversity as well as maintaining and enhancing socio-economic
functions of forests.
Therefore, sustainable forest management should
be used as the eligibility criterion for carbon credits or any
other payments relating to the reduction of deforestation; afforestation;
forest management (maintaining or increasing stand-level or landscape
level carbon density) or increasing off-site carbon stock in wood
products.
3. Sustainably managed forests must be demonstrated
through certification
Confidence on sustainable forest management
is required and can be achieved through credible independent third
party certification of forest management against consensus-based
standards, developed through a multi-stakeholder process in an
open and transparent manner.
Forest certification is currently the only mechanism
that allows an individual forest owner/manager to demonstrate
his/her adherence to sustainable forest management practices verified
by an independent third party.
4. PEFC guarantees credible forest certification
At the moment approximately 10% of the global
forest cover is already certified by a number of forest certification
schemes.
Two thirds of the world's certified forest area
is certified to schemes endorsed by PEFC making it the largest
forest certification scheme. The PEFC scheme provides international
consistency and guarantees that:
— all PEFC-endorsed schemes have been
developed in open multi-stakeholder consensus based processes;
— forest management standards comply
with international definitions of sustainable forest management
as defined by intergovernmental processes;viii
— certification is carried out by third
party certification bodies meeting ISO standards for conformity
assessment and which are accredited by members of the IAF (International
Accreditation Forum);ix and
— all scheme requirements as well as
the procedures of accreditation and certification bodies and certification
results are publicly available.
5. Summary
The PEFC Council is committed to working with
others in the international community to design a carbon trading
facility and other mechanisms, which motivate and reward those
who manage their forests sustainably as a significant contribution
to climate change mitigation.
30 September 2008
6. References
i IPCC (2007a) reports the latest estimates for
the terrestrial sink for the decade 1993-2003 at 3,300 MtCO2/yr
with a biophysical mitigation potential of 5,380 MtCO2/yr on average
up until 2050 ("Climate Change 2007—Mitigation",
the third volume of the Fourth Assessment report of IPCC).
ii Deforestation in the tropics accounts for
accounts for 20% of global emissions of carbon dioxide, making
it the second most important contributor to climate change after
the combustion of fossil fuels and the largest source of greenhouse
gas emissions in the developing world (Chatham House 2008, Briefing
Paper: Forest Governance and Reduced Emissions from Deforestation
and Degradation (REDD))
iii Although (September 2007) only one forestry
project has been registered under the CDM, there are signs of
increased activity in the sector and it is estimated that 13.6m
carbon credits from 30 planned projects will reach the market
before 2012 (IETA, Greenhouse Gas Market Report 2007)
iv The Ecosystems Marketplace estimates that,
conservatively, 13.4m tCO2 were traded in 2006 through voluntary
carbon emission trading schemes, and it projects vigorous growth
rates in coming years (Hamilton et. Al 2007 in IETA, Greenhouse
Gas Market Report 2007)
v Some analyses have estimated very high prices
for forestry projects, up to EUR 30 per tCO2 in voluntary markets.
Broader data collection suggests that these are atypical cases,
and that average prices are much lower. The Ecosystem Marketplace
estimates average prices of USD 8.04 per tCO2 in retailing and
USD 3.88-5.31 per tCO2 in wholesale transactions (Hamilton et
al 2007, IETA Greenhouse Gas Market Report, 2007)
vi Under the Marrakesh Accords (2001) of the
Conference of Parties 7 (COP7) for the implementation of Kyoto,
the sustainability creates a part of the "forest management"
definition: "Forest management is a system of practices for
stewardship and use of forest land aimed at fulfilling relevant
ecological (including biological diversity), economic and social
functions of the forest in a sustainable manner"
vii ("Climate Change 2007—Mitigation",
the third volume of the Fourth Assessment report of IPCC)
viii UN Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED) in Rio 1993, ATO (African Timber Organisation), ITTO (International
Tropical Timber Organisation, MCPFE (Ministerial Conference on
Protection of Forests in Europe), Near East Process, Lepaterique
Process, Criteria & Indicators for sustainable forest management
in Dry-zone Africa, Tarapoto Proposal: Criteria & Indicators
for Sustainable Management of Amazonian Forests.
ix IAF (International Accreditation Forum), www.iaf.nu
APPENDIX ONE
PROGRAMME FOR ENDORSEMENT FOR FOREST CERTIFICATION
SCHEMES (PEFC) UK LTD—RESPONSE TO HOUSE OF COMMONS ENVIRONMENTAL
AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT ON SUSTAINABLE TIMBER
The following is a response from PEFC to the
House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee report on Sustainable
Timber which was published on Tuesday 24 January 2006.
BACKGROUND
PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest
Certification schemes) is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental
organisation, which promotes the sustainable management of the
world's forests through independent, third party certification.
Sustainably managed forests are those whose management implements
performance standards based on internationally agreed environmental,
social and economic requirements that form the cornerstones of
sustainability. Since its inception in 1999, PEFC has become the
world's largest forest management programme, an umbrella organisation
for national forest certification schemes; providing an open and
transparent assessment and endorsement scheme for national forest
certification schemes with the same high level of standards and
credibility. Currently millions of tonnes of wood are being delivered
to the processing industry and then on to the market place from
over 186 million hectares of certified forests.
PEFC greatly welcomed the opportunity provided
by the Select Committee of the Environmental Audit Committee to
submit written evidence to their Inquiry on Sustainable Timber
in September 2005 and were pleased to be invited to submit oral
evidence to the Committee on 1 November 2005. Indeed, the opportunity
to give evidence in person to the Committee was valued so highly
that the organisation's General Secretary, Ben Gunneberg, travelled
over from Luxembourg to give evidence and was accompanied by a
member of the PEFC Main Board (its Council) Michael Clark and
a Board member of PEFC UK, Martin Gale CBE.
Momentum to promote the use of sustainably produced
products is growing around the world. Wood products are widely
acknowledged to have a better environmental record than competitor
materials such as concrete and steel in sustainable construction.
As a uniquely renewable material, wood has the lowest energy consumption
and the lowest level of carbon dioxide emissions than most widely
used building materials. However, we firmly believe that forestry
must be conducted in a sustainable manner, with due regard to
ensure a balance is maintained between the three main pillars
of sustainable forestry management; economic, social and environmental
issues and that many challenges remain if we are to eradicate
illegal timber.
We therefore welcome the Environmental Audit
Committee's decision to devote attention to this issue and recognise
the efforts of the Secretary of State for Climate Change and the
Environment and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs efforts to procure legal and sustainable timber through
the CPET process. PEFC welcomes any initiative that assures the
legality and sustainability of forest management and its resultant
products. We welcome the Committee's acknowledgement (9) that
forest certification systems have a role to play in ensuring legality
and sustainability and entirely agree that the area of certified
forest needs to increase from its current level of 10%.ix
We also fully endorse the report's declaration
(paragraph 2 Conclusions and Recommendations and paragraph 11
of the main report) that "For natural and ancient forests
to survive and function properly in providing livelihoods and
protecting the planet's climate and species, the final goal must
not just be a legal timber trade but also a sustainable timber
trade".
However, there are a number of points in the
report on which we would like to comment; firstly on some points
that were made in the Conclusions and Recommendations summary
and then on some of those in the main body of the report.
Paragraph 8 Conclusions and Recommendations [Paragraph
28 of Main Report]
"In our view, FSC is ideally positioned
to expand its role and work to raise awareness of sustainable
timber and related issues, if increased resources were made available"
The Committee appears to be advocating direct
government funding of the FSC programme. PEFC considers that CPET,
in conjunction with global and regional certification schemes,
offers the most effective methods of establishing sustainable
forest management. Therefore if the government decided to make
funding available to raise awareness of sustainable timber and
related issues, it would surely be more equitable to fund, on
a transparent basis, all credible certification systems.
Paragraph 16 Conclusions and Recommendations [Paragraph
42 of Main Report]
"Germany is the only Member State that is
actively considering legislation to ban the import of illegal
timber. Furthermore, some Member States, Finland and Portugal
for example, are reported to have actively opposed measures that
would improve VPAs' effectiveness during negotiations. Finland's
pulp industry is heavily dependent on impost from the Baltic States
and Russia of which estimates are that between 10% and 25% of
imports to the EU are illegal".
We have sought the advice of our Finnish colleagues
on the Finnish position of the FLEGT process and they advise that
the Finnish government considers the FLEGT process to be a valuable
means of helping to combat the trade in illegal wood. Finland
works in active cooperation with the EU and NGOs to find solutions
to this global problem. The first line of attack in preventing
entry of illegal timber is a robust Chain of Custody process,
where the origin and legality of wood can be verified. Finland's
approach is described above. We would also respectfully advise
that the Committee appears to be misinformed as to the position
of the German government on considering legislation to ban the
import of illegal timber. The current position as we understand
it, is outlined in more detail in the response to paragraph 56
below;
Paragraph 16 Conclusions and Recommendations [Paragraph
56 of Main Report]
"This is the type of legislation that was
proposed by the German Government in March 2005. The Virgin Forests
Act if it came into force in Germany, will prohibit the possession
and marketing of timber and timber products that were illegally
logged in virgin forests"
The Committee may well be aware that the mentioned
paper was a Ministry draft, which had not been presented to either
the cabinet or parliament and was not pursued as a result of the
change of government in Germany in November 2005.
Paragraph 22 Conclusions and Recommendations [Paragraph
75 of Main Report]
"Sustainable development has three equal
strands; social, environmental and economic. It is therefore of
great concern to us that the Government's current interpretation
of the EU rules governing procurement do not allow social considerations
to be taken into account when awarding a procurement contract.
This means that the assessment of the various forestry schemes
did not include an assessment of how social issues, such as the
rights of indigenous people, are dealt with. The FSC is currently
the only certification system that does this comprehensively".
We respectfully agree to differ with the Committee's
conclusion that only the FSC scheme deals comprehensively with
social criteria. We provided the Committee with supplementary
evidence on indigenous people and social issues in the PEFC certification
scheme on 28 November 2005.
We are disappointed that the Committee does
not consider that the PEFC scheme deals with this area satisfactorily.
Appendix One seeks to further clarify the way these issues are
covered by the PEFC standard.
Paragraph 25 Conclusions and Recommendations [Paragraph
81 of Main Report]
"Whilst we support the approval of the FSC
by CPET and are supportive of its work in assessing a variety
of schemes we do have some concerns regarding the endorsement
of PEFC. As an umbrella scheme it encompasses a large number of
different national schemes and it is unclear whether all of these
achieve a common minimal standard. When asked what minimum standards
PEFC requires of members during our evidence session no answer
was forthcoming. Since then PEFC has written to us setting out
how various standards are applied in different parts of the world
by its members. This however still begs the question of why PEFC
does not have in place a clear set of principles and standards
that apply to all members. This would ensure that—from wherever
PEFC certified timber was sourced—it would come with a guarantee
of what exactly it represents".
We were puzzled to learn that we had been asked
a question regarding "what minimum standards PEFC requires
of its members" since we cannot find such a question in the
transcript of evidence, neither can we find any evidence of failing
to respond to the Committee's questions. When asked about the
safeguard mechanisms for PEFC endorsement and quality assurance
Mr Gunneberg made it clear in his evidence that the PEFC process
was very rigorous and that the endorsement process takes a minimum
of nine months, while the longest assessment to date had taken
one and a half years. Any national certification scheme which
applies for endorsement by PEFC has to meet 244 "minimum"
requirements. The report is then drafted by expert independent
consultants as to how they fulfill these requirements, it has
to be approved by all PEFC-endorsed member schemes. The full report
is then published on the website www.pefc.org including the 244
minimum requirements and how the scheme has met them. In order
to further clarify the position, at the Committee's request, Mr
Gunneberg sent additional documentation to the Committee on 28
November 2005 to further clarify PEFC's minimum requirements.
Therefore, to state that PEFC requires there are no minimum standards
which have to be met is misleading.
Paragraph 18 of Main Report
"Its response to WWF's report highlights
Sweden and Finland as the major importers of illegal logs due
to heavy reliance on Russian timber ..."
As the Finnish national forestry certification
scheme (FFCS) is endorsed by PEFC we have sought their comments
on the WWF report. They advise that the Finnish timber industry
is firmly committed to tackling the issue of illegal logging and
that leading Finnish forest product companies have already implemented
certified tracking systems to verify the origin of their wood.
These systems are proving successful and are recognised by WWF
as constructive voluntary measures in promoting responsible procurement
in the Russian business community. Industry believes that it is
important to promote measures taken to tackle the issue of illegal
logging. Furthermore all of the Finnish companies active in Russian
wood sourcing are developing forest certification schemes within
the relevant forest areas in Russia, several with the full cooperation
of WWF International.
Paragraph 67 of Main Report
"Throughout our inquiry the FSC was held
up as the "gold standard" of forest certification both
for the extent of stakeholder involvement in its processes and
the degree to which it takes into account environmental and social
considerations. Indeed Greenpeace told us that "the FSC is
the only internationally recognised forest certification scheme
on the market that can give rigorous and credible assurance that
timber products come from well managed forests". However,
Simon Fineman from Timbmet told us that while FSC is the gold
standard "it is very difficult for certain areas of the world
to aspire to".
With only 6% of the world's forests being certified
to date, and most of the vulnerable and endangered forest areas
excluded from this modest achievement, the more relevant focus
should be on extending the certified area rather than highlighting
a single scheme that to date does not attract the majority preference.
Advantage should be taken of the various certification schemes,
which can be implemented according to national/regional circumstances,
thereby more effectively achieving the common wish of greater
coverage of the world's forests with the benefit of forest certification.
Paragraph 68 of Main Report
"The PEFC (then the Pan European Forestry
Certification) Scheme was set up in 1999 when it was seen by some
as a response by the European timber industry angered by what
it saw as interference from environmental groups and retailers.
However it has also been pointed out to us that FSC's approach
was not particularly appropriate for small forest owners, particularly
in Nordic Countries and this is one of the issues that PEFC addressed".
There may well be negative perceptions about
the reasons that PEFC was established in 1999 but we sought to
make clear in our response to question 228 that the organisation
was originally established as many small scale forest owners,
often owning less than five hectares, (of which there are some
15 million in Europe) considered themselves not being well represented
within a growing market for certified wood. In order to enable
them to participate in such a market, it was imperative that certification
costs should not put these benefits beyond their reach. The development
of national and regional group certification models enabled such
participation in a credible manner and by coming together under
one umbrella—such national schemes were able to market their
products under one brand without incurring the costs of promoting
individual national brands. At the same time this helped avoid
a proliferation of labels onto the market, which could only serve
to create confusion amongst consumers.
We see PEFC and FSC as complementary certification
schemes which deliver choice to the market both for producers
and consumers. Mr Gale was later asked by Mr Challen (Q240) "who
was asking for choice and where the demand came from for another
certification scheme". He replied that the demand came from
people who actually purchase forestry products—for example,
the publishing and printing industries had expressed a wish for
a choice of certification schemes.
Perhaps it is worth quoting from the Publishers
Association's Environmental Awareness Policy—Guidelines
and Information to demonstrate their views on certification:
"The PA encourages all members to pursue
responsible and environmentally friendly procurement policies
in accordance with their best judgment and such practicalities
as product specification and availability.
The PA will not endorse one particular certification
process to the exclusion of other legitimate international, regional
or national regimes, nor offer any advice or opinion which could
intentionally or otherwise lead to commercial disadvantage of
companies using recognised and legitimate certification schemes.
To do so would be in breach of competition law.
When supporting Sustainable Forest Management as
an important environmental, economic and social objective which
should guide and influence industrial procurement policies, the
PA maintain an "inclusive" approach to certification."
Mr Gale added that the commercial world "does
not like a monopoly". These points might perhaps have become
clearer had more industry organisations been given the opportunity
to provide oral evidence.
The Committee may be interested to learn that
since the endorsement of the SFI scheme, PEFC endorsed systems
around the globe, now account for more than 186 million hectares,
an area larger than the combined forest area of all 25 member
countries of the European Union.
Paragraph 71 of Main Report
"Failing any intervention we would hope
to see the approach and standard used by FSC becoming the target
for all other certification schemes, such as PEFC".
PEFC acknowledges that FSC have made a tremendous
contribution to sustainable forestry certification. However, there
is a fundamental difference in the approach between FSC and PEFC,
in that PEFC uses internationally recognised norms for standard
setting, accreditation and defining sustainable forest management,.
Whereas FSC has chosen an alternative approach for these three
elements. PEFC has chosen to adhere to governments' and society's
definition of sustainable forest management as defined by the
intergovernmental processes on sustainable forest management following
the Rio World Summit, FSC has elected to construct its own definition.
PEFC has chosen to rely on internationally recognised
norms for standards setting processes defined in the International
Standards Organisation (ISO) documents (such as ISO Guide 59).
Whereas FSC has chosen to develop its own approach, PEFC relies
on the credibility of accredited certification being delivered
through government appointed or commissioned national accreditation
bodies (all members of the International Accreditation Forum),
FSC has chosen to be its own accreditation body.
We are therefore surprised by the Committee's
recommendation and would ask you to seriously reconsider it with
its attendant implications to other sectors in the standards world.
Paragraph 72 of Main Report
"Of the above CSA, SFI and MTCC are now
all members of the PEFC assembly, the scheme's governing body
despite its scheme not currently meeting the required standard
for endorsement".
We were asked about the difference between a
PEFC member and a PEFC endorsed scheme during our evidence session
to the Committee (Q249) and provided an explanation of the differences.
We further sought to clarify the difference between a PEFC member
and a scheme that had been endorsed by the PEFC Council in our
supplementary submission of 28 November 2005. We regret that the
Committee is still unclear about the position of the MTCC, which
is a member whose scheme has not been endorsed, we would refer
the Committee back to the supplementary evidence submitted in
November.
Paragraph 80 of Main Report
"Lastly, there are concerns that although
many—if not all—of the schemes may be proof of legality
they are in fact endorsing many unsustainable practices. For example
Greenpeace states that the PEFC endorses the Finnish Forest Certification
Scheme (FFCS) (which itself submitted a memorandum to the Committee)
despite its logging of some of the few remaining Finnish old growth
forests on disputed land that is being claimed as belonging to
the Sami people".
As PEFC explained during our oral evidence session
on 1 November, we do not have a mandate to speak on behalf of
a sovereign national government but as the Finnish Forest Certification
Scheme is one of the national schemes endorsed by PEFC, we have
sought their views on this section of the report.
They advise that all major forest related questions
in Finland are dealt with at both local and national level through
broad-based multi-stakeholder participatory planning processes.
All loggings of Metsähallitus, including the sites, amounts
and practices used, are decided in the Natural Resource Planning
process in which all local stakeholders, even individual members
of the public, are entitled to participate. Environmental groups
are of course also encouraged to participate.
Forest stakeholders in Finland are strongly
committed to forest protection. As a country dependent on sustainable
forest management, such protection needs to be state of the art.
The responsible management of diverse forests complements strict
protection measures. More forests are strictly protected in Finland
than in any other European country.
In Upper Lapland, depending on the municipality,
between 30% to 40% of productive forests are strictly protected
from forestry. According to the Finnish Forest Research Institute,
over 70% of low-productive forests in Upper Lapland are protected.
In Finnish Lapland there are some 500,000 hectares
of over forests more than 150 years old which are strictly protected.
Nature protection programmes were established in Finland in the
1930s. As a natural continuation of the numerous existing protection
programmes, comprehensive old-growth forest protection programmes
have been continued to be enforced in the 1990's. These programmes
were developed though multi-stakeholder involvement in a process
where scientists/ecologists, environmental groups, private and
public forest owners, environmental authorities and industry worked
together to achieve this.
In 1996, this multi-stakeholder collaboration
resulted in the comprehensive Programme for the Protection of
Old-Growth Forests in Finland which brought a total of 293,000
hectares under strict protection. Regrettably, Greenpeace declined
to participate in this process.
In addition, Metsähallitus (the state logging
company) recently undertook to protect over 100,000 hectares of
forest in Northern Finland as a result of a dialogue process with
Finnish conservation organisations, based on ENGO maps. Out of
the protected 100,000 hectares 55,000 are productive forests.
All 100,000 hectares will now be accorded permanent protection.
The Sámi in Finland have a legally guaranteed
collective right to enjoy their culture, to confess and practice
their religion and to use their language. They are also recognised
as a national minority, and reindeer herding is recognised as
part of the traditional Sámi culture. The Finnish Constitution
safeguards the Sámi right to develop their culture as an
indigenous people. According to the Reindeer Husbandry Act, the
state lands in the Sámi homeland may not be used "in
a manner that may significantly hinder reindeer herding".
A Sámi Parliament Act requires the authorities,
including Metsähallitus, to consult the Sámi Parliament
on all extensive and important measures which may affect the Sámi's
position as indigenous people and have a bearing on the municipal
land use planning or the management, use, leasing or transfer
of state lands in the Sámi homeland. The Forest and Park
Service Act requires that the management, use and protection of
natural resources in the Sámi homeland is harmonised with
the Sámi culture.
It is true to say that some Sámi politicians
have challenged the state's ownership of the lands in the Sámi
homeland. The state has undertaken various studies to determine
the rights of the Sámi to the land, the waterways and the
natural resources, and has made proposals to develop the administration.
The latest proposal from the Ministry of Justice in Finland should
be published within the next few weeks. However, it is worth noting
that the Sámi Parliament is far from unanimous on the issue
of land ownership. In August 2005 more than a third of the 20
Members of the Parliament withdrew their support of the land ownership
campaign led by the Chairman of the Parliament.
Finally we would like to respond to the question
posed in Paragraph 81: of the main report
"what would happen if it became clear
that one or more of the national schemes were not conforming to
DEFRA's sustainability or legality standards. Would the PEFC be
removed from CPET's approval list as a whole, and if so what is
the value of approving it rather than the schemes individually?"
We have been advised by DEFRA that if any one
of the 21 national member schemes fails to demonstrate conformance
to the current CPET requirements, then PEFC will lose their status
as proof of sustainability and legality and will be demoted to
Category B—proof of legality only. Our national member schemes
have worked hard to change their systems in order to comply (even
those who do not export to the UK and therefore have little to
gain by satisfying UK Government procurement demands) and at present
are co-operating fully with DEFRA's chosen consultants, ProForest
to demonstrate such compliance.
As to the suggestion that it might be more appropriate
for DEFRA to evaluate the 21 national schemes individually, it
is clearly a matter for DEFRA to respond but we would respectfully
suggest that this would add a considerable amount of cost to the
CPET project and could result in a plethora of sustainable forest
management labels, which would only serve to confuse end users.
APPENDIX 1
THE PEFC COUNCIL REQUIREMENTS FOR "SOCIAL"
ISSUES (JANUARY 2006)
1. COVERAGE OF
SOCIAL ISSUES
Social issues together with economic and environmental
issues are considered as three main components of sustainable
development and particularly sustainable forest management. These
three main elements have become guiding principles for UN Conference
in Rio, as well as following inter-governmental processes promoting
sustainable forest management.
The social issues cover the whole range of issues
which are connected with:
(a) forest management impact on local people;
(b) health and safety, forest workers rights,
etc;
(c) importance of forestry for local economy
and rural development; and
(d) impact of forest management on cultural and
spiritual heritage, etc.
2. SOCIAL ISSUES
IN PEFC SCHEME
The PEFC Council deals with all these issues
at several levels:
(a) requirements for forest management;
(b) local's people and other interested stakeholders
participation in forest management standard setting;
(c) consultation with local people and other
interested stakeholders by forest owner/manager; and
(d) local people and other interested stakeholders
participation in the certification process.
The social issues have to be;
(a) addressed in national forest management standards;
(b) all local stakeholders (including indigenous
peoples, local communities, other local peoples or workers) can
participate in the development of those forest management standards;
and
(c) all stakeholders can also participate in
the certification audit and submit comments or complaints to the
relevant certification body if they feel that the certification
criteria have not been met.
3. PEFC REQUIREMENTS
FOR FOREST
MANAGEMENT RELATING
TO SOCIAL
ISSUES
Criteria and Indicators of intergovernmental processes
promoting sustainable forest management
The Annex 3 of the PEFC Council Technical Document
(PEFC TD), chapter 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 require that
the certification criteria shall be based on the criteria and
indicators defined by Intergovernmental processes for sustainable
forest management, namely:
(a) The Ministerial Conference on the Protection
of Forests in Europe (MCPFE),
(b) The Montreal Process,
(c) African Timber Organization (ATO),
(d) International Tropical Timber Organization
(ITTO) Criteria & Indicator for sustainable management of
natural tropical forests,
(e) Tarapoto Proposal: Criteria & Indicator
for the sustainable management of Amazonian Forests,
(f) Lepaterique Process, Lepaterique Process
(g) Regional Initiative of Dry Forests in Asia,
(h) Criteria & Indicator for sustainable
management in Dry-zone Africa,
All these processes are based on UN Conference
in Rio (1992) and consider social issues as an integral part of
sustainable forest management.
For example criterion 6 of Pan European Criteria
developed under MCPFE (Lisbon 1998) covers "Maintenance of
other socio-economic functions and conditions" (www.mcpfe.org).
Criterion 6 of the Montreal Process Criteria
covers "Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple
socio-economic benefits to meet the needs of society". (www.mpci.org)
Criterion 7 of the revised ITTO criteria and
indicators for the sustainable management of tropical forests
cover "Economic, social and cultural aspects", in particular
socioeconomic aspects, cultural aspects and community and indigenous
peoples' rights and participation (www.itto.or.jp).
OPERATIONAL LEVEL
GUIDELINES DEFINED
BY INTERGOVERNMENTAL
PROCESSES FOR
SUSTAINABLE FOREST
MANAGEMENT
3.2.1 Pan European Operational Level Guidelines
(PEOLG)
Annex 3 of PEFC TD, chapter 3.1.2 and 3.5 require
that national certification criteria shall be compatible with
the current PEOLG. The compliance with the PEOLG is then required
by the PEFC Council Minimum Requirements Checklist (GL2/2005).
PEOLG includes the following requirements under
criterion 6 "Maintenance of other socio-economic functions
and conditions":
6.1 (a) Forest management planning should
aim to respect the multiple functions of forests to society, have
due regard to the role of forestry in rural development, and especially
consider new opportunities for employment in connection with the
socio-economic functions of forests.
6.1 (b) Property rights and land tenure arrangements
should be clearly defined, documented and established for the
relevant forest area. Likewise, legal, customary and traditional
rights related to the forest land should be clarified, recognised
and respected.
6.1 (c) Adequate public access to forests
for the purpose of recreation should be provided taking into account
the respect for ownership rights and the rights of others, the
effects on forest resources and ecosystems, as well as the compatibility
with other functions of the forest.
6.1 (d) Sites with recognised specific historical,
cultural or spiritual significance should be protected or managed
in a way that takes due regard of the significance of the site.
6.2 (a) Forest management practices should
make the best use of local forest related experience and knowledge,
such as of local communities, forest owners, NGOs and local people.
6.2 (b) Working conditions should be safe,
and guidance and training in safe working practice should be provided.
6.2 (c) Forest management operations should
take into account all socio-economic functions, especially the
recreational function and aesthetic values of forests by maintaining
for example varied forest structures, and by encouraging attractive
trees, groves and other features such as colours, flowers and
fruits. This should be done, however, in a way and to an extent
that does not lead to serious negative effects on forest resources,
and forest land.
3.2.2 ATO/ITTO principles, criteria and indicators
for the sustainable forest management of African tropical forests
(ATO/ITTO PCI)
Annex 3 of PEFC TD, chapter 3.1.3 and 3.5 require
that national certification criteria elaborated, amended or revised
incountries covered by the ATO/ITTO process shall be compatible
with ATO/ITTO PCI. The compliance with the ATO/ITTO PCI is then
required by the PEFC Council Minimum Requirements Checklist (GL2/2005).
Principle 4 According to the importance and intensity
of forest operations, the FMU manager contributes to the improvement
of the economic and social well-being of workers in the FMU and
of local populations.
Criterion 4.1 The rights and responsibilities
of workers in the FMU and local populations are clearly defined,
acknowledged and respected.
Indicator 4.1.1 The legal and customary rights
of local populations in respect to the ownership, use and tenure
of the forest land and resources are clearly defined, acknowledged
and respected.
Sub-indicator 4.1.1.1 The provisions
of the forestry law on rights of use and ownership are known and
respected.
Sub-indicator 4.1.1.2 The rights of use
within village boundaries are respected.
Sub-indicator 4.1.1.3 As much as possible,
local populations have control over the forestry operations on
their forest land and resources, unless they freely delegate this
control to a third party.
Sub-indicator 4.1.1.4 Sites of religious,
cultural or particular economic value are clearly identified in
collaboration with local populations and protected by those in
charge of forest management.
Sub-indicator 4.1.1.5 Local populations
receive compensation for the use and application of their traditional
knowledge and techniques in the forest area. This compensation
is freely and formally accepted prior to the commencement of operations.
Indicator 4.1.2 The modalities of access to
natural resources are clearly defined and respected by all.
Sub-indicator 4.1.2.1 The provisions
of the forestry law on the modalities of access to resources are
known and respected.
Indicator 4.1.3 All relevant labour code regulations
are applied.
Sub-indicator 4.1.3.1 The labour code
and other related regulations (collective agreements, rules of
procedure, memoranda, etc) are respected.
Sub-indicator 4.1.3.2 Wages and social
benefits are comparable to national norms.
Indicator 4.1.4 Information is provided on and
all stakeholders are fully informed of their rights and duties.
Sub-indicator 4.1.4.1 Targeted sensitization
campaigns are conducted.
Indicator 4.1.5 Damages caused are compensated
according to the norms in force or after negotiation.
Sub-indicator 4.1.5.1 Specialized services
are consulted and thei decisions respected.
Sub-indicator 4.1.5.2 The procedure to
compensate for the damage caused to cultivated crops is respected.
Criterion 4.2 The concessionaire encourages the
participation of local populations present in the FMU in the management
of forest resources.
Indicator 4.2.1 The concessionaire sets up ad
hoc bodies for consultation and negotiation with local populations.
Indicator 4.2.2 The procedure for dialogue and
the resolution of conflicts is functional both between stakeholders
and within each stakeholder body.
Sub-indicator 4.2.2.1 There is efficient
and effective communication between stakeholders.
Indicator 4.2.3 All stakeholders participate
in the control of natural resources management on the basis of
a protocol accepted by all.
Indicator 4.2.4 Procedures for consultation
with populations during the establishment and demarcation of forest
concession boundaries are respected.
Indicator 4.2.5 Mechanisms for applying sanctions
in the case of rule violations are in place and agreed by stakeholders.
Criterion 4.3 All stakeholders consider the share
of benefits derived from forests to be satisfactory.
Indicator 4.3.1 The forest concessionaire ensures
that the populations living within or near the FMU receive a portion
of the revenue generated by the exploitation of the FMU.
Indicator 4.3.2 Local communities living in
or near the harvested forest area benefit preferentially from
opportunities in employment, training and other services.
Sub-indicator 4.3.2.1 The percentage
of local people recruited is higher than that of non-locals, given
equal competence.
Sub-indicator 4.3.2.2 The concessionaire
maintains a recruitment and training policy for young people originating
from local communities.
Sub-indicator 4.3.2.3 The concessionaire
makes provision for and accepts trainees in its production units.
Indicator 4.3.3 In accordance with the importance
and impact of the forest operations at the local level, the concessionaire
contributes to the development of the local economy.
Sub-indicator 4.3.3.1 The concessionaire
encourages the creation of small and medium-sized enterprises
related to its forestry activities.
Sub-indicator 4.3.3.2 The concessionaire
encourages local sub-contracting activities.
Sub-indicator 4.3.3.3 With the support
of the concessionaire, local populations develop food-crop farming
activities (gardening, stock-breeding, fish-breeding, etc).
Criterion 4.4 According to the importance and
impact of the forestry operations, the concessionaire contributes
to improving the health and education of local populations.
Indicator 4.4.1 The concessionaire takes preventive
measures to minimize any professional hazards in relation to forestry
activities.
Sub-indicator 4.4.1.1 Working conditions
are in accordance with the labour code and/or ILO recommendations.
Sub-indicator 4.4.1.2 There are rules
of procedures and memoranda that are widely circulated to remind
employees about the observance of safety norms.
Sub-indicator 4.4.1.3 Appropriate safety
gear and equipment are distributed and worn by employees in their
various working environments.
Sub-indicator 4.4.1.4 Employees are regularly
submitted to medical examinations in accordance with national
norms.
Indicator 4.4.2 Health-related aspects of living
conditions are improved for employees and their families.
Sub-indicator 4.4.2.1 The concessionaire
takes measures to ensure adequate public hygiene and health (eg
the provision of safe drinking water and hygienic latrines, the
disposal of household refuse, etc).
Sub-indicator 4.4.2.2 Health centres
exist, have qualified staff living on-site, and function at a
satisfactory level.
Sub-indicator 4.4.2.3 The provision of
medicines to dispensaries is ensured.
Sub-indicator 4.4.2.4 There is a store
well-stocked with canned and fresh foodstuffs (particularly those
high in proteins to substitute for bush meat).
Indicator 4.4.3 The health conditions of local
populations are improved as a result of the forestry activities.
Sub-indicator 4.4.3.1 Local populations
have access to dispensaries.
Sub-indicator 4.4.3.2 Educational programs
on nutrition, including for pregnant or breast-feeding women,
are organized.
Sub-indicator 4.4.3.3 The concessionaire
sponsors programs on vaccination and sensitization campaigns on
AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases.
Indicator 4.4.4 The concessionaire contributes
to the basic education of local populations and workers present
in the FMU, in accordance with the contractual provisions established
consistent with national norms.
Sub-indicator 4.4.4.1 Children in local
communities have access to the concessionaire's school infrastructure.
Compliance with national legislation
Annex 3 of PEFC TD, chapter 3.2 requires national
laws, regulations, programs and policies to be respected in forest
management and certification. Certification schemes may not contradict
legislation and any apparent violations of the legislation shall
be taken into consideration in internal and external audits.
This PEFC requirement also cover the legislation
relating to social issues (recognition of local people's rights,
workers rights, health and safety, etc.).
Compliance with International labour Organisation
(ILO) Conventions
Annex 3 of PEFC TD, chapter 3.3 requires that
the core Conventions of the ILO, (outlined below) as amended,
whether ratified or not, will be respected in the implementation
of SFM.
The core ILO Conventions are as follows:
No 29: Forced Labour, 1930
No 87: Freedom of Associations and Protection
of the Right to Organise, 1948
No 98: Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining,
1949
No 100: Equal Remuneration. 1951
No 105: Abolition of Forced Labour, 1957
No 111: Discrimination (Employment and Occupation),
1958
No 138: Minimum Age for Admission to Employment,
1973
If the country has ratified the core ILO Conventions,
their requirements can be considered to be covered by the legislation
and need not be specifically addressed in the national certification
criteria. In cases where the core ILO Conventions are not ratified,
their requirements shall be considered and taken into account
in the certification criteria.
Annex 3 of PEFC TD, chapter 3.3 also states
that the ILO Code of Practice on Safety and Health in Forestry
Work is recognised as a helpful document, which is recommended
to be considered when developing national and regional certification
criteria.
4. LOCAL PEOPLE
AND OTHER
INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS
PARTICIPATION IN
THE STANDARD
SETTING PROCESS
Annex 2 of PEFC TD requires the certification
criteria as a part of forest management standards (SFM standards)
to be developed in open, transparent, participatory and consensus
based standard setting process.
The PEFC Council is unique in that it is the
only global certification system in the world, which insists on
and only recognises forest certification carried out against national
standards (Annex 3 of PEFC TD, chapter 3.1) and requires the standard
setting process to be carried out at national or at any sub-national
level (Annex 3 of PEFC TD, chapter 3.1).
Requirements for standard setting and especially
the necessity for it to be carried out at national (or sub-national)
level ensures that all local stakeholders, including indigenous
peoples, local communities, other local peoples or workers can
fully participate in and contribute to the development of certification
criteria.
Local peoples, communities, indigenous peoples
and workers views are considered along with all other stakeholder
views and evidence consensus is required for formal approval of
forest management standards (Annex 3 of PEFC TD, chapter 3.5.1).
Annex 3 of PEFC TD, chapter 3.5.1 also requires
that standard setting process shall contain an appeal mechanism
for the impartial handling of any substantive and procedural complaints.
5. CONSULTATION
WITH LOCAL
PEOPLE AND
OTHER INTERESTED
STAKEHOLDERS BY
FOREST OWNER
/ MANAGER
5.1 Pan European Operational Level Guidelines
(PEOLG)
Annex 3 of PEFC TD, chapter 3.1.2 and 3.5 require
that national certification criteria shall be compatible with
the current PEOLG. The compliance with the PEOLG is then required
by the PEFC Council Minimum Requirements Checklist (GL2/2005).
PEOLG requirement 6.2 requires:
6.2 (a) Forest management practices should make
the best use of local forest related experience and knowledge,
such as of local communities, forest owners, NGOs and local people.
5.2 ATO/ITTO principles, criteria and indicators
for the sustainable forest management of African tropical forests
(ATO/ITTO PCI)
Annex 3 of PEFC TD, chapter 3.1.3 and 3.5 require
that national certification criteria elaborated, amended or revised
in countries covered by the ATO/ITTO process shall be compatible
with ATO/ITTO PCI. The compliance with the ATO/ITTO PCI is then
required by the PEFC Council Minimum Requirements Checklist (GL2/2005).
Principle 4 According to the importance and intensity
of forest operations, the FMU manager contributes to the improvement
of the economic and social well-being of workers in the FMU and
of local populations.
Criterion 4.1 The rights and responsibilities
of workers in the FMU and local populations are clearly defined,
acknowledged and respected.
Indicator 4.1.1 The legal and customary rights
of local populations in respect to the ownership, use and tenure
of the forest land and resources are clearly defined, acknowledged
and respected.
Sub-indicator 4.1.1.3 As much as possible,
local populations have control over the forestry operations on
their forest land and resources, unless they freely delegate this
control to a third party.
Indicator 4.1.4 Information is provided on and
all stakeholders are fully informed of their rights and duties.
Sub-indicator 4.1.4.1 Targeted sensitization
campaigns are conducted.
Indicator 4.1.5 Damages caused are compensated
according to the norms in force or after negotiation.
Sub-indicator 4.1.5.1 Specialized services
are consulted and their decisions respected.
Criterion 4.2 The concessionaire encourages the
participation of local populations present in the FMU in the management
of forest resources.
Indicator 4.2.1 The concessionaire sets up ad
hoc bodies for consultation and negotiation with local populations.
Indicator 4.2.2 The procedure for dialogue and
the resolution of conflicts is functional both between stakeholders
and within each stakeholder body.
Sub-indicator 4.2.2.1 There is efficient
and effective communication between stakeholders.
Indicator 4.2.3 All stakeholders participate
in the control of natural resources management on the basis of
a protocol accepted by all.
Indicator 4.2.4 Procedures for consultation
with populations during the establishment and demarcation of forest
concession boundaries are respected.
Indicator 4.2.5 Mechanisms for applying sanctions
in the case of rule violations are in place and agreed by stakeholders.
6. LOCAL PEOPLE
AND OTHER
INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS
PARTICIPATION IN
THE CERTIFICATION
PROCESS.
Annex 6 of PEFC TD, chapter 4 requires that
the audit evidence to determine the conformity with the forest
management standard shall include relevant information from external
parties (eg government agencies, community groups, conservation
organisations, etc.). This provides an opportunity for all local
stakeholders, including indigenous peoples, local communities,
other local peoples or workers to participate in the certification
process and their views being considered during the audit.
Annex 6 of PEFC TD, chapter 4 requires that
summary of certification reports are being public and all stakeholders
can, without any submit a comment or complaint to the relevant
certification bodies if they are of the opinion that the certification
criteria have not been met (Annex 3 of PEFC TD, chapter 6.2 and
Annex 6 of PEFC TD, chapter 4).
7. REFERENCES
Annex 3 of PEFC TD—Basis for Certification
Schemes and their Implementation (www.pefc.org)
Annex 6 of PEFC TD—Certification and Accreditation
Procedures (www.pefc.org)
GL 2/2005—PEFC Council Minimum Requirements
Checklist (www.pefc.org)
Pan European Operational Level Guidelines (PEOLG)
(www.mcpfe.org)
ATO / ITTO PCI (www.itto.or.jp)
Montreal Process Criteria for SFM (www.mpci.org)
ITTO Criteria and Indicators for SFM (www.itto.or.jp)
| 
