PEFC:
Endorsement of non-credible certification schemes in the South
The PEFC was set up between 1998 and
1999 by the national forestry interest groups – mainly associations
of small-forest owners in several European countries as the Pan
European Forest Certification Scheme. It changed to its current
name after having endorsed other non-European schemes. The scheme
is governed by the PEFC Council, which consists of representatives
of national certification schemes and are the PEFC’s members.
The PEFC is not a single certification scheme with a single standard,
but a programme for the endorsement of national certification
schemes.
As with other certification schemes,
although the PEFC was supposed to certify forest management, it
has also included tree plantations as being certifiable “forests”.
A number of characteristics of PEFC
make it the perfect label for unsustainable plantations in the
South, as can be seen in the two articles below on certification
in Chile and Brazil.
As a FERN report (2004) states, “In
all PEFC standards, indigenous rights are not recognised”, adding
that “This is of particular concern, as PEFC will soon incorporate
tropical schemes where the indigenous rights and land rights issues
are of great concern.” This has already happened.
In its report, FERN also considered
that “PEFC’s failure to give full recognition to the land rights
of local people is a serious omission, as is its lack of a requirement
for proper consultation with local stakeholders during the certification
process. This is particularly relevant as the PEFC is about to
endorse non-European schemes in countries where the discussion
about land rights and reform of forestry laws holds the key to
improved forest management. Without recognising this issue, the
PEFC seriously risks coming under attack from a wide range of
social and environmental organisations in these countries as well
as in the North.”
Such concern is now a reality: plantations
in Chile and Brazil, strongly opposed by the indigenous peoples
whose lands were taken over by plantation companies have received
a label endorsed by PEFC. The sole reason
for PEFC not having come “under attack” in the South is that the
certification schemes it has endorsed have so little credibility
that they have not even merited attention by organizations involved
in the struggle against plantations.
The FERN report also states that PEFC
“has not yet changed the fundamentals of the system by embracing
equal participation of different stakeholder groups. It still
gives the forestry industry and forest owners dominance in the
development of the programme and in the development of the standards.
It is, therefore, not an independent scheme.” In addition “Stakeholder
consultation during the certification process is not required,
although some national schemes have carried out stakeholder consultations.”
To make matters worse, “field visits are not in all cases required.”
The above means that in countries such
as Chile and Brazil the standards are simply set by the same plantation
companies that will be certified, that adequate consultation is
inexistent and that field trips are not even necessary –at least
meaningful field trips.
As expressed by FERN, “the threshold
for endorsement is so low, that most certification schemes can
qualify.” This has been proven true.
In this respect, FERN says “PEFC France,
which has no clear minimum performance standards, does not certify
at FMU [Forest Management Unit] level and does not require any
field visits” and warns that “This does not bode well for the
forests certified by tropical certification schemes that now want
to accede to the PEFC.” This has also proved to be true: hundreds
of thousands of hectares of plantations scattering in thousands
of management units –which were never visited by certifiers- are
now certified in Chile and Brazil under the PEFC umbrella.
In sum, PEFC endorsement may have credibility
in a few European countries, but in the two schemes analysed below
(CERFLOR and CERTFOR), it has simply become the tool for providing
market access to some of the worse type of socially and environmentally
damaging large-scale tree monocultures.
- FERN (2004).- Footprints in the forest.
Current practice and future challenges in forest certification.
http://www.fern.org/media/documents/document_1890_1900.pdf
