Greens attack printing paper standard as greenwash
A major international report – On the Ground 2011– accuses the industry-accepted forest standard, PEFC, of making false environmental protection claims.
Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) along with its Australian standard, AFS, is compared unfavourably with rival certification programme, FSC. The comprehensive review of PEFC practices in various countries around the world, including Australia, slams the accreditation.
According to Warrick Jordan, national forest campaigner for The Wilderness Society, one of the NGOs involved, “the PEFC and AFS logos cannot be trusted by consumers to deliver high environmental and social standards for forest products.”
The coalition of NGOs draws on 14 on-the-ground and eight procedural case studies from around the world to address the weaknesses within the PEFC system. The research report concluded: “PEFC has no minimum requirements on such critical issues as the rights of indigenous peoples, protection of high conservation value forests, and chain of custody processes, and provides no limits on the size of clear cuts, the use of GMO trees, or the use of pesticides and other chemicals.”
With the parent body’s green qualifications called into question, the 28 national certification schemes recognised by the system must now be open to closer scrutiny.
Recent changes have been made to the forest management standards, but the NGOs believe that they will not equate to actual on-the-ground performance change until 2013. The report challenges PEFC to live up to its new promises and amend its weaknesses in governance, audit and stakeholder consultation.
On paper the improvements to the standards refer to many of the issues important to wood product buyers and the general public, yet how they will be put into practice on ground level will be critical for its continued relevance and longevity.
“PEFC and AFS must fundamentally change their approach if they are to become anything other than greenwash for bad forestry practices. If consumers are given the choice, they will choose highly credible certification standards such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) every time over untrustworthy schemes such as AFS,” says Jordan.
The paper industry relies on both international standards for forest management but recently Australian Paper, the only local maker of fine paper, has not been able to promote the FSC logo on Reflex paper due to usage of controlled wood. Yet it still holds AFS/PEFC certification, which are less stringent in this regard.
In one-way or another, all NGOs responsible for this report are involved in the FSC system including Climate for Ideas (United Kingdom), Forests of the World (Denmark), Dogwood Alliance (United States), Hnutí DUHA (Friends of the Earth Czech Republic), Greenpeace, Sierra Club of British Columbia, and Finnish Association for Nature Conservation.
Responding to claims of bias, the organisations state that the primary intention of the report is to ensure proper forest conservation, and call for PEFC to take a more active approach to ground level governance.
See the full report here and give us your thoughts.
Recent changes have been made to the forest management standards, but the NGOs believe that they will not equate to actual on-the-ground performance change until 2013. The report challenges PEFC to live up to its new promises and amend its weaknesses in governance, audit and stakeholder consultation.