On the Ground 2011 – The Controversy of Greenpeace
A report entitled “On the Ground 2011 – The controversies of PEFC and SFI”[i] was published on 11th July 2011, in the name of Greenpeace, on the FSC website.
On the Ground 2011 – The Controversy of Greenpeace
9 August 2011 News
A report entitled “On the Ground 2011 – The controversies of PEFC and SFI”[i] was published on 11th July 2011, in the name of Greenpeace, on the FSC website. PEFC welcomes the acknowledgement by Greenpeace of recent changes to PEFC standards and that these “have been strengthened in several places”.
Both PEFC and Greenpeace share a common vision – sustainably managed forests. A major difference between Greenpeace and PEFC is that Greenpeace is a pressure group that uses campaigns as a principle means to achieve its goals, whereas PEFC, a membership organisation engaged in multi-stakeholder standard setting, uses social dialogue to further its objectives.
Both approaches are different and indeed can from time to time complement each other. However, when campaigns threaten the common vision and the efforts put in by thousands of stakeholders involved in social dialogue, then we have a duty to speak up and point out when the other is wrong – even if it is Greenpeace.
“On the Ground 2011” claims to assess “whether the PEFC label gives buyers of wood and paper products minimum assurances around those issues”and concludes that “the principal drivers for PEFC’s current weakness include weak standards, weak governance, poor or non-existent stakeholder consultation, a lack of transparency, an inadequate dispute resolution mechanism and audit practices that cannot meet the expectations of a system for ensuring on the ground meet even the current weak standard.” It also states that the report “is not a comparison of certification systems - it does not comprehensively consider how PEFC compares with the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and makes few references to the FSC system” because, it reasons, “FSC is excluded from this analysis because of its balanced governance system, equal participation by NGOs and social stakeholders, and its more robust complaints mechanism.”
FSC, the Forest Stewardship Council, is an alternative, competing certification system.
But, how truthful and accurate are these statements – and is the report at all objective?
Greenpeace describes itself as “[…] an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace […]”[ii]. With an annual income of close to 200 million Euros (2009)[iii], Greenpeace is among the best-resourced not-for-profit campaigning organizations globally.
When it comes to forest certification, Greenpeace has a long history of exclusive engagement with the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an organization of which it is a founding member[iv]. This engagement is of a formal as well as of an informal nature, with Greenpeace providing marketing support for FSC[v] and being engaged in its governance structure. [vi]
PEFC is troubled by the fact that the Greenpeace report was initially published on the website of FSC[vii]. While Greenpeace does not disclose the author(s) of the report[viii], it appears to have been written by a former FSC employee.[ix]
Furthermore, an initial review of the report revealed that almost all of the sources used in the report have direct or indirect links to FSC and/or its founding members and other supporters[x]. Moreover, the review uncovered a multitude of factual errors[xi].
We have therefore sought to clarify some of the issues contained in the report (see On the Ground 2011 – The Controversy of Greenpeace (Annexes)) to provide stakeholders with a comprehensive and accurate picture of the context in which certification takes place. We have also included further information on some aspects where we clearly have a different outlook than Greenpeace about the solutions to the problems of forest certification.[xii]
PEFC believes that collaboration beats confrontation – every time. We take all criticism regarding our organization very seriously and endeavour to cooperate fully with those who seek to understand or enquire about our work and achievements. Any form of dialogue between stakeholders, however, must be held in an open, transparent and truthful manner, and be based on the best intentions in order to be truly constructive and bear fruit.
We sincerely hope that, notwithstanding the criticism of those who do not share the same perspective, we can engage in constructive, forward-looking dialogues for the benefit of forests and people.
UPDATE 11 AUGUST 2011: Shortly after the publications of this article, FSC Czech Republic removed the Greenpeace report from its website (see screenshot of the FSC Czech Republic homepage and the article before deletion of the information).
UPDATE 12 August 2011: FSC Czech Republic has informed us that the Greenpeace report supposedly is a draft.
Further information
[i] Anon (2011). On the Ground 2011 – The controversies of PEFC and SFI. Greenpeace. Available at http://www.czechfsc.cz/data/dd28/controversies%20PEFC%20a%20SFI-%20OTG%202011%20Final.pdf Shortly after the publications of this article, FSC Czech Republic removed the Greenpeace report from its website
[ii] http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/. Viewed 5 August 2011.
[iii] Greenpeace International. 2009 Annual Report. Greenpeace International. pp 31. Available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/greenpeace/2010/Annual_Report_2009/AR2009.pdf
[iv] http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/forests/solutions/alternatives-to-forest-destruc/. Viewed 5 August 2011
[v] See for example a video by Greenpeace promoting FSC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dose8HlkRcM. Viewed 5 August 2011.
[vi] Greenpeace International, in addition to eleven national Greenpeace organizations, are members of FSC International, with respective voting rights. Greenpeace is or has been represented on a number of FSC Board of Directors, at international as well as at national levels.
[vii] Studie Greenpeace o kontroverzních lesních majetcích s certifikátem PEFC. http://www.czechfsc.cz/novinky/novinky-ve-svete/studie-greenpeace-o-kontroverznich-lesnich-majetcich-s-certifikatem-pefc-92.html. Viewed 5 August 2011.
[viii] On the Ground 2011 does not acknowledge any single person, either author not contributor. It simply states “The authors wish to thank all of those who contributed to this report, too numerous to name. Contributors included NGOs, academics, scientists, certifiers, auditors, and independent analysts and observers.”
[ix] The metadata of the PDF file lists a „Tracey Greenwood“ as the author of the report. Tracey Greenwood is former Press Officer of FSC UK. See Forest Stewardship Council UK Working Group (2006). Annual Report 2005 – 2006. Forest Stewardship Council UK Working Group. pp 4. Available at http://d515375.u48.pipeten.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/downloads-manager/upload/5840_FSC%20AnnRpt%202005-2006.pdf
[x] See On the Ground 2011 – The Controversy of Greenpeace (Annex 1). Available at: http://www.pefc.org/images/stories/documents/Greenpeace/OnTheGround2011.pdf
[xi] The report might be in violation of the “INGO Accountability Charter” to which Greenpeace is a signatory. The charter outlines principles concerning, among others Independence, Responsible advocacy; Transparency; and Accuracy of Information. Available at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2006/9/ingo-charter.pdf
[xii] See On the Ground 2011 – The Controversy of Greenpeace (Annex 2). Available at: http://www.pefc.org/images/stories/documents/Greenpeace/OnTheGround2011.pdf