On the Ground 2011 – The Controversy of Greenpeace et al.

17 October 2011 News

PEFC has rejected the main allegations contained in the “final” version of the report “On the Ground 2011 – The controversies of PEFC and SFI”, released by a coalition of well-known FSC supporters yesterday. The report originally appeared on the FSC website. FSC, the Forest Stewardship Council, is an alternative, competing certification system.

PEFC already responded to the initial report, and has updated its response to reflect modifications in the final version of the report.

Greenpeace et al.'s main allegations include that PEFC lacks transparency, that stakeholders are inadequately involved, and that the complaints procedures are inadequate. In response to these allegations, Ben Gunneberg, Secretary General of PEFC International, said : "On the Ground 2011 contains a number of errors and misleading statements, and PEFC rejects Greenpeace et al.'s main allegations."

PEFC would like to reiterate that it 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.

Both PEFC and Greenpeace share a common vision – sustainably managed forests. A major difference between Greenpeace and PEFC, however, 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.

We have carefully reviewed the On the Ground 2011 report and responded point-by-point, clarifying inaccuracies and misleading suggestions in our response, as we are constantly striving to improve our performance and accountability wherever possible. 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.

"Any form of dialogue between stakeholders 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," emphasized Mr. Gunneberg. "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."