Open letter to Greenpeace UK

7 December 2010 News

The following open letter is a reply from William Street, Chairman of PEFC International, to Andy Tait, Senior Campaign Advisor of Greenpeace UK, to a letter sent to PEFC International on 1 October 2010.

Dear Mr. Tait,

Thank you for your letter dated 1^st October 2010 and for bringing your demands to the attention of the PEFC Board of Directors.

I believe that PEFC and Greenpeace share a common vision in regards to the world’s forests.  Both of our organizations are dedicated to improving the state of the world’s forests.  It is only our approaches as how best to make this vision a reality that differ.

PEFC as a forest certification system rewards land owners who practice sustainable forest management and provides a framework for tracing certified fiber through the supply chain to the customer. It is based on social dialogue and voluntary action by the entire community of forest stakeholders, and generates long lasting, rapid, and comprehensive changes needed to protect forests.  We are rightly proud of being the world’s largest forest certification system and the certification system of choice for small forest owners and countries wishing to maintain their sovereign control of national resources.  We have positively altered forest practices around the globe to protect both natural and human resources.

Greenpeace as a global campaigning organization exposes threats to the environment. Concerning forest destruction, Greenpeace has successfully highlighted unsustainable activities focusing in places such as the Congo Basin, Amazonia, and Indonesia.

We understand that no one approach is universally applicable or all-inclusive. While forest certification systems such as PEFC constitute rewards for good practices, campaigning organization such as Greenpeace raise public awareness of bad practices. Both approaches are complementary and valuable.  Your approach of highlighting destructive practices in areas outside of certified forests is a driver for some forest land managers to choose to become certified.  After they make that decision, PEFC offers them the rewards that arise from forests managed to deliver social justice through economically viable practices based on ecologically sound plans.

Relying on our approach of certification, we have already taken those actions appropriate within our structure by filing a complaint with SGS against APP based on the information provided by Greenpeace. The certification process, including the way complaints are handled, is completely separate from and outside the sphere of influence of PEFC. It is based on internationally agreed best-practice standards and guidelines published by ISO and IAF.

This separation of standard setting, certification, and accreditation is absolutely fundamental to credible certification. I would be very surprised if Greenpeace was unaware of this separation and its importance.

PEFC limits the use of on-product labels to a certified product. Off-product use is restricted to referring to a user’s engagement with PEFC. In the case of APP, their certification from SGS for compliance with PEFC Chain of Custody requirements relates primarily to pulp obtained from Chile.

It is worth noting that PEFC as a standard setter does not have any legal power to withdraw any certificate. This can only be done by the certification body which has issued the certificate.

Your request for PEFC to participate in a campaign ostracizing a forest stakeholder absent of clear documentation of violation of PEFC standards would place our organization in considerable legal jeopardy.  For us to do what you request would require evidence of legal contract violation which would have to pass muster in a court of law, not merely the court of public opinion.  If you have such evidence then I restate PEFC’s request that you bring it to our attention.

I would like to use this opportunity to again invite Greenpeace to become member of PEFC at global level. Despite our varying approaches organizations such as PEFC and Greenpeace can and should work as closely as possible to obtain our mutual goals. Withholding the expertise and experience that Greenpeace can offer PEFC since we are responsible for how two-thirds of the world’s certified forests are managed, diminishes both organizations and causes the world’s forest to remain at risk to a degree unacceptable to both of us.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

William Street
Chairman
PEFC International