The ‘Paradox’ of Certification: Why Responsible Standards Draw a Line

11 December 2025 News

Recent commentary has reignited debate about the role of certification in addressing legacy deforestation in Indonesia. This debate is welcome. Public-interest groups and watchdog organisations play an important role in scrutinising land-use decisions, and their work contributes to greater accountability across the forest sector.

Some conclusions, however, overlook how certification functions in practice. Certification is not designed to rewrite past land-use decisions. It is designed to ensure that unacceptable practices must stop, and that future forest management meets strict environmental and social requirements.

In Indonesia, the endorsed national standard includes a firm cut-off date, the 31 December 2010, for the conversion of natural forests. Areas converted after these dates cannot be certified and cannot supply PEFC-certified material.

This rule is not a technicality. It prevents any incentive from being attached to past forest conversion and keeps such areas entirely outside certified supply chains. In some concessions, this means only part of the area is eligible for certification, while converted land stays excluded. 

The approach mirrors the logic of global frameworks such as the EU Deforestation Regulation, which applies a 31 December 2020 cut-off date to maintain deforestation-free markets.

This is where the paradox arises. Critics often imply that when a company with a history of conversion seeks certification, the act itself validates the past. In reality, the opposite is true. 

Certification creates obligations, not rewards. It places the operation under assessment by accredited certification bodies, imposes clear boundaries, and prohibits any further conversion within the certified area.

Seeking certification does not grant permission; it imposes conditions.

Accredited certification bodies are responsible for verifying that excluded areas remain outside the certified scope and that only eligible material enters certified supply chains. Where concerns arise, the system provides formal procedures for raising and examining them, with escalation routes available when needed. These mechanisms are designed to ensure that information about potential non-compliance is considered by the bodies responsible for evaluating conformity with the standard.

PEFC continually refines its standards through multi‑stakeholder processes to uphold these boundaries and ensure they remain aligned with evolving societal expectations and new regulatory frameworks such as the EU Deforestation Regulation. 

Certification cannot change what happened in the past, but it defines how forests must be managed today and tomorrow. Its purpose is to draw a clear line where damaging practices must end and responsible management must begin. Maintaining that line is a shared priority for civil society, government, forest communities, and all those committed to safeguarding the world’s forests.