London - Today major environmental groups, including WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and FERN, criticized the government's decision to allow its departments to purchase wood products certified by schemes that allow destructive logging practises, by accepting them as proof of sustainability.
The announcement comes following a paper-based review of certification schemes by the Government's Central Point of Expertise on Timber (CPET). [1] The review did not include on the ground assessments of forestry practices certified under the approved schemes. The NGOs challenge the outcome of the CPET review.
Pat Venditti of Greenpeace said, "By approving CSA, PEFC and SFI certified timber as sustainable the government is guilty of green-washing bad logging practices and directly contributing to the destruction of ancient forests. This is particularly galling given the recent resumption of logging in ancient forest areas in Finland - certified as sustainable by the PEFC."
Craig Bennett of Friends of the Earth said, "The government loves to talk about how public procurement can be used to drive sustainability. But in allowing government departments to buy timber products that have been produced by destructive forest practices, they have failed a key test. They have clearly been taken in by the timber industry PR machine and ignored facts."
Despite promising to buy only legal and sustainable timber in 2000, the government appointed advisory service, the Central Point of Expertise on Timber (CPET), has given the green light to departments using certification schemes whose criteria and processes are fundamentally flawed. [1]
The government has decided to accept timber produced under the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme as proof of sustainable timber procurement. Whilst this system has made some improvements in terms of standard setting in recent months, several schemes under the PEFC umbrella still allow large scale, unsustainable logging in high biodiversity areas and inadequate tracking of timber from the forest to the point of sale. Environmentalists are particularly concerned about the acceptance of the Australian Forest Standard (AFS) and the American Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI), both of which are recognised under the PEFC scheme. [2]
In addition, the government has approved the Malaysian Timber Certification Scheme (MTCC) as proof of legality. This is despite the fact that indigenous peoples' rights remain an ongoing issue in the Malaysian courts and the MTCC scheme requires only piecemeal adherence to national laws concerning indigenous peoples' rights. In accepting the MTCC scheme in its current form, the UK government clearly undermines the current negotiations between the EU and Malaysia to develop a partnership agreement to control illegal logging.
In a speech posted on a website run by the EU, the EU indicated that it would prefer if indigenous communities in Malaysia were more involved in timber production decisions. "Local communities are no obstacle to economic growth, rather they can help ensure growth is sustainable... The living conditions of the indigenous people need improvement with full respect to their cultural habits and traditions." Indigenous rights remain one of the key contested issues in the negotiations. [3]
The only certification scheme currently recognised as credible by industry, NGOs and indigenous peoples groups alike is the scheme operated by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
Contact:
Saskia Ozinga, FERN, 07801 447 401
Craig Bennett, Friends of the Earth, 07720 147 280
Pat Venditti, Greenpeace, 0207 865 8250
Beatrix Richards, WWF, 07780 958 226
Notes for the editor:
[1] In 2004, the UK government established the Central Point for Expertise on Timber to assess five internationally recognised certification schemes and provide guidelines for central government departments on legal and sustainable timber procurement. In the first assessment all five forest certification schemes studied were found to deliver on UK government requirements for legality, but only two (FSC and CSA) met the requirements for sustainability. In April 2005, SFI and PEFC were reassessed and accepted as proof of legal and sustainable timber. This third reassessment process has maintained this decision.
[2] The AFS standard was developed without input from environmental groups, which means AFS fails two of CPET's criteria for standard setting - criteria 1.3.2 & 1.3.3. In addition, under the SFI standard forest owner/manager seldom recognise legal use rights to the forest, failing criteria 1.1.1. In addition, the standard allows rare and endangered ecosystems to be replaced by even aged single species plantations, thus failing CPET criteria 1.2.6. Concerns have also been expressed about the lack of transparency in the standard and the dominance of the timber industry in the standard setting process. A separate study carried out by FERN and WWF found that the SFI should have failed on at least two and possible four criteria and comes with a lower score on 15 out of the 26 criteria putting doubt into the independence of the CPET assessment.
[3] This affects CPET criteria 1.1.1. & 1.1.2
[4] The UK government's timber procurement policy requires central government to actively seek to buy timber from legal and sustainable sources. It is not a mandatory policy. As such it is even more important that it remains a credible process with the ability to deliver significant and necessary improvements in forest management on the ground. By adopting schemes that certify destructive practices as sustainable, the government seriously undermines its own policy.
