cepi-comparison of fsc & pefc

7/27/2019 Cepi-comparison of Fsc & Pefc

1/14

A comparison of theForest Stewardship Council and the

Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification

Report prepared by Forest Industries Intelligence Limitedfor the Confederation of European Paper Industr ies

Apri l 2006 Edit ion

CEPI Matrix, www.forestrycertification.info, Comparison of PEFC and FSC 1


2/14

Contents

1. Executive Summary ...................................................................................32. Introduct ion ................................................................................................4

2.1 Two global certification frameworks ..................................................42.2 Source documentation ........................................................................42.3 Report structure ...................................................................................6

3. Summary comparison of the FSC and PEFC...........................................63.1 Scheme objectives and overall st ructure ...........................................6

3.1.1 Similarities......................................................................................63.1.2 Differences .....................................................................................7

3.2 Content of forestry principles .............................................................7

3.2.1 Similarities......................................................................................73.2.2 Differences .....................................................................................9

3.3 Forestry standards-setting process ...................................................93.3.1 Similarities......................................................................................93.3.2 Differences ...................................................................................10

3.4 Certification and accreditation procedures .....................................113.4.1 Similarities....................................................................................113.4.2 Differences ...................................................................................12

3.5 Chain of custody standards, labelling and environmental claims .133.5.1 Similarities....................................................................................133.5.2 Differences ...................................................................................14



3/14

1. Executive Summary

The report draws on research undertaken during development of the CEPIMatrix and www.forestrycertification.info website to provide a detailedcomparison of the FSC and PEFC certification frameworks. Together, these

two frameworks account for over 98% of forest independently certified aroundthe world, and the majority of products bearing independently verified claimsof good forestry practice.

The report highlights numerous similarities between the PEFC and FSCschemes, an inevitable consequence of two organisations striving to achievethe same ultimate objective (of sustainable forest management) usingessentially the same mechanism (independent third party assessment of on-ground forestry practices against a set of forestry standards).

The report demonstrates that both schemes are promoting and reinforcing a

similar concept of sustainable forest management. Both schemes recognisethat forestry should aim to conserve the full range of forest functions economic, social, and environmental. At the same time, both schemesacknowledge the need for trade-offs during the development of forestrystandards. Both schemes seek to achieve an appropriate balance betweenenvironmental, economic and social objectives through a participatory,consensus-building approach.

An analysis of the content of the FSC Principles and the Pan EuropeanOperational Level Guidelines (PEOLG) that has so far provided the basis ofthe PEFC scheme, reveal numerous components which are essentiallyequivalent including those relating to: legal conformance; forest managementplanning; forest monitoring; forestry training; recognition of customary landrights; maintenance of forest cover and area; sustained yield production;controls on the use of exotic species; bio-diversity conservation; protection ofspecial sites; rural employment opportunities; protection of soil and watercourses; controls on use of chemicals; and health and safety issues.

The main differences in the PEFC and FSC forestry principles relate to thelevel of detail provided on different aspects of forest management, forexample FSC is more explicit than PEFC in its requirements for public

consultation during forestry operations, while PEFC is more explicit than FSCin its requirements for forest protection against pests and fire.

Certain key differences in the structure and operation of the two certificationschemes are identified. For example, PEFCs role to endorse fullyautonomous certification schemes operating at national level is contrastedwith FSCs role to act as a global framework to accredit certification bodies.This in turn has led to responsibilities for various certification functions accreditation, certification, standards-setting being allocated differently bythe two schemes. However, both schemes are seeking, at minimum, toensure conformance with exactly the same set of international standards

evolved by ISO. This has led to many areas of commonality in the proceduresadopted for standards-setting and independent third party verification.

http://../Local%20Settings/http://../Local%20Settings/


4/14

2. Introduct ion

2.1 Two global certification f rameworks

During the last decade, two international forest certification frameworks haveevolved: the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Program forEndorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). In December 2005, these twoframeworks together accounted for over 250 million hectares of certified forestland and around 6600 chain of custody certificates. Only a tiny area of theworlds existing certified forest (less than 5 million hectares) and a handful ofchain of custody certificates have been issued under schemes not affiliated toeither of these frameworks.

Both schemes aim to operate at a global level. In December 2005, the PEFCCouncil had endorsed 21 schemes that had certified 186 million hectares of

forest in Europe, North and South America, and Australasia. PEFC membersinclude several other national schemes seeking eventual endorsement, one ofwhich is located in Russia and another in Africa. PEFC endorsed schemeshad issued 2305 chain of custody certificates in 20 countries at the end of2005.

In December 2005, the Forest Stewardship Council had certified 68 millionhectares of forest in 65 countries, recognised national initiatives in 36countries, and endorsed national or regional forest certification standards in11 countries. FSC had issued over 4300 chain of custody certificates in 73countries distributed on all the worlds continents.

A major objective of the CEPI Matrix and associated website(www.forestrycertification.info) is to compare forest certification schemesirrespective of their allegiance to any particular labelling brand. However, thismore detailed comparison of the FSC and PEFC is provided in recognition ofthe growing market presence of these two international frameworks, and theinevitable interest that this generates amongst customers and companiesinvolved in the paper and wood products trade.

2.2 Source documentation

This comparison was undertaken in December 2005 and is based ondocumentation understood to be current at that time. A first review of thecomparison based on comments received was undertaken in April 2006.While a wide range of documentation available on the schemes respectivewebsites (www.fsc.org and www.pefc.org) has been consulted, the keydocuments are as follows:

For the FSC:

FSC-STD-01-001, Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship, mostrecently amended April 2004

FSC National Init iatives Manual, September 1998

http://../Local%20Settings/http://www.fsc.org/http://www.pefc.org/http://www.pefc.org/http://www.fsc.org/http://../Local%20Settings/


5/14

FSC-STD-20-001, general requirements for certification bodies ,published November 2004

FSC-STD-20-002, structure and content of forest stewardshipstandards, published March 2004

FSC-STD-30-002, Structure and content of forest stewardship

standards, published November 2004 FSC-STD-30-003, Local adaptation of generic forest stewardship

standards, published November 2004

FSC-STD-30-006, Stakeholder consultation for forest evaluation ,published November 2004

FSC-STD-30-010, FSC standard for forest management enterprises,supplying non FSC certified controlled wood, published October 2004

FSC-STD-40-004, FSC chain of custody standard for companiessupplying and manufacturing FSC-certified products, publishedOctober 2004

FSC-STD-40-005, FSC standard for non FSC-certified controlledwood, published October 2004

FSC-STD-40-201 FSC on-product labelling requirements (for newlabels), published October 2004

For the PEFC:

PEFC Council Statutes, agreed by the PEFC General Assembly, 22November 2002

Rules for Standards Setting, first agreed by the PEFC GeneralAssembly, 22 November 2002, and most recently amended on 28 October2005.

Rules for Certification Schemes and their Implementation , first agreedby the PEFC General Assembly, 22 November 2002, and most recentlyamended on 28 October 2005.

Pan-European Operational Level Guidelines for Sustainable ForestManagement - PEOLG (PEFCC reference document B) adopted by theThird Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe inLisbon/Portugal in June 1998 as annex 2 of the Resolution L2 (Pan-European Criteria, Indicators and Operational Level Guidelines forSustainable Forest Management (http://www.mcpfe.org).

Chain of Custody of Forest Based Products Requirements ,published by the PEFC Council, 17 June 2005

Certification and Accreditation Procedures, first agreed by the PEFCGeneral Assembly, 22 November 2002, and most recently amended on 28October 2005.

Endorsement and Mutual Recognition of National Schemes and theirRevision, first agreed by the PEFC General Assembly, 22 November2002, and most recently amended on 28 October 2005.

With regard to PEFC references, a key point to note is that this comparison ofinternational forestry principles is based on the Pan-European OperationalLevel Guidelines for Sustainable Forest Management PEOLG. The PEFC

Council requires that the PEOLG form the reference basis when PEFCnational and regional certification criteria are elaborated in regions covered

http://www.mcpfe.org/http://www.mcpfe.org/


6/14

either by the Pan-European or Montreal sustainable forestry criteria. Howeverin tropical regions, PEFC states that the ATO/ITTO principles, criteria andindicators for the sustainable forest management of African tropical forests(ATO/ITTO PCI) will form the reference basis.

In the time available, it has not been possible to include analysis of theATO/ITTO principles in this comparison. At this stage, we believe this is aminor omission since the ATO/ITTO PCI has not yet been used as thereference basis for any PEFC assessment. Even the Brazilian Inmetroscheme, which used the ITTO criteria as a reference for development of astandard for native forests, was assessed in 2005 by PEFC against thePEOLG. Furthermore, an independent study undertaken for PEFC by theconsultancy Indufor concluded that the ATO/ITTO and PEOLG criteria arecompatible. And four outstanding issues identified in the Indufor report havebeen explicitly added to Annex 3 of the PEFC Technical Document.

2.3 Report structure

Section 3 is a narrative report highlighting specific similarities and differencesof PEFC and FSC categorised according to the following scheme elements:

scheme objectives and overall structure;

content of forestry principles;

forestry standards-setting process;

certification and accreditation procedures;

chain of custody standards, labelling and environmental claims.

Section 4 comprises a table allowing direct comparison of FSC and PEFCacross the full range of forest certification components.

3. Summary comparison of the FSC and PEFC

3.1 Scheme objectives and overall st ructure

3.1.1 Simi larit ies

Both schemes are striving to achieve the same ultimate objective ofsustainable forest management. The first objective of the PEFC Council is To

promote Sustainable Forest Management through the implementation ofPEFC. The first objective stated in the FSC Mission statement is to promoteenvironmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viablemanagement of the world's forests.

Both schemes are seeking to achieve this core objective using essentially thesame mechanism: independent third party assessment of on-ground forestrypractices against a set of pre-determined forestry standards.

Both schemes acknowledge that sustainable forestry requires conservation ofthe full range of forest functions economic, social, and environmental. At

the same time, both schemes acknowledge the need for trade-offs during thedevelopment of forestry standards.



7/14

Both schemes seek to achieve an appropriate balance betweenenvironmental, economic and social objectives through a participatory,consensus-building approach.

Both schemes seek, at minimum, to ensure conformance with exactly thesame set of international standards, evolved by ISO, for standards-setting andindependent third party verification.

3.1.2 Differences

With regard to scheme objectives and overall structure, the main difference isthat PEFC identifies as a central function to assess the conformity ofparticipating certification schemes, whereas FSC identifies as a centralfunction to evaluate and accredit certification bodies. In other words, PEFCoperates by endorsing fully autonomous national forest certification schemes

capable of independent existence outside the PEFC framework. In the PEFC,accreditation of certification bodies is entirely the responsibility of nationalaccreditation organisations. FSCs approach is more centralised, involvingdevelopment of an international system to accredit certification bodies.

FSC also adopts a more centralised approach to the development of forestcertification principles. In the FSC system, all forest certification standardsshould be in accordance with a set of International Forestry Principles andCriteria developed by FSC International. In contrast, PEFC plays no role inthe development of international forestry principles, and instead relies oninter-governmental principles developed and adapted for different forestregions of the world (e.g. Pan European Principles for European forests,Montreal Principles for other temperate and boreal forests, ATO/ITTOprinciples for tropical forests.)

3.2 Content of forestry pr inciples


While terminology and the arrangement of text are often very different, manycomponents of the forestry principles which form the foundation of both PEFC

and FSC are essentially equivalent:

Both schemes require conformance with all relevant international andnational laws.

Both schemes establish the requirement that forest management shouldbe guided by plans appropriate to the size and use of the forest, that areperiodically updated, and that encompass economic, ecological, cultural,and social values of the forest resource.

Both schemes require regular monitoring of forest resources and

evaluation of management practices to ensure planning objectives arebeing met.



8/14

Both schemes require that forestry workers receive adequate training andsupervision to ensure implementation of the plan.

Both schemes require that land tenure and property rights should be

clearly defined documented and legally established.

Both schemes require that customary rights of indigenous people arerecognised and respected.

Both schemes require the long-term maintenance of forest cover and area,and that forestry practices should maintain the quality as well as thequantity of forests.

Both schemes require that harvesting of forest products both wood andnon-wood - does not exceed levels that can be permanently sustained.

Both schemes state a clear preference for re-establishment of forestsusing native species rather than exotic species. Where exotic species areused, both schemes require measures to ensure that negative impacts onthe environment are avoided.

Both schemes include a wide range of measures which aim to safeguardbio-diversity, recognising the need both to protect ecologically importantforest biotopes and to manage production forests so as to maintain andenhance bio-diversity.

Both schemes require that forest resources are mapped and inventoried,so that rare, sensitive and representative forest eco-systems are identifiedand protected. Both schemes require special measures to protectendangered species.

Both schemes require that sites of historic, cultural, and spiritualsignificance are protected.

Both schemes require that forestry improves opportunities for local ruralemployment.

Both schemes require that measures are taken to minimise soil erosionand to protect water courses, particularly during harvesting and roadconstruction, and through the choice of appropriate tree species.

Both schemes require that the use of pesticides and herbicides isminimised and promote the use of non-chemical methods of pest control.Both require the controlled use of fertilisers with due consideration for theenvironment.

Both schemes require safe working conditions and compliance with all

relevant health and safety standards and core ILO Conventions.



9/14

3.2.2 Differences

The main differences between the content of the PEFC and FSC principlesusually relate to the emphasis placed on different aspects of forestmanagement. In particular:

FSC sets out more explicit requirements for public consultation duringforestry operations, establishing a requirement for forest management toincorporate the results of evaluations of social impact, and stating thatconsultations shall be maintained with people and groups directly affectedby management operations. PEFC is less explicit stating a broadrequirement for forest management practices to make the best use of localforest related experience and knowledge, such as of local communities,forest owners, NGOs and local people.

FSC explicitly prohibits the use of GMOs, while PEFC makes no specific

reference to GMOs. Instead PEFC establishes general principles coveringgenetic diversity. For example, for reforestation and afforestation, PEFCrequires that the origins of native species and local provenances that arewell adapted to site conditions should be preferred. PEFC also requiresthat only those introduced species, provenances or varieties should beused whose impacts on the ecosystem and on the genetic integrity ofnative species and local provenances have been evaluated, and ifnegative impacts can be avoided or minimised.

While PEFC calls for specific measures to monitor the health and vitality of

forests, these factors are not referenced directly in the FSC Principles(except in relation to chemical use). Instead FSC sees these as implicit inother Principles, for example that forest ecological functions and valuesshall be maintained intact, enhanced, or restored.

While PEFC makes a specific reference to the provision of recreationalopportunities, the FSC Principles contain no such reference. Insteadprovision of recreation is implicit to a broader principle, that thecommunities within, or adjacent to, the forest management area should begiven opportunities for employment, training and other services.

3.3 Forestry standards-setting process


The overall structure of the standards-setting process is very similar in bothschemes. Both schemes work on the basis that forest certification standardsshould be developed through regional or national adaptation of internationallyagreed principles of good or sustainable forestry. The preferred approachis to encourage development of regional or national standards by arepresentative and balanced range of stakeholders through a consensusbuilding process.



10/14

In the case of PEFC, the main work to develop standards is carried out bynational standards-setting bodies that form an essential component ofindependent forest certification schemes that are endorsed by the PEFCCouncil. In the case of FSC, the main work to develop standards is carried outby autonomous FSC National Initiatives that are endorsed by the FSC Board

of Directors

The requirements for endorsement established by the PEFC Council and byFSC International are very similar. Both schemes prefer decisions to be takenby consensus. Both schemes emphasise the need to ensure all relevantstakeholders are invited to participate in the standards development process,and that there is balanced representation of interest categories duringdecision making. Both schemes emphasise the need to communicateinformation on the process as widely as possible, and to ensure that draftstandards are widely distributed and made available for comment byinterested parties. Both schemes require that procedures are established to

handle complaints relating to the standards-setting process.

So while both schemes establish broad principles for appropriate standards-setting procedures at national and regional level, much of the responsibility forthis process is delegated to autonomous organisations. In the FSC schemefor example, national and regional standards setting bodies are under noobligation to repeat the 3 chamber structure used at international level, andmay adopt procedures that better reflect the forestry environment and rangeof interests involved.

3.3.2 Differences

The main differences in the standards-setting process are as follows:

PEFC is based on governmental sustainable forestry criteria, FSC on non-governmental criteria. As the reference basis for the development ofnational and regional standards, PEFC requires the use of internationalsustainable forestry principles - and their associated operational levelguidelines - developed and agreed through inter-governmental processes.In contrast, FSC requires conformance with a set of internationalPrinciples and Criteria developed by FSC members using a three chamber

system, with balanced representation of economic, social andenvironmental interests, and from which government representatives arespecifically excluded.

Whereas the adaptation of national or regional standards through aparticipatory consensus-building process is a pre-condition of PEFCcertification, it is not a pre-condition of FSC certification. In fact, FSC hasfinalised only 22 national or regional certification standards in 11 countries,whereas it has issued certificates in 79 countries. Around two thirds ofFSC certificates have been issued against generic standards developedinternally by accredited certification bodies for a specific client or

country/region in line with the international P&C. When developing genericstandards, certification bodies must publicise the steps they are taking;



11/14

encourage broad stakeholder input into the process; and liaise with anynational or regional FSC body. But the process falls well short of therequirements established for development of national standards, or indeedof those established in international standards for standards-setting suchas ISO Guide 59. Balanced representation and consensus are not

requirements for the development of FSC generic standards.

PEFC requires that the process to develop certification criteria shall beinitiated by national forest owners organisations or national forestry sectororganisations having the support of the major forest owners organisationsin that country. FSC imposes no conditions on the initiators of thestandards-development process.

PEFC requires that national standards are reviewed at least every 5 years,while the FSC does not specify a timescale for revision of national orregional standards. Instead, the FSC states only that the consultative

process for developing FSC regional and national standards mustincorporate a mechanism for encouraging the future review and revision ofthese standards.

3.4 Certification and accreditation procedures


Due to heavy reliance on exactly the same set of ISO standards forindependent third party assessment and accreditation, the procedures

adopted by the two schemes are similar. Specifically:

The PEFC Council requires third party certification by an organisationwhich is in conformance with one or other of ISO Guides 62, 65 and66, setting out requirements respectively for quality systems, productand environmental management systems certification. While FSCrequires certification bodies to be in conformance with FSCprocedures, these draw heavily on ISO Guide 65. An FSC standard(FSC-STD-20-001) spells out in detail the relationship between theFSC procedures and ISO Guide 65.

Both PEFC and FSC require that auditors conform to the samerequirements for quality and environmental management systemsauditing established in the ISO19000 series of guidelines.

Both schemes accreditation procedures draw on ISO17011Conformity assessment - general requirements for accreditationbodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies. PEFC specificallyrequires that accreditation is undertaken by organisations that are infull conformance with ISO17011. In the FSC scheme, certificationbodies are accredited by the FSC Board of Directors against FSCsown accreditation standards, which in turn draw on the ISO standard.



12/14

PEFC and FSC apply an equivalent requirement for public disclosure.Both schemes require that summary certification reports are madepublicly available by the certification body.

PEFC and FSC establish equivalent requirements for surveillance and

reassessment. Both require monitoring to take place at least annuallyto verify that certificate holders continue to comply with standard, andboth state that certificates are valid for 5 years.

Both schemes have developed a variety of special procedures tofacilitate certification by smaller forest owners, with group certificationbeing the primary mechanism. Both FSC and PEFC state that in allcases the underlying principle is that all actors involved or operating onthe certified area shall conform to the certification requirements.

Both PEFC and FSC exceed ISO require that information from externalparties is used as part of their audit evaluations. As such, bothschemes exceed ISO auditing requirements.

3.4.2 Differences

The main differences with respect to certification procedures relate to the wayresponsibilities for different aspects of forest evaluation (such as developmentof standards for accreditation, accreditation decisions, on-ground auditing,and certification decisions) are distributed between different players. In broadterms, PEFC has effectively adapted the accreditation and certification

framework required by ISO for the forestry sector, while FSC has developed abespoke system for the forestry sector. Specifically:

In the PEFC system, accreditation functions are entirely separated fromstandards-setting functions. Accreditation is the responsibility of nationalaccreditation bodies that are members of the international accreditationforum or European Co-operation for Accreditation. This provides anassurance that the requirements of IS017011 are being met.

In contrast, FSC requires independent third party certification bodies to beaccredited by the FSC Board of Directors based on recommendations of

the FSC Accreditation Business Unit. Publicly available FSCdocumentation does not include a detailed description of the internal FSCmanagement system and decision making procedures for accreditation, soit is not possible to comment on the extent of conformance with ISO17011.

Because FSC has chosen to develop from scratch a bespoke system ofindependent assessment for the forestry sector - unlike PEFC which hasplugged in to the existing ISO framework - FSC documentation oncertification procedures are more expansive than documentation issued bythe PEFC Council. For example, FSC documents set out detailedrequirements for forest evaluations and sampling of forestry operations

which have no direct equivalents in the PEFC Council documentation. Inpractice, PEFC delegates much more of the responsibility for development



13/14

of appropriate assessment procedures to accredited certificationorganisations and national accreditation bodies. The need for centralguidance on forestry assessment is also lessoned in the case of PEFCbecause consensus agreement of national certification standards is a pre-requisite of certification, whereas FSC still allows use of generic

standards based on international forestry principles.

FSC requires that certification body decisions are reviewed by at least twodisinterested, credible and technically qualified reviewers. The certificationbody must take peer review comments into account when finalising theevaluation report. The PEFC system adheres more closely to the ISOrequirements in which the accredited certification body is regarded as fullyand ultimately responsible for its own decisions.

3.5 Chain of custody standards, labelling and environmental claims


Both PEFC and FSC handle logo usage according to the same fundamentalprinciples. That is, both schemes enable on-product application of aninternationally registered trademark by organisations that conform to chain ofcustody standards and strict requirements for logo usage. In both schemes, akey principle is that chain of custody standards and logo usage guidelines bedeveloped in an open and transparent manner. In both schemes, assessmentof chain of custody must be undertaken by an accredited independent thirdparty operating in accordance with relevant ISO guidelines.

Both systems offer various labelling options based on various chain ofcustody procedures. Both schemes provide an option for organisations tolabel products with 100% certified content using procedures that physicallysegregate certified from uncertified material.

Both systems also offer a volume credit method. Using this method, if 75 %(for example) of input raw material is certified, then 75% of output productsmay be labelled - as PEFC certified in the case of PEFC or FSC-Mixed inthe case FSC.

Both systems set out similar procedures for monitoring and calculation of %certified content using the volume credit method, for example: requiring that %calculations are maintained individually for different output products or groupsof similar products; allowing calculation of monthly rolling averages over aperiod up to 12 months; and allowing calculations to be based either on dryweight or volume.

Both schemes set out requirements for the non-certified component oflabelled products with the aim of ensuring that no wood from illegal or othercontroversial sources enters the certified product chain. Both schemes requirethat CoC certified companies evaluate the potential risk of procuring raw

material from controversial sources and establish programmes of second or



14/14

third party verification of their suppliers where there is a high risk of rawmaterial originating from controversial sources.

3.5.2 Differences

FSC draws a distinction between FSC-Mixed products and FSC-Pureproducts. No equivalent distinction is drawn in the PEFC system.

FSC offers an option to label using a threshold system whereby 100% ofproduct output can be labelled as FSC-Mixed if the rolling average of FSCmaterial content remains above 70%. No directly equivalent option is offeredin the PEFC system.

PEFC offers an average percentage option. Under this system, if 75 % (forexample) of input raw material is certified, then 100% of output products maybe labelled as certified products including 75% percent of certified raw

material. No directly equivalent option is offered in the FSC system.

In the FSC percentage systems, FSC-certified content must never fall below10%. In the equivalent PEFC systems, no minimum threshold is set atinternational level. However an individual PEFC forest certification or labellingscheme can set up a minimum for usage of its label.

Recycled products are handled differently in each scheme. PEFC essentiallyregards such products as entirely distinct from PEFC certified products.Therefore, they are treated as neutral when calculating PEFC-certifiedpercentages. However PEFC allows companies to communicate the contentof recycled raw material in their products through a combined label containingthe PEFC logo and Mobius Loop. This label can be used on products wherethe total content of PEFC certified wood or fibres and PEFC recycled rawmaterial exceeds 70%.

In the FSC system, organisations using the threshold system to apply theFSC-Mixed label may include post consumer reclaimed material alongsidewood sourced from FSC certified forests in order to achieve the requiredthresholds. In addition, FSC offers a special FSC-recycled label for productsthat are 100% recycled.

FSC is more explicit than PEFC in its requirements for the non-certifiedcomponent of labelled products with the aim of ensuring no wood from illegalor other controversial sources enters the certified wood supply chain. FSChas set out a detailed specification for a procurement system to ensure thatthe non-certified wood component is FSC-controlled.

The FSC definition of controversial sources is more expansive than thePEFC definition. The latter refers to Illegal or unauthorised harvesting. Incontrast, the FSC definition refers to: a forest area where traditional or civilrights are being violated; forests with high conservation value that are under

threat; GM trees; illegal sources; natural forests that are being converted toplantations or non-forest areas.


cepi-comparison of fsc & pefc

Documents