CPET stakeholder review on forest certification schemes
Consultation description
The forest certification schemes approved as ‘Category A evidence’ are reviewed regularly to ensure that they continue to provide evidence of compliance. The 2014 review has now been initiated and will cover a review of the schemes:
Both schemes have made changes to their standards and reference documents in the past four years. The criteria for evaluating category A evidence have now been updated to reflect revision to the timber procurement policy (TPP) definition of legal and sustainable, fifth edition published in June 2013.
Please email us at: cpet@efeca.com for a link to the online survey.
What has changed since the last review?
Changes were made to the UK TPP Definition of Legal and Sustainable to ensure that the UK TPP is in line with the EU Timber Regulation, EUTR which came into force on 3 March 2013. It prohibits the placement of illegally harvested timber and timber products on the EU market. The definition of ‘legal’ has been amended in the 5th edition to reflect the exact definition of ‘legally harvested’ set out in the EUTR.
What can stakeholders comment on?
CPET invites stakeholders to provide evidence of non-compliance by PEFC, FSC and their national schemes. Non-compliances may relate to either:
- failure by a scheme’s documented requirements to meet one of the criteria set out in Criteria for Evaluating Certification Schemes (Category A Evidence) 4th edition, October 2014
- failure by a scheme to implement its own documented requirements. Please note that it is expected that the schemes’ official complaints procedures have been pursued where appropriate
- evidence submitted will be checked as set out in Section 4.3.3 of the methodology for reviews of timber certification schemes, 3rd edition, October 2014
Comments referring to the actual outcome of certification in the forest cannot be considered. In order to be used in the review process, comments must be supported by objective verifiable evidence. If further information or clarification is required, the party that submitted the comment may be contacted. In particular, where there are discrepancies between information received from stakeholders and from schemes.
