Talk:Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification

Perhaps include a section on what motivates individuals, or companies, institutions to get certified?

--Afam1986 (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of the PEFC

(remember to log in and sign your comments for credibility --duncan.lithgow (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC))

This article has no mention of the relative merits of the PEFC versus other schemes. There was previously a "critics" section (see here for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Programme_for_the_Endorsement_of_Forest_Certification_schemes&oldid=212914839) , which mentioned that the PEFC has been heavily criticised by many NGOs, but this was deleted by a user with an IP address registered to the PEFC (see here http://samspade.org/whois/213.173.160.126)

The criticism section read:

Environmental non-governmental organisations (WWF, Greenpeace, FERN, The Wilderness Society (Australia), The Finnish Nature League) and others have criticized PEFC for being dominated by the forest industry. The major concerns emphasized by the critics are that the PEFC certification process:

• is not transparent to the public and the parties involved.
• does not require forest management unit level certification.
• does not require independent third party assessment and annual field audits.
• does not allow for equitable and balanced participation and decision making.
• There are currently no environmental non-governmental organisations supporting the PEFC certification.

There is also no mention that the PEFC was set up by the forest industry. See the list of members here http://www.pefc.org/internet/html/members_schemes/4_1120_60.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectorguinness (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As indicated by the person deleting, the section was deleted because there was no reference available - and just because something has appeared on Wikipedia does not mean that it is true. The PEFC certification process is probably one of the most transparent ones of any certification schemes out there. All assessment documents are publicly available on pefc.org, and all process have at least one round of public consultations. Third party assessment according to ISO rules are required. You might want to inform yourself before repeating errors of the past. (unsigned)

I have added some of the criticism back into the article. If someone wants to find references for the listed criticisms above they could also be added. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Lack of third party sources

I have taken the following statements out of the article because they reference PEFC members and are therefore not impartial in their claims.

<quote>

Furthermore, other international conventions relevant in forest management and ratified by the country will be respected through the legislative framework. Such conventions include, amongst others:

• Convention on Biological Diversity
• Kyoto Protocol
• CITES
• Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

<end quote> --duncan.lithgow (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

Reference number 12 is dead : ^ www.pefcwatch.org is a collaboration between the Finnish Nature League and Greenpeace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.178.199.127 (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212163946/http://pefc.org/internet/html/members_schemes/4_1120_59.htm to http://www.pefc.org/internet/html/members_schemes/4_1120_59.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326164132/http://pefc.org/resources/technical-documentation/pefc-international-standards-2010/item/download/292 to http://pefc.org/resources/technical-documentation/pefc-international-standards-2010/item/download/292
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mcpfe.org/files/u1/lisbon_resolution_l2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112185258/http://www.itto.or.jp/live/Live_Server/155/ps14e.pdf to http://www.itto.or.jp/live/Live_Server/155/ps14e.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217063432/http://www.itto.or.jp/live/Live_Server/963/ps15e.pdf to http://www.itto.or.jp/live/Live_Server/963/ps15e.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100327043053/http://www.mtcc.com.my/documents_downloads/Malaysian%20Criteria%20and%20Indicators%20for%20Forest%20Management%20Certification%20%5BMC%26I%282002%29%5D.pdf to http://www.mtcc.com.my/documents_downloads/Malaysian%20Criteria%20and%20Indicators%20for%20Forest%20Management%20Certification%20%5BMC%26I%282002%29%5D.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)