Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GOVERNANCE
REVIEW
MAY, 2008
Final Report
Since then, its membership has increased and broadened, becoming the
largest forest certification umbrella organisation covering national schemes
from all over the world, and delivering hundreds of millions of tonnes of
certified wood to the processing industry.
Drawing on comparative research in the field, the Panel has also incorporated
a review of PEFC’s Governance against criteria established by the One World
Trust, a leading institution conducting research on practical ways to make
global organisations more responsive to the people they affect. This report
also includes analysis of PEFC based upon the analytical methodology
developed by One World Trust as the basis of its annual review4 of the
governance of thirty of the world's most powerful organisations from
intergovernmental, non-governmental, and corporate sectors.
Key issues and challenges identified in the Governance Review fell broadly
into five main categories: Governance Models, Organisational Structure and
Management, Stakeholder Groups, Standards, and External Perceptions.
Specific questions focused on the decision-making relationship between the
Members, the Board, and the Secretariat; responsible means to continue to
increase membership and certified hectarage; where inclusiveness and
representation happens within PEFC’s bodies and initiatives; and how best to
develop or improve public and peer understanding of PEFC’s work.
Once the Panel had identified the main challenges facing the organisation, it
reviewed a wide range of options for resolving each issue. In considering
options, the Panel gave preference to recommendations that:
• directly responded to one or more discrete elements of its mandate;
• should have broad support among existing and potential stakeholders;
• sit largely within the purview of PEFC itself (without significant
dependencies upon external actors);
• leads to enhanced credibility of the PEFC scheme;
Recommendations
After review of options, the Panel has made the following recommendations
in four general, incremental phases:
• collecting the necessary resources to enable PEFC to undertake this
programme of governance work - “Get Resourced”;
• make necessary organisational changes necessary for efficient growth
and effective governance - “Get Structured”;
• implement a variety of outreach initiatives designed to reinforce
PEFC’s Mission with stakeholders – “Get Engaged”;
• proactively to lead policy on sustainable forest management – “Get
Influential”.
7. Commit to the ‘High Road’ - Develop an internal policy, with guidance and
draft materials/text for PEFC leadership, staff, and members that sets out
an organisation-wide principle of universally constructive response to
criticism; the most strident or vitriolic the attack, the more gracious and
engaging the response should be, consistently across the organisation.
10. Update Website for Accessibility - Redesign the PEFC web-site to have four
distinct, dynamic, and well-supported functions:
15. Volunteer for One World Trust’s Governance Review - Invite One World Trust,
a leading not-for-profit organisation focused on accountability within
international organisations and corporations, to include PEFC in their
annual review5 of the governance of international trans-national
corporations, international NGOs, and international organisations.
5 See: http://www.oneworldtrust.org/
17. Focus Board Role - Draft a new preface to by-laws focusing Board duties on
four primary functions: management and financial oversight, networking
and fundraising, promotion and outreach, and strategic planning.
Operational, administrative, and technical issues should be the
responsibility of the PEFC International Headquarters.
20. Add Stakeholder Forum ‘Right of Agenda’ - The Stakeholder Forum should
have the right (as a collective body) to add policy and other issues to the
agenda of the PEFC General Assembly in its periodic meetings, and to
convey to the PEFC International Headquarters Requests for Review on
specific issues or questions identified by its members.
meet PEFC rules for standard setting. This is often referred to as the “PEFC meta-standard”.
See http://www.pefc.org/internet/html/documentation/4_1311_400/4_1208_165/
5_1177_288.htm
29. Post Position Descriptions for ‘Seconded’ Staff - Create a mechanism for and
encourage PEFC Members to second appropriate staff for specific needs in
30. Nominate Two Board Members from Forum - The Stakeholder Forum should
have the right to nominate two members of the PEFC Board of Directors
through the PEFC Nominating Committee.
31. Nominate Members of the Panel of Experts from Forum - The Stakeholder
Forum should have the right to nominate technical/standards advisors to
the PEFC Panel of Experts.
32. Name Board Member to Co-Chair Stakeholder Forum - One of the Board
members (not nominated by the Stakeholder Forum) should be named to
serve as the Co-Chair of the Stakeholder Forum, working with the internal
leadership set up by that body to integrate it dynamically into the
organisation.
33. Revise Engagement Between Board and PEFC Headquarters - Recognising that
the Board will be taking a higher-level role in the organisation’s Mission9
and delegating operational and administrative management to the PEFC
International Headquarters, the Panel recommends developing a more
consistent and integrated working relationship between the PEFC
International Headquarters and the Board10 to ensure necessary support
and oversight.
34. Review and Clarify PEFC Complaints and Appeals Procedures - Review
existing decentralised Complaints and Appeals Procedures in each
element of the certification process and provide a user-friendly interface
on the PEFC web-site to facilitate understanding of the appropriate levels
and recipients for complaints and appeals. Publish complaints submitted
through the formal PEFC process and their responses on an appropriate
page of the PEFC web-site.
35. Reduce Number of Board and General Assembly Meetings - Review the
frequency of recurring organisational meetings (recognising that Special
Sessions of the Board and other bodies may sometimes be necessary), and
incrementally reduce the number of ordinary meetings as the capacity of
the International Headquarters increases. Additionally, invest in high-
quality ‘virtual meeting’ technology, as well as dynamic technologies to
enable a continuous dialogue among members. Extend the General
36. Leverage Engagement with FSC - PEFC should increasingly engage with FSC
in areas and endeavours of mutual benefit or concern (e.g. illegal logging),
increasing communication, and where a ‘united front’ can advance the
global interests of sustainable forest management (for example, inviting
FSC to General Assemblies, exchange of staff at headquarters, joint
development projects, mutual recognition of timber legality certification,
joint chain-of-custody certification, and/or collaboration in forestry
projects with international development organisations.)
37. Give Stakeholder Forum Votes in the General Assembly - Give the Stakeholder
Forum votes up to 50% (rounded down) of those of PEFC Council (e.g.
currently there are 35 PEFC Council members who have a total of 61
votes11, the Stakeholder Forum would have 30 votes on that basis.)
Members of the Stakeholder Forum will decide internally how those votes
are allocated12.
38. Lead Forestry Policy on Carbon - PEFC should engage relevant international
organisations (e.g. the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCC), or the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
(FCPF)) to offer the organisation’s technical assistance in establishing and
implementing the global standard for forestry’s contribution as a carbon
sink in a post-Kyoto Protocol agreement.
39. Update PEFC Brand - The PEFC brand should be reviewed for accuracy and
comprehensiveness with new organisational alignment and expanded
focus and stakeholder engagement.
11 PEFC Member-Schemes may have more than one vote based their certified hectarage, so
that the largest members of PEFC may have up to five votes on issues.
12 See ‘Appendix E – PEFC Stakeholder Forum’ for more information
PEFC National
Governing
Bodies (NGBs)
General Assembly
Stakeholder
PEFC Council
(One to Four Votes per
Forum
Member) (up to 50% of PEFC
Council Votes)
PEFC Board of
Directors Sub-Committees
(Twelve Members, (Standing or Ad Hoc)
PEFC Panel of Two Nominated by
Experts Stakeholder Forum)
(Nominated by the
Council and Executive
Stakeholder Forum) Committee
PEFC
PEFC Director-
Independent
General
Consultants International
(Qualified Pool of Headquarters
Technical Specialists)
Note: For comparative illustrations of the current and revised Organisational Structures, please see Appendix F
Recommended
Capacity
Prospective PEFC International
Building
member/scheme Headquarters may
decides to apply for work with prospective
mutual recognition by member/ scheme to
PEFC improve quality
Appeal
Transmits
Timeline (Illustrative) Appeal of
Independent PEFC Board of
1. Prospective member may work with Rejection
Assessment Directors reviews
PEFC International Headquarters scheme, technical
[Ongoing as necessary until submission] assessment and
2. Upon submission, scheme transmitted decides on status
for Independent Assessment
(Consultant and Panel of Experts) for Transmits
comment, review, and recommendation Approval
(including with Approval
[100 Days]
conditions)
3. Decision of Independent Assessment
transmitted to Members (on approval),
back to prospective member (on
rejection), or Board of Directors (on
appeal of Assessment’s recommendation)
4. Decision by Board of Directors (in PEFC General
Assembly Rejection
special session) upon appeal of rejection
or findings of Assessment (if applicable) decides on
[14 Days] endorsement by
5. General Assembly decides on Internet ballot
endorsement by Internet ballot [14 Days]
Acceptance
Proposed Scheme
receives mutual
endorsement
Note: For comparative illustrations of the current and revised Assessment Process, please see Appendix G
3.1 PEFC recognises governance, in its broadest sense, as the key strategic determinant in
achieving its overall strategic goals.
The Z/Yen Group17 was contracted by PEFC to carry out the review in the
first half of 2008.
Mandate
The PEFC Strategic Plan gave the mandate for the Review:
The objectives of the review and restructuring are to update the PEFC Council, its rules
and standards thus making it more effective by:
• Improving external perceptions of PEFC’s governance.
• Making the PEFC organisation more effective.
• Ensuring that PEFC’s rules and standards are simple and easy to understand;
implement and operate.
• Ensuring that PEFC robustly implements and continuously monitors its own
requirements at all levels.
• Removing obstacles to dialogue with international ENGOs.
Panel
Z/Yen, in conjunction with the PEFC Board and Secretariat, drew together an
International Oversight Panel18 made up of seven international experts19,
three from PEFC, and four independent of the organisation (including the
Chair.) Its members included:
16 http://www.pefc.org/internet/html/documentation/4_1311_1392/4_1208_1380/
5_1177_1719.htm
17 For more information, see: http://www.zyen.com/
18 See Appendix B – International Oversight Panel Terms of Reference
19 See Appendix A – International Oversight Panel Biographies
Previous Analysis
Z/Yen was familiar with PEFC and its work, having conducted internal
research for the organisation, including ‘Image and Impact’, ‘Location’ (of its
headquarters), and a ‘Governance’ desk study.
These reports contributed to the Panel’s understanding of PEFC, its work, and
potential.
Findings
Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous, and was managed
in its entirely by Z/Yen. In total, 152 people completed the survey21. This
number compares favourably with the participant levels in other, similar
reviews. Where appropriate, quantitative results are included in the analysis
of the report, as are select quotes from the narrative sections of the survey,
illustrating perceptions of individual respondents, which have been
considered by the Panel.
During the four months of the Review (February – May, 2008), the Panel met
three times in London to identify key issues in PEFC’s Governance, review
the survey and interview data, consider a wide range of options for
improvements to the internal structure and external perception of the
organisation, and to make specific recommendations for this report.
20 See Appendix A for Panel Biographies, and Appendix B for Panel Terms of Reference
21 See Appendix C for quantitative Survey Results
In its final meeting, the Panel invited several presentations and discussion by
representatives of the environmental movement, including Tim Cadman, a
Ph.D. candidate at the School of Government in the University of Tasmania
who is completing his dissertation on the evaluation of global forest
governance systems22, and Saskia Ozinga, who is the co-founder of the NGO
FERN, where she is currently the campaigns coordinator.
Drawing from all these sources, and directed by the Panel, Z/Yen staff
drafted this report of its findings, and submitted it to the PEFC Board of
Directors in May, 2008.
22See Appendix H for a summary of Tim’s analysis on “Evaluating Legitimacy and Quality of
Forest Governance”
The final result is a maximum score of 100 points, with ‘High Performers’
defined as “organisations have the most consistently developed
accountability policies and management systems scoring over 50 percent in at
PEFC Review
Transparency
23 See: http://www.oneworldtrust.org/documents/Indicator_list_-_2008_report_-_final.pdf
Actions to be Considered
PEFC should consider developing and adopting a disclosure and
transparency document covering the disclosure of information through both
the website as well as direct information requests, including a compliance
monitoring mechanism.
Participation
Actions to be Considered
PEFC should consider developing and adopting a participation policy
document outlining the opportunities for external stakeholders to participate
in PEFC processes as well as procedures ensuring meaningful participation
Evaluation
GAIL assesses the channels and processes through which both external and
internal stakeholders can file a complaint or an appeal.
Actions to be Considered
PEFC should consider revising its guidelines in the light of indicators in GAIL
currently not addressed. These include amongst others issues of retaliation
against internal stakeholders (members) and monitoring processes.
Recommendations by Category
The Panel has recommended that PEFC carefully review the specific
requirements for formal participation in a future review by One World
Trust24. To that end and in the meantime, other specific recommendations
will contribute to addressing gaps in PEFC’s Governance when seen through
One World Trust’s analytic methodology.
Transparency
Participation
Evaluation
One World Trust defines complaint and response as “capabilities for handling
complaints from staff, partners, affected communities, and the public at large
on issues of non-compliance with organisational policies (e.g. codes of ethics,
environmental policies, information disclosure policies, etc.) and providing
them with a response.”
Any organisation faces challenges maturing at a pace to match its growth, and
systems that were sufficient at its creation and in its early years grow less and
less effective as the needs of its members and its market change.
Governance Models
All three aspects of governance are important, and must exist within an
organisation in balance, with their priority shifting more toward one or the
other as needs and challenges arise.
“Separation of powers is the issue for strategy and human resources – there are not
good lines of demarcation between Chairman and Secretary-General, and spillover
between the two makes both sub-optimal. Not sure if it is structural or a function of
the individuals in those positions. The Board should make policy and the Secretariat
implement the work, prioritised and/or delegating as necessary.”
Over time, as PEFC grew in membership and certified hectarage, the very
decentralised structure of the organisation has resulted in significant stress on
its institutions. PEFC leadership must now consider if and how that balance
of power should shift to include the Secretariat to a greater degree.
Inclusiveness
Percentage of survey respondents to the question “Which of the following would better enhance
PEFC’s reputation?”
With over 200 million hectares of certified forests represented by its members
and standard, PEFC’s Mission now has sufficient global ‘weight’ and
footprint to influence complementary sustainability efforts in other
organisations (e.g. United Nations Food and Agriculture Programme
(UNFAO), the Rainforest Alliance), and in other sectors (e.g. efforts to protect
bio-diversity, or combat climate change.)
Transparency
“PEFC’s language and process are completely hard to understand for anyone outside
the narrow circle of technical experts in forestry”
“The 2007 governance report was not accessible on the PEFC website. Also
documents relevant to governance (e.g. Board meeting outcomes and audits) not
obvious on the website”
As a result, PEFC needs to make special effort first to simplify, and then to
over-communicate and demonstrate its internal processes publicly and
transparently.
Percentage of survey respondents answering ‘More Of’ to the question “For each of the functions
below, please tick whether you would like to see PEFC do more of, the same amount, or less of
each function (and have the necessary budget to do so)”
26 PEFC Paper 4: Adopted at the 11th General Assembly on 05 October, 2007, Munich,
Germany.
27 PEFC Paper 13: Adopted at the Board of Directors Meeting on 01 February, 2008,
Luxembourg.
“The problem for PEFC has been the lack of resources and by that limited ability to
employ manpower. Those employed have done a very good job.”
The PEFC Strategic Plan sets organisational growth targets for the next ten
years (by 2017) of 45% of industrial roundwood capacity, 60% of total
estimated certifiable area (512 Mha), and 50% of estimated chain-of-custody
growth (32,000).
Recognising long lead-times necessary for such growth, the five-year Plan
identifies objectives in Market Access, Communications, Governance, and
Operations necessary to reach the targets. The plan also recognises that
centralised capacity must increase to implement the Strategy, with reasonable
associated budget.
Board Workload/Focus
“Currently the roles of different actors are unclear for example the board, secretariat
and executive committee, making it impossible to have effective checks and balances,
separation of powers and decision making processes.”
With the increased clarity of the Strategic Plan, and the expectations and
resources set for the Secretariat, the Board of Directors is in a position to
reduce its technical, operational and administrative responsibilities and focus
on a more strategic and long-term role for the organisation.
“Working with founding members is difficult, what in the world are we going to do
when we have to figure out how to include Congo or Indonesia?”
However, in the past two to three years, with the recent addition of Central
and Eastern European members, as well as other countries in Asia, Africa,
and Central/South America, existing technical capacity for review and
strengthening of institutions and schemes has become severely strained.
Looking ahead, and guided by the targets set in the PEFC Strategic Plan, it is
clear that the technical needs of new members (likely in developing countries)
in the next five years will rapidly overwhelm the Secretariat. Corollary
institutions (e.g. Independent Consultant reviews, and the Panel of Experts)
are likewise insufficient to address the demand.
Complementary Initiatives/Investments
“Promotion is very important but must be done with the NGBs. A lack of or weak
enforcement is a great danger to the organisation. Policy leadership creates
legitimacy within the broader industry. Education should be aimed at large
retail/professional purchasing organisations. Research may be better done by
someone else, PEFC needs to know it, but not necessarily run it.”
Stakeholder Groups
“How to get the stakeholder groups which do not want to participate due to
entrenched attitudes to participate both at PEFC and national level - the real crux of
PEFC moving forward.”
“I am not sure how to best answer these questions since there must be a limit to how
many groups and interests that should be directly involved with the governance,
management and administration of PEFC. Yes, the organisation should have close
contact and a good an open dialogue with all important stakeholders. But they should
not all necessarily be actively involved in governing bodies.”
“Lack of functional general standard (compare with FSC Interim) hamper the
adoption of PEFC certification in countries with weak forestry organizations.”
By 2008, PEFC has already expanded to include members’ schemes that fit
‘easily’ into the over-arching meta-standard. And while at the moment PEFC
is the largest forestry certification organisation in the world, there is a
growing recognition that certification has reached a ‘plateau’, and the next
level of potential will only be reached by dramatic innovation.
“PEFC is very inclusive for the stakeholders that want to be included. The difficult
part is the relationship with the environmental organisations that do not want to be
included and support PEFC because they prefer a competitive system under their
own control. The problem is the power struggle between the PEFC stakeholders and
the environmental organisations.”
The second group of stakeholders critical to PEFC’s long-term success are not
forestry agencies and schemes at all. They are a diverse, heterogenous, non-
technical, boisterous, and demanding constellation of environmental not-for-
profits (or non-governmental organisations (ENGOs)), worker and trade
associations, large-scale timber-product retailers, and representations of
consumers, and indigenous peoples.
There has been significant debate over this broader palette of stakeholders
and their actual importance and practical impact on PEFC’s global Mission. It
is clear however that they play two critical roles: first, that they provide global
credibility, acceptability, and accountability, and second, they have the
capacity and have evidenced the will to frustrate PEFC’s work.
PEFC has moved beyond its initial base and made some effort to engage these
stakeholders at the national level by inviting/including them in National
Governing Bodies as they review, develop, and implement schemes.
Similarly, at the international level, PEFC has a body for Extraordinary
Members that includes some representatives of international stakeholders.
“Strength - enables consistency at the broad level and flexibility at the local level.
Weakness is that perceptions about the lowest common denominator may tarnish the
meta-standard.”
“Low minimum standards at the PEFC international level give broad space to move
in, but leads to big differences in the quality of national schemes”
“Over time the real standards agenda should be harmonisation and convergence.
Non-aligned bodies (e.g. FSC) will have the opportunity to criticise the 'lowest-
common denominator' approach at the national level”
National schemes and the institutions that develop and enforce them must
also have skilled personnel, access to expert consultants, regular education
and training, opportunities for peer review, support of national governments,
industry, and the general public, and sufficient budgetary support.
That distinction is both a caution and a mandate for PEFC: the full
organisation will remain vulnerable to the criticism and obstruction that can
be levelled against the weakest combination of individual national scheme,
and the institution responsible for implementing it, irrespective of the
strength of the overall Mission, or other truly robust schemes and institutions.
“Administrative and standards compliance (in view of the scheme endorsement) has
been improving during the past year. Still the rules and the decisions are not fully
consistent and fair to all parties. Some rules are applied strictly, whereas some
problem areas are not tackled proactively at all and any performance will go through.
Improvements on in this respect have taken place.”
Percentage of survey respondents answering the question “Which of the following would better
enhance PEFC’s effectiveness?”
Like any standard, it must be updated over time as new challenges and
opportunities arise, and with the addition of new stakeholders to the process,
additional criteria are included to strengthen its holistic value. The
intergovernmental nature of this process has given it the current credibility; a
broader base including more international stakeholders will add yet more to
its credibility in the future.
“You will always have a defined minimum standard, however this may preclude
some members who struggle to meet the minimum but could still benefit from
membership”
As such, PEFC needs to somehow ‘bridge the gap’ between new members’
capacity and the PEFC meta-standard, especially if it continues to become
more and more holistic and robust.
“I had hoped that the panel of experts was a way of simplifying the system. Now it
seems to be yet another layer of administration and bureaucracy. I understand the
good intentions, but this tends to be too much.”
While the Panel of Experts has been cited as improving the PEFC process and
adding additional legitimacy to the PEFC meta-standard, it remains a
relatively new body in the organisation and is not yet sufficiently fleshed-out
or integrated into its governance.
The Panel of Experts, and their added value, is unevenly appreciated within
PEFC, and often unclear in external perceptions. While it is clearly an
important part of the internal checks and balances, its membership, mandate,
process, role, and transparency should be reviewed along with other bodies
and integrated more solidly into the restructured organisation.
External Perceptions
“Perception is reality.”
“PEFC should do much more about promotion or marketing. PEFC is a brand which
known only to forest owners and sometimes to processors further down the chain.
NOT known to the end consumer.”
Part of this is simply because such consumer awareness has not been a
priority for the organisation, focusing deliberately on timber-product source
certification and chain-of-custody. It also is a challenging, expensive (and
elusive) goal, with popular opinions mercurial and hard to influence
consistently and globally.
While PEFC has strong, well-informed support in some quarters (e.g. small-
forest owners, commercial timber-product wholesalers), its reputation among
other groups is less favourable, or (almost as dangerous) unknown or
misunderstood.
“PEFC is Industry-Driven”
“It is a concern that there is a perception outside of PEFC that it is an industry body.
It needs to show that all stakeholders are involved.”
“It would help if PEFC was able to demonstrate this more transparently through its
website - for those not directly involved it is hard to gauge.”
“How do you think that it would be possible to know anything about these issues, if
one is not constantly working within PEFC organisations?”
As PEFC’s work and influence have grown – in some ways far beyond its
original constituency – a far larger global population seek the organisation out
to understand its Mission, process, and impact. The sources to which they
look must be free from technical jargon, easily understandable, accessible,
exciting, engaging, and a catalyst for them to communicate that message to
other people accurately.
Other Issues
The survey and interview process for this Governance Review was semi-
structured and designed in a way to respond to the Panel’s mandate, but also
encourage other feedback that participants felt was similarly important but
not covered in the framework questions.
“PEFC personnel have been kicked over and over by FSC and environmentalists –
it’s no wonder that they’re defensive”
“Somehow, the organisation has to learn to take the high road with its worst critics,
‘killing them with kindness’ (especially when they don’t deserve it!)”
It is no secret that PEFC was formed to represent communities that did not
feel sufficiently supported by FSC, and that the two schemes have since then
been in varying degrees of conflict and competition.
PEFC has also been the subject of vary degrees of criticism from a variety of
environmental NGOs over endorsed schemes, perceived lack of stakeholder
diversity, and other issues.
Much effort has been made to reach out to both groups constructively, both
proactively and in response to specific incidents, but a strong sense of
‘Flash-point’ Issues
While this Review does not have the resources to research fully the
circumstances and considerations of these or other specific local or national
issues, it does bear noting that ENGOs complaints about these subjects are
sufficiently broad-based and contentious to create a barrier to their current or
future participation in PEFC.
PEFC also needs to expand its role on forest issues, including the use of
chemicals or poisons, genetically modified organisms, threats to tropical and
old-growth forests, biodiversity, and monoculture planting practices, among
others.
28See also “Next Generation Challenges” in the following paragraphs for other areas of note
identified as priorities for PEFC’s governance process to review and address.
PEFC has identified its public and industry reputation as being a priority for
improvement as part of this Governance Review. Perceptions of PEFC fall
into six broad categories: first, positive (which should be reinforced); second,
neutral and informed (an issue of marketing); third, neutral and uninformed
(an issue of education); fourth, critical and informed (an issue of engagement);
fifth, critical and uninformed (an issue of education again); and sixth,
unaware (an issue of introductions.)
“PEFC currently not marketed as visibly as FSC and has not been taken up by the
retailers as such. PEFC needs to ensure that everyone fully understands the impact
of the work it is doing and the lives that are improved through their work.”
PEFC could continue functioning in much the same way, but dramatically
increase its communication efforts, recognising that a significant amount of
neutral, negative, or no perception of PEFC is merely a matter of the
organisation’s technical nature and low public profile.
“We get upset that ENGOs aren’t begging to work with us – perhaps we need to go
work with them on their projects and set a good example”
PEFC cannot solely rely upon its audiences to make the effort to understand
and appreciate the organisation’s wider contributions, and could also take the
message to communities that it would like to influence.
“In general I would say that the national level should have a broader representation
than the international level. The national representation will however depend on the
local conditions. On the international level the representation will depend upon it
here is a real international representation possible from the relevant stakeholder
groups when PEFC and forest based certification is concerned.”
PEFC can also ‘bring its critics into the fold’, and seek to change negative
opinions by changing itself to some degree and making stakeholders part of
the solution by giving them an investment in the organisation and its success.
Keep It Simple PEFC could create a new ‘front-end’ image on it’s web-site,
materials, and public relations, specifically aimed at the non-
technical audience, media, and other international organisations
Advantages - ‘Opens’ the organisation to the widest possible audience; reinforces
plain speech and a focus on tangible impact of PEFC’s work;
encourages links to PEFC’s site and work from other organisations
Disadvantages - None directly; will need a clear path for existing PEFC technical
materials so current users are not inconvenienced or confused
Outcome Recommended
Push the Logo PEFC could aim for broad global brand recognition through
investment in its logo with partners, new alliances aimed at
marketing the PEFC brand, and large-scale advertising
campaigns
Advantages - Broad public recognition could multiply influence in policy-making,
membership development, and fund-raising; would contribute to
combating illegal logging
Disadvantages - Very expensive; would require negotiated agreements with multiple
partners; difficult to guarantee broad public understanding of the
brand; runs risk of ENGO campaign against the PEFC logo
Lead by Example PEFC could also let its actions ‘market’ itself, both internally by
making the organisation more transparent, but also by reaching
out to stakeholders and tactically supporting their efforts
Advantages - ‘Opens’ the organisation to the widest possible audience; reinforces
plain speech and a focus on tangible impact of PEFC’s work;
encourages links to PEFC’s site and work from other organisations
Disadvantages - Will require additional personnel and budgetary resources; PEFC
must be willing to compromise at times when working with other
organisations
Outcome Recommended
PEFC Effectiveness
“Wood, timber and forest products are in an international trade. The raw materials
and the products floats independent of national borders makes it absolutely necessary
to have some harmonisation. But on the other hand the nature is not identical. The
strength of today’s system is to unify these crossing interests and balance them. The
weakness is the difficulty to create the right balance and that the system tends to be
complicated.”
This would be a case of ‘focusing inward’ and refining PEFC’s core purpose,
and investing resources primarily in the organisation’s technical capacity, and
its members’ ability to meet and advance the standard.
“PEFC needs more ‘hands on deck’ to do the work and support the existing fulltime
staff”
Outcome Recommended
Build Secretariat PEFC could augment its Secretariat with additional staff,
Capacity focusing on technical assistance to members and potential
members, marketing, fund-raising, outreach and partnerships
Advantages - Would expand the reach of the organisation; increase quality of
support to members and prospective members; improve public
relations and partnerships/alliances
Disadvantages - Will require additional funding
Outcome Recommended
To that end, PEFC could focus more on the national standards of its members,
helping them through a peer-review process with significant technical
assistance from an augmented Secretariat.
“Strengths of the meta-standard - one common set of rules and regulations; the same
requirements to all the organisations; the standard reflects the best practice; easy to
use and to compare. Weaknesses - the same requirements cannot be used for different
countries; lacks procedures of defining of compromise in case of conflicts between the
"meta-standard" and the local legislation must be envisaged”
PEFC could also seek to expand the recognition of its meta-standard globally
(e.g. becoming the “Fairtrade” of sustainability), and engage with national
and international leaders to push for broader use of it in as the basis of
development and environmental policy in forestry.
Outcome Recommended
Assist Members PEFC could build the capacity to provide technical assistance to
to Meet members and prospective members to assist in meeting
requirements of the meta-standard for endorsement
Standard
Advantages - Increases the quality of proposed schemes before review; increases
institutional strength of forestry agencies in developing countries,
supports broader policy aims in sustainable forest management
Disadvantages - Must increase ‘firewall’ between technical assistance to a
prospective member and expert review of the Scheme; will raise
PEFC’s profile internationally making it more susceptible to critical
review/risk
Outcome Recommended
“Associations tend to display a wide range of quality and consistency among the
members and their commitments to the organisation, leading to a more cumbersome
organisational structure. Over time, a growing body of knowledge and de facto
authority has developed in the PEFC Secretariat, though. The challenge is in
balancing that so that no ones vested interest is being undermined, yet there's a
functional capacity, not necessarily by fewer decision-making bodies, but perhaps
authority coupled with more frequent dialogue with the Secretariat enabling a
nimble role.”
“After the very successful growth of PEFC in the last 5 years, it might be a good
time to try to involve new/more groups in PEFC certification (e.g. through
Extraordinary membership and increased activities for/with Extraordinary
Members)”
PEFC could open its membership to additional stakeholders beyond the scope
of ‘Extraordinary Members’ and engage them in the standard-setting and
decision-making process, increasing the organisation’s reach, as well as its
broader legitimacy.
“Enforcement - seeing the PEFC out at national level and working with stakeholders
at national level to address any perceived grievances of implementation of the
objectives of the PEFC.”
PEFC could aim for the role of ‘honest broker’, and actively seek out a broad
range of stakeholders in sustainable forest management to identify issues and
concerns about good governance, and work to broker agreements with them
addressing the issues.
Outcome Recommended
Initiate Governance PEFC could set up both internal and external reviews of its
Mechanisms governance to take place on a regular basis, with results
published in its annual report and publicly available on its
web-site
Outcome Recommended
For example, see 7. Volunteer for One World Trust's Governance Review
recommendations: 13. Develop Annual Governance 'Check-Up'
18. Add Stakeholder Forum 'Right of Agenda'
“Compared to the good communication channels between the PEFC Council and
each NGB, there seems to be little horizontal communication among NGBs for
sharing knowledge, information know-how and experiences for promotion of PEFC
in the markets.”
“To serve its purpose, PEFC should remain an industry based system”
“If the goal is market access, and the market is represented by the community of
stakeholders, their engagement makes PEFC more effective”
“Very complex governance structure – ‘a lot of moving parts’ - that could be very
burdensome for the organisation. Streamlining would be useful, could be dragged
down by too many players who don't understand the details.”
More ‘Value for PEFC could increase support to members as part of its re-
the Money’ organisation, providing additional resources, technical
assistance, training and other services
Advantages - Richer communication with and between members; increases
confidence and morale; more appealing to prospective members
Disadvantages - Limited resources will require difficult decisions of budgetary
priorities; funds could be used for identified ‘external’ priorities
Outcome Recommended
Limit Stakeholder/ PEFC could focus on its core constituency – forest owners –
External Influence and increase communication with other stakeholders, without
necessarily giving them additional direct influence in the
organisation
Advantages - Keeps organisation focused on founding principles and objectives;
invests resources in quantifiable and familiar projects and process
Disadvantages - Increases risk of (potentially debilitating) political/social criticism;
cuts off access to resources, credibility, and innovation in other
communities
Outcome Recommended
“Education - PEFC currently not marketed as visibly as FSC & has not been taken
up by the retailers as such. PEFC needs to ensure that everyone fully understands
the impact of the work it is doing and the lives that are improved through their
work.”
While not addressing political and technical differences, PEFC could design
and implement a marketing strategy designed to re-present the organisation,
correct misinformation and lay the foundation for new or renewed dialogue.
Alternatively, PEFC could identify one global ENGO and negotiate a full
partnership with them, granting some rights in the PEFC standards and
“It is clear to improve acceptance of PEFC above a certain threshold it must involve
Environmental groups - equally the Environmental groups cannot continue to
ignore PEFC.”
PEFC could give ENGOs the right to take a formal role in PEFC as Associate
Members with some voting rights (a proportional system of collective votes,
for example.)
There is a clear value to bringing them ‘into the family’, both from a
substantive standpoint, as well as from a marketing view.
Grant Rights and PEFC could create space, incentives and responsibilities for
Responsibilities ENGOs within the organisation and its processes, inviting
criticism but only when it is paired with suggested upgrades
and engagement
Advantages - Recognises that PEFC is imperfect but improving; increases
transparency, holistic quality, and resources; creates opportunity for
PEFC to ‘tilt the playing field’ of international forestry policy in its
favour
Disadvantages - Will complicate and slow PEFC process to incorporate broader
input and engagement; will be a challenge to new members who are
also targets of ENGO criticism for other issues
Outcome Recommended
Join the PEFC could identify global priorities of ENGOs and join them at
Common Battles the global level
Outcome Recommended
For example, see 12. PEFC International Conference on Forestry and the
recommendations: Environment
21. Launch Tropical Initiative
38. Lead Forestry Policy on Carbon
In considering options, and in line with its Mandate29, the Panel gave
preference to recommendations that:
• directly responded to one or more discrete elements of its mandate;
• should have broad support among existing and potential stakeholders;
• sit largely within the purview of PEFC itself (without significant
dependencies upon external actors);
• fit logically into an incremental process of improvement;
• leads to enhanced credibility of the PEFC scheme;
• would be financially responsible, reduce costs, or contribute a new
funding stream for the organisation; and
• contributed to addressing multiple issues at once.
Also publish the Executive Summary separately for ease of review, and add a
link to a ‘Comment’ form or E-mail. Receipt of comments should be
acknowledged promptly (e.g. within three business days), and collected for
review as part of the annual governance process.
In line with its expanded responsibilities and capacity, rename the Secretariat
the “PEFC International Headquarters”, and re-title the Secretary-General the
“Director-General” of the organisation.
“If the Secretariat’s going to do all this, they better have the right people, and the
right people in the right jobs”
Staff position descriptions may be posted along with staff photos and
biographies on the PEFC web-site to allow interested parties a more complete
understanding of various roles and responsibilities of key staff.
Develop an internal policy, with guidance and draft materials/text for PEFC
leadership, staff, and members that sets out an organisation-wide principle of
universally constructive response to criticism; the most strident or vitriolic the
attack, the more gracious and engaging the response should be, consistently
across the organisation.
“The whole system is very complicated, not easy to understand by layman. Public
relations work should be strengthened for general public”
Create versions of the most frequently accessed PEFC resources (for example
“Elements of credible forest certification schemes”) free from expert language
for the non-technical reader, and highlight PEFC efforts in broader
communities more prominently (namely content currently located under “Did
you know?” on the web-page);
Ensure that PEFC documents, reports, and technical documents are prefaced
by a short, easy-to-understand summary of the key points, and where
applicable include a recommendation for decision-making;
Redesign the PEFC web-site to have four distinct, dynamic, and well-
supported functions:
• First – PEFC’s customers, licensed users of the logo, and
consumers of PEFC certified products;
• Second - general information for the public, media, civil society
organisations, and the environmental movement;
• Third - technical information for forestry agencies, certification,
accreditation, and standards specialists, as well as the
academic/ scientific community; and
• Fourth - a ‘members-only’ section with discussion forums, PEFC
resources, organisational updates, and opportunities for peer-
based networking and information-sharing.
“PEFC needs greater resources in its management to serve the corporate policy
requirements of advancing its brand.”
“At this point it is about awareness. The elements are strong at this point. They will
evolve with maturity of the system as a whole. Inform, Persuade, Purchase,”
PEFC has a dynamic and engaging story to tell, and needs the capacity to
promote the organisation globally to the media, potential new members, the
general public, and stakeholders;
Any Marketing plans should also consider, engage, and build upon PEFC
Promotion Initiatives globally, as well as be leveraged through them, and
coordinated with National Governing Bodies as set down in the PEFC
Strategic Plan, including national schemes in a unitary certification model30.
“There are some stakeholders who will not or have difficulty in engaging, so need to
have outreach to get them talking, observing, presenting...to get them into the
'tent'.”
30 PEFC Strategic Plan (Internal), Core Strategies, Paragraph 2 –"Bearing in mind that an
external impact and image study undertaken for PEFC has clearly identified the lack of
recognition of a single PEFC brand as a constraint to market access the strategy will
emphasise the inclusion of national schemes, such as FFCS, CSA, AFS and SFI, within a
unitary certification model. This will need to be communicated to all influential procurement
policy makers and to others who influence those policies"
“Have an assurance process for governance process (independent view and external
review.) Part of annual report should include governance audit.”
“Good governance requires a systematic review process with outside ‘pair of eyes’”
31 See: http://www.oneworldtrust.org/
“As the organisation matures it should have a board that balanced and representative
of the key stakeholder interests and be able to demonstrate that this includes the
industry, environmental and social components.”
“I feel members should determine policy through membership of the board, although
other stakeholders should also be included. If the board is structured fairly NGBs
should have no problem implementing its decisions. I think this is also the most
workable model in terms of practical decision-making.”
“Board cannot take a critical look in the endorsement decisions even if consultant
points out weaknesses in the basis for the assessment process for an individual
scheme.”
“The national level is more personalized and makes country feel special attention is
given them, which would be favourable to integrating PEFC practices.”
“Promotion and marketing and partnership alliances. PEFC lacks credibility in the
market place and with some governments. It needs to build alliances with
organisations from which it can learn and which will add credibility to its activities.”
The Stakeholder Forum should have the right (as a collective body) to add
policy and other issues to the agenda of the PEFC General Assembly in its
periodic meetings, and to convey to the PEFC International Headquarters
Requests for Review on specific issues or questions identified by its members.
“The Panel of Experts? It's a rather shadowy body within the PEFC structure.”
“Even as a national member, the Panel of Experts hasn't been sold to the
membership. Has been seen as a blockage to date from this far away!”
“The problems and complexity for certification of natural tropical forests need
greater appreciation”
While PEFC has a great deal of collective expertise, this initiative should
contribute to educating the organisation about the unique challenges of
working in tropical forestry and the countries where they are located. Special
care and attention should be paid to differences in PEFC processes necessary
to contribute to these specific challenges or in these regions.
“Fundraising - all organisations need a good capital basis and recurring funding to
expand and move forward”
“New members, typically from less developed countries, faced serious problems of
‘institutionality’ (weak institutions in their country)…and they become weak
elements of the PEFC chain, the easiest to be attacked and to discredit the whole
system”
Develop the Technical Unit of PEFC with specific staff capacity to provide
capacity-building services to members and prospective members, and serve
as the implementation function of the PEFC Secretariat in its partnerships
(contractual or otherwise) with international and development organisations.
Revenues from technical assistance projects can also provide an important
funding-stream for the organisation, and can serve as an additional
opportunity for Stakeholders to participate in PEFC’s broader work of
sustainable forest management.
The Stakeholder Forum should have the right to nominate two members of
the PEFC Board of Directors through the PEFC Nominating Committee (or
through any revised process)..
One of the Board members (not nominated by the Stakeholder Forum) should
be named to serve as the Co-Chair of the Stakeholder Forum, working with
the internal leadership set up by that body to integrate it dynamically into the
organisation.
Further, initiate a dialogue with key partners and stakeholders with an aim to
integrating and simplifying complaints and appeals procedures as much as
possible, and providing a point of contact and process within the PEFC
international process to facilitate review and redress of complaints at the
national level or in other organisations (e.g. accreditation bodies, or local
certification agencies.)
“FSC isn’t the enemy. Perhaps PEFC needs to give them a fine reputation to live up
to.”
“Needs some kind of structure where the key stakeholder groups have balanced
decision-making authorities.”
35 PEFC Statutes, Article 6, Paragraph 5 – “The Chairman convokes the Board meetings at
least twice a year with a notice of at least four weeks.”
“Process could evolve in a more 'global' scheme than just addressing the forestry
issues but integrating gradually other environmental concerns like the carbon
footprint of the products for example.”
“Climate debate might affect PEFC’s role - e.g. storing carbon in forests. That would
change PEFC’s governance.”
36 PEFC Member-Schemes may have more than one vote based their certified hectarage, so
that the largest members of PEFC may have up to five votes on issues.
37 See ‘Appendix E – PEFC Stakeholder Forum’ for more information
Björn Andrén
Jon Dee
Internationally, Jon Dee is best known as the founder of Planet Ark, 'World
Environment News' and his 14 country 'World Environment Review' poll.
Some of Jon's initiatives have become role models for international change.
He initiated the successful lobbying campaign for Australia's 3 year phase-out
of incandescent light globes - a move that has since been copied by other
countries.
In 2007, Jon was the media spokesperson for the Australian release of Al
Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' DVD. In June 2007, he also spoke at the House
of Lords to launch his 14 country 'World Environment Review' poll, which
was carried out in partnership with GMIPoll from Seattle.
Jon founded Planet Ark back in 1991 in partnership with close friend Pat
Cash. Jon is also the founder of Planet Ark initiatives such as 'World
Environment News' (used by 8 million people a year), ‘Cards 4 Planet Ark’
(over half a billion greeting cards recycled), RecyclingNearYou.com.au (used
by one million people a year), Australia's 'National Recycling Week' and 'The
National Recycling Hotline', to name but a few.
Jon hosts the environment TV series ‘Tipping Point’, which airs on the hour
every hour on 'The Weather Channel' on Foxtel and Austar. He is also a
regular guest on Channel Nine's national 'Today Show'. Jon has directed and
produced over 300 environmentally-focussed TV and radio adverts. These
have featured people such as Tom Cruise, Kylie Minogue, Sir Richard
Branson, Dustin Hoffman, Nicole Kidman, Pierce Brosnan, Olivia Newton-
John, Rolf Harris, Steve Irwin and many others.
Jon is the Chairman of Planet Ark. Prior to this, Jon was the organisation's
Managing Director - a role he held for 15 years after he and Pat started the
organisation back in June 1991. He is now the Managing Director of Issues
Solutions, where he advises leading companies on the many ways that they
can help the environment.
Jon is married to Leanne Dee and they have two daughters - Estelle, who is
four and Claudia who was born on Oct 20th 2007. Jon and Lee met in London
back in 1991 and they live in Yosemite in the Blue Mountains outside of
Sydney.
Frederick M. O’Regan
Mr. O’Regan is currently Chief Executive Officer of the International Fund for
Animal Welfare (IFAW), a world-wide animal protection and conservation
organization with headquarters on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. IFAW has
sixteen international offices and a membership base of 1.4 million. It works in
the areas of policy development, habitat, and direct assistance to animals.
Before becoming CEO of IFAW, Mr. O’Regan was Peace Corps’ Regional
Director for Europe, Central Asia and the Mediterranean, responsible for
Peace Corps operations in 24 countries in Central and Eastern Europe, the
Republics of the Former Soviet Union, North Africa, and the Middle East.
The Region is comprised of 2,000 volunteers and staff, working in the
environment, education, and business development.
Before being appointed to the Peace Corps, Mr. O’Regan was Program
Director with the Aspen Institute heading a national action-research program
on employment-generation and business development among the poor within
the United States. He has also headed Community Economics Corporation, a
policy and consulting organization specialized in developing local-level
economic and development programs in the U.S. and the Third World. In this
capacity he advised major foundations, the World Bank and USAID on
economic development programming. This work included the development
of the first major lending programs in the black townships of South Africa.
During the 1992-93 academic year Mr. O’Regan was Visiting Professor of
Public and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton
University where he taught community-based economic development at the
graduate level and guided research.
Dirk Teegelbekkers
Dirk studied forest science at the University of Munich, and had his
traineeship at the state forest administration of Hesse. His experience in the
Mandate
In accordance with and subject to the PEFC’s Strategic Plan (including the
vision, mission, purpose, core values & beliefs, principles and goals contained
therein), the panel will update the PEFC Council, its rules and standards by:
• improving external perceptions of PEFC’s governance;
• making the PEFC organisation more effective;
• ensuring that PEFC’s rules and standards are simple and easy to
understand; implement and operate;
• ensuring that PEFC robustly implements and continuously monitors its
own requirements at all levels;
• ensuring “buy-in” from PEFC’s existing stakeholders;
• removing obstacles to dialogue with environmental non-government
organisations (ENGO)s.
Terms of Reference
In fulfilling these terms of reference, the Panel shall be entitled to consult with
any and all sources, individuals and organizations that it believes
appropriate.
Membership
The Panel itself should contain representation from the main interested
constituencies to ensure that the process of the review itself has widespread
credibility and transparency; we currently envisage three members being
chosen from the PEFC Council, and the remaining four, including the Panel
Chair, being chosen from external, interested constituencies.
The Panel will submit its final report and recommendations as soon as
possible, ideally within 90 to 120 days of its establishment. The
recommendations shall be made public.
Meetings
The Panel shall meet as necessary in order to complete the terms of reference
(probably three meetings), including at least one face-to-face meeting.
Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous, and was managed
in its entirely by Z/Yen. In total, 152 people completed the survey. This
number compares favourably with the participant levels in other, similar
reviews. The quantitative results are appended.
Respondent Details
Respondent details will not be attributed to answers/comments, and only used in aggregate to ensure a representative
sampling of organisational and geographic input.
3. Type of Organisation
Forestry
9 7%
management;
Forestry workers; 3 2%
Timber production
14 11%
companies;
Timber production
4 3%
workers;
Timber product
8 6%
wholesalers;
Timber product
1 1%
retailers;
Trade associations; 5 4%
Financial services
0 0%
(e.g. trade finance);
Consumer
1 1%
associations;
Environmental
16 13%
NGOs;
Academic
11 9%
community;
Standards bodies; 2 2%
Certification bodies; 4 3%
PEFC National
9 7%
Governing Body
National government
and quasi 5 4%
government bodies;
International
governmental and
quasi governmental 1 1%
bodies (e.g. EU,
WTO).
http://app.zoomerang.com/Report/PrintResultsPage.aspx Page 1 of 10
Zoomerang | PEFC Governance Review (v 1.2): Results Overview 11/05/2008 09:43
Europe; 62 48%
Asia; 14 11%
Australasia/Oceania; 13 10%
Central/South
7 5%
America;
Africa; 4 3%
International/Global; 32 25%
6. At what level do you or your organisation typically work: locally, nationally, regionally, or internationally?
National (e.g.
63 49%
Malaysia);
Regional (e.g.
25 20%
Southeast Asia);
International (e.g.
34 27%
Globally);
Which of the three aspects of Governance above do you feel is most important to PEFC? Rank them in order (1 -
8. "Most Important" to 3 - "Least Important")
Top number is the count of
respondents selecting the option. 1 2 3
Bottom % is percent of the total
respondents selecting the option.
19 19 31
http://app.zoomerang.com/Report/PrintResultsPage.aspx Page 2 of 10
Zoomerang | PEFC Governance Review (v 1.2): Results Overview 11/05/2008 09:43
19 19 31
Formal Compliance;
28% 28% 45%
22 32 21
Constitutional Structure;
29% 43% 28%
38 23 17
Systems Integrity;
49% 29% 22%
10. How would you rate PEFC's Formal Compliance in the following areas?
Legislative and 14 39 17 4 0
Regulatory 19% 53% 23% 5% 0%
Administrative and
18 28 22 4 1
Standards
25% 38% 30% 5% 1%
Compliance
12. How would you rate PEFC's Constitutional Structure in the following areas?
Stakeholder 13 22 22 11 6
Inclusiveness 18% 30% 30% 15% 8%
Separation of 20 15 28 7 2
Powers 28% 21% 39% 10% 3%
Decision-Making 7 26 31 9 1
Processes 9% 35% 42% 12% 1%
17 30 23 3 1
Ethical Standards
23% 41% 31% 4% 1%
14. How would you rate PEFC's Systems Integrity in the following areas?
8 22 34 7 0
Strategic Planning
11% 31% 48% 10% 0%
Human Resources 4 24 33 8 0
Management 6% 35% 48% 12% 0%
Transparency and 21 21 18 11 2
Disclosure 29% 29% 25% 15% 3%
Audit and 16 25 25 6 1
Accountability 22% 34% 34% 8% 1%
http://app.zoomerang.com/Report/PrintResultsPage.aspx Page 3 of 10
Zoomerang | PEFC Governance Review (v 1.2): Results Overview 11/05/2008 09:43
Image -
Based on the above analysis, PEFC is currently closest to an ‘Association-style’ organisation, with authority held by the
members (National Governing Bodies), who meet at least annually to decide policy and direction, delegating authority to
the Board and Secretariat. The Board of Directors represents the entire membership, and an International Secretariat
carries out decisions and administrative duties as directed.
Like any other organisation, the formal structure (on paper) may not necessarily or completely represent the de facto
structure in reality. Some other examples:
In a 'Federal-style' organisation, members make decisions together on a day-to-day basis, the implementation of which is
carried out in each organisation or country;
[E.g. PEFC Council, Board of Directors would be more powerful, and National
Governing Bodies would decide how to implement their decisions to meet
local needs]
In a 'Unitary-style' organisation, issues would be debated and decided centrally in headquarters, which would also
manage their implementation in the field;
[E.g. PEFC Council, Board of Directors take all substantive policy and
standards decisions, operations are implemented by the Secretariat
using resources of National Governing Bodies]
In a 'Confederal-style' organisation, the headquarters has the resources and authority to represent and carry out policy set
by members on a regular basis.
[E.g. PEFC Council would set strategy, policy, and endorses the 'meta-standard',
while the Board of Directors and Secretariat would independently advance the organisation's Mission internationally]
Rank the four organization types illustrated based upon your opinion of which would best advance PEFC's Mission
17. in the future (1 = "Most Suitable", 4 = "Least Suitable")
Top number is the count of
respondents selecting the
option. 1 2 3 4
Bottom % is percent of the
total respondents selecting
the option.
24 13 9 11
Association
42% 23% 16% 19%
14 15 21 7
Federal
25% 26% 37% 12%
6 7 11 34
Unitary
10% 12% 19% 59%
15 23 16 6
Confederal
25% 38% 27% 10%
http://app.zoomerang.com/Report/PrintResultsPage.aspx Page 4 of 10
Zoomerang | PEFC Governance Review (v 1.2): Results Overview 11/05/2008 09:43
For each of the functions below, please tick whether you would like to see PEFC do more of/the same
19. amount/less of each function (and have the necessary budget to do so):
Top number is the count of
respondents selecting the option. More Of The Same Amount Less Of
Bottom % is percent of the total
respondents selecting the option.
Promotion/marketing –
49 13 1
promoting the work and aims
78% 21% 2%
of the organisation
Fundraising – increasing
38 20 1
budgetary capacity from
64% 34% 2%
various sources
Membership/membership
Events – increasing and 19 39 2
deepening membership in the 32% 65% 3%
organisation
Partnership/Alliances –
building collaborative 38 23 0
relationships with other 62% 38% 0%
organizations
Enforcement – ensuring that
PEFC systems are properly
38 26 1
implemented and that
58% 40% 2%
infringements are satisfactorily
dealt with
International Policy
Leadership – influencing
32 26 5
global or bi-lateral/national
51% 41% 8%
policy to better match the aims
of the organisation
Education – building a deep
understanding of the issues 28 28 4
and challenges facing the 47% 47% 7%
organisation in the sector
Technical Assistance –
providing direct expert advise
22 35 3
and consulting to members or
37% 58% 5%
partners to improve their
systems and work
Human Resources Support –
enabling staff and volunteers
19 35 2
to implement the
34% 62% 4%
organisation’s policies and
decisions
Research/Analysis –
providing ‘thought leadership’
to the organisation’s 21 37 4
stakeholders and deepening 34% 60% 6%
the knowledge base of key
issues
The members of the independent Panel of Experts are appointed by the PEFC Council Board of Directors to undertake
the following tasks:
1) Assess whether a revision is major or minor
2) In cases where a revision is deemed minor, to undertake an assessment of, and provide the PEFC Council Board of
Directors with a report on, the conformity of the revision with the requirements of the PEFC Council
3) To act as a quality assurance team on the revisions and or external consultants reports on forest and/or optional
national, regional or sectorial chain of custody standards and schemes submitted to the PEFC Council and to report to the
PEFC Council Board of Directors accordingly
4) To provide advice to the PEFC Council Board of Directors when requested to do so by the PEFC Council Board of
Directors.
http://app.zoomerang.com/Report/PrintResultsPage.aspx Page 5 of 10
Zoomerang | PEFC Governance Review (v 1.2): Results Overview 11/05/2008 09:43
In your opinion and experience, do you consider the PEFC Panel of Experts to be robust, adequate, or inadequate
21. in the following areas?
Top number is the count of
respondents selecting the option. Robust Adequate Insufficient
Bottom % is percent of the total
respondents selecting the option.
20 20 9
Clarity of mandate/purpose;
41% 41% 18%
7 32 9
Number of experts;
15% 67% 19%
6 36 6
Capacity of experts;
12% 75% 12%
10 26 13
Diversity of experts;
20% 53% 27%
6 32 8
Quality of outputs/analysis;
13% 70% 17%
7 21 18
Accessibility to members;
15% 46% 39%
For the following stakeholder groups, indicate whether their level of involvement with PEFC at the moment is
23. insufficient/sufficient/excessive.
Top number is the count of
respondents selecting the
option. Not Sure/
Excessive Sufficient Insufficient
Bottom % is percent of the Don't Know
total respondents selecting
the option.
14 30 9 6
Forest land owners;
24% 51% 15% 10%
9 32 8 11
Forestry management;
15% 53% 13% 18%
3 20 21 15
Forestry workers;
5% 34% 36% 25%
Timber production 13 30 10 7
companies; 22% 50% 17% 12%
Timber production 1 21 14 23
workers; 2% 36% 24% 39%
http://app.zoomerang.com/Report/PrintResultsPage.aspx Page 6 of 10
Zoomerang | PEFC Governance Review (v 1.2): Results Overview 11/05/2008 09:43
Timber product 6 20 18 16
wholesalers; 10% 33% 30% 27%
Timber product 4 13 25 14
retailers; 7% 23% 45% 25%
8 25 19 7
Trade associations;
14% 42% 32% 12%
2 32 12 11
Labour associations;
4% 56% 21% 19%
Financial services 2 15 14 27
(e.g. trade finance); 3% 26% 24% 47%
Consumer 2 14 29 13
associations; 3% 24% 50% 22%
3 19 32 5
Environmental NGOs;
5% 32% 54% 8%
1 13 33 13
Indigenous peoples
2% 22% 55% 22%
3 30 15 12
Academic community;
5% 50% 25% 20%
6 35 3 14
Standards bodies
10% 60% 5% 24%
6 34 4 14
Certification bodies;
10% 59% 7% 24%
National government
5 28 10 14
and quasi government
9% 49% 18% 25%
bodies;
International
governmental and 3 21 17 16
quasi governmental 5% 37% 30% 28%
bodies (e.g. EU, WTO)
When thinking about each stakeholder group, are there any that you think should be formally or informally
involved in the PEFC process?
25. Formal governance options could include voting representation on the General Assembly, or a role contributing to
the PEFC meta-standard. Informal governance options could include information dissemination for members,
option to comment on issues under consideration by PEFC Members.
46 5 0
Forest land owners;
90% 10% 0%
43 8 0
Forestry management;
84% 16% 0%
32 20 0
Forestry workers;
62% 38% 0%
Timber production 40 12 0
companies; 77% 23% 0%
27 22 2
Timber production workers;
53% 43% 4%
http://app.zoomerang.com/Report/PrintResultsPage.aspx Page 7 of 10
Zoomerang | PEFC Governance Review (v 1.2): Results Overview 11/05/2008 09:43
27 23 1
Timber product wholesalers;
53% 45% 2%
23 29 0
Timber product retailers;
44% 56% 0%
25 24 2
Trade associations;
49% 47% 4%
26 27 0
Consumer associations;
49% 51% 0%
44 8 0
Environmental NGOs;
85% 15% 0%
20 29 2
Academic community;
39% 57% 4%
Image -
PEFC forest certification and product labelling covers the following steps:
Complaints and appeals procedures are available for each separate process in the various bodies that contribute to the
PEFC process.
http://app.zoomerang.com/Report/PrintResultsPage.aspx Page 8 of 10
Zoomerang | PEFC Governance Review (v 1.2): Results Overview 11/05/2008 09:43
31. What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of the following elements of the PEFC system:
Certification 15 22 14 4 2
standards/schemes; 26% 39% 25% 7% 4%
Forest certification 18 24 12 2 1
procedures; 32% 42% 21% 4% 2%
Chain-of-custody
18 17 15 6 0
certification
32% 30% 27% 11% 0%
procedures;
Accreditation of 16 22 12 3 2
certification bodies; 29% 40% 22% 5% 4%
1 15 25 4 2
Panel of Experts;
2% 32% 53% 9% 4%
Independent
5 24 15 7 1
assessment
10% 46% 29% 13% 2%
consultants;
PEFC Logo on 3 14 15 18 5
products; 5% 25% 27% 33% 9%
Mutual
10 19 13 9 5
endorsement of
18% 34% 23% 16% 9%
standards;
Complaints and
3 13 26 5 1
appeals
6% 27% 54% 10% 2%
procedures;
Engagement with a
wider community of
stakeholders through 47 82%
PEFC’s governance
processes;
Improvements to
relevant elements of 10 18%
the PEFC system;
Total 57 100%
Engagement with a
wider community of
stakeholders through 24 44%
PEFC’s governance
processes;
Improvements to
http://app.zoomerang.com/Report/PrintResultsPage.aspx Page 9 of 10
Zoomerang | PEFC Governance Review (v 1.2): Results Overview 11/05/2008 09:43
Total 54 100%
http://app.zoomerang.com/Report/PrintResultsPage.aspx Page 10 of 10
D. Governance Recommendations by Subject Area
The International Oversight Panel received the following mandate from the
PEFC Council:
In accordance with and subject to the PEFC’s Strategic Plan (including the vision, mission,
purpose, core values & beliefs, principles and goals contained therein), the panel will update
the PEFC Council, its rules and standards by:
• improving external perceptions of PEFC’s governance;
• making the PEFC organisation more effective;
• ensuring that PEFC’s rules and standards are simple and easy to understand;
implement and operate;
• ensuring that PEFC robustly implements and continuously monitors its own
requirements at all levels;
• ensuring “buy-in” from PEFC’s existing stakeholders;
• removing obstacles to dialogue with environmental non-government organisations
(ENGO)s.
PEFC Effectiveness
To expand the idea of “Extraordinary Members” into a forum, encouraging a broader range of
stakeholders and granting specific rights and responsibilities within the PEFC’s governance
process. International institutions can become members and contribute to the PEFC process in a
number of ways, including membership fees, seconded staff, technical expertise and resources,
joint projects, or organisational leadership.
References
! PEFC Council Statutes (current statutes as adopted at the General Assembly 27 October 2006)
! Governance Review Report Recommendations 19, 20, 30, 31, 32, 37
! The Stakeholder Forum will be part of the General Assembly of PEFC, the highest authority
of PEFC, with rights and responsibilities as set out below
! The Stakeholder Forum has the right (as a collective body) to add policy and other issues to
the agenda of the PEFC General Assembly in its periodic meetings, and to convey to the
PEFC International Headquarters Requests for Review on specific issues or questions
identified by its members
! The Stakeholder Forum has the right to nominate two members of the PEFC Board of
Directors through the PEFC Nominating Committee
! The Stakeholder Forum has the right to nominate technical/standards advisors to the PEFC
Panel of Experts.
! The Stakeholder Forum will acquire one vote per member up to a maximum of 50% (rounded
down) of those of PEFC Council (e.g. if there are 35 PEFC Council members who have a total
of 61 votes, the Stakeholder Forum will have a maximum of 30 votes. If there are 25 members
of the Stakeholder Forum, they will have 25 votes.
Membership:
! There will be an annual membership fee at rates to be determined by the Board. The
Governance Review Panel envisages the fee per member organisation to be of the order of
$2,000 to $10,000 per annum and that such fees should be designated funds for the purpose of
providing Secretariat and similar facilitative services to the Stakeholder Forum. In
exceptional circumstances, the Governance Review Panel suggests that, with the consent of
the Board, PEFC be willing to accept services and/or expertise in kind in lieu of annual fees.
! Eligibility will apply to international organisations (defined as having substantial operations
in more than one country) which have interests in PEFC’s activities, and as such are
stakeholders. This includes all current extraordinary members, but extends eligibility to
many international organisations that would not currently be eligible. Examples of the
eligible types of international organisation include:
o Trade associations,
o Labour associations e.g. for forestry and/or timber production workers,
o Environmental NGOs,
o Timber production companies,
o Governmental and/or quasi governmental bodies,
o Standards bodies,
o Certification and accreditation bodies,
o Academic and/or scientific bodies,
o Consumer associations.
Frequency of Meetings:
! To be determined by the Stakeholder Forum, but the Governance Panel suggests one physical
meeting per annum in addition to the Stakeholder Forum’s role as part of the General
Assembly
! The Governance Panel encourages the Stakeholder Forum to use electronic media for
discussion and debate between meetings
PEFC National
Governing
Bodies (NGBs)
General Assembly
Stakeholder
PEFC Council
(One to Five Votes per
Forum
Member) (Up to 50% of PEFC
Council Votes)
PEFC Board of
Directors Sub-Committees
(Twelve Members, (Standing or Ad Hoc)
PEFC Panel of Two Nominated by
Experts Stakeholder Forum)
(Nominated by PEFC
Council and Executive
Stakeholder Forum) Committee
PEFC
PEFC Director-
Independent
General
Consultants International
(Qualified Pool of Headquarters
Technical Specialists)
comments
Independent Consultant starts scheme
assessment.
Make
mandatory
optional Report back to Board of Directors and revisions
applicant within a target time of 7 weeks. to scheme
If approved, scheme is
General Assembly (GA) members If rejected, the applicant is
endorsed and mutually
recognised by members of the approve or reject informed and can request to
PEFC Council and official recommendation by the Board have scheme reconsidered at
announcement is made on the next General Assembly
of Directors via postal ballot
PEFC Council Web Page
Recommended
Capacity
Prospective PEFC International
Building
member/scheme Headquarters may
decides to apply for work with prospective
mutual recognition by member/ scheme to
PEFC improve quality
Appeal
Transmits
Timeline (Illustrative) Appeal of
Independent PEFC Board of
1. Prospective member may work with Rejection
Assessment Directors reviews
PEFC International Headquarters scheme, technical
[Ongoing as necessary until submission] assessment and
2. Upon submission, scheme transmitted decides on status
for Independent Assessment
(Consultant and Panel of Experts) for Transmits
comment, review, and recommendation Approval
(including with Approval
[100 Days]
3. Decision of Independent Assessment conditions)
transmitted to Members (on approval),
back to prospective member (on
rejection), or Board of Directors (on
appeal of Assessment’s recommendation)
4. Decision by Board of Directors (in PEFC General
Assembly Rejection
special session) upon appeal of rejection
or findings of Assessment (if applicable) decides on
[14 Days] endorsement by
5. General Assembly decides on Internet ballot
endorsement by Internet ballot [14 Days]
Acceptance
Proposed Scheme
receives mutual
endorsement
Summary
This brief paper provides a theoretical approach to solving, the ‘problem’ of
legitimacy, its relationship to quality of global (forest) governance, and how
to determine, or evaluate, quality. Here, it is argued that legitimacy of global
governance is understood institutionally in terms of structure, process and
outcomes, and it is the degree of interaction between these elements, which
determines quality of governance. Each of the governance arrangements
linked to legitimacy in the previous sections (such as accountability and
transparency) are located hierarchically within an assessment framework
based upon principles, criteria and indictors (P, C & I). The actual relationship
of these P, C & I to the structure and process of governance is explained
diagrammatically. An evaluative matrix, based upon these P, C & I and
related also to their institutional expression, is also presented.
Discussion
In the literature used in this paper, which spans approximately two decades,
it is possible to discern an interest in coming to grips with the structures and
processes, which underpin contemporary environmental governance. This
emerges relatively early in the material, with a clear distinction made between
governing, understood as a process of coordination, steering, influencing or
‘balancing’ social-political interactions, and governance, interpreted as the
structure that emerges in a social-political system as an outcome of
interaction.40 This idea re-emerges subsequently in terms of ‘governance as
structure’, understood as the models utilised by various institutions (and
repeating some of the debates surrounding typologies of governance), and
‘governance as process’, again referring to the idea of steering or co-
ordinating.41
40
Kooiman, “Findings, Speculations and Recommendations”, pp. 258-259.
41
Pierre and Peters, Governance, Politics and the State, pp. 14-24.
42
Kooiman, “Findings, Speculations and Recommendations”, p. 260
43
Kooiman, “Social-Political Governance: Introduction” p. 5. See also Robert Falkner, “Private
Environmental Governance and International Relations: Exploring the links”, Global Environmental
Politics 3(2) (2003) pp. 72-87. For a discussion on the interplay between civil society, globalisation,
forest management and governance, and which reflects much of the thinking contained in this
introduction, see also Gordon M. Hickey and John L. Innes, “Monitoring suatinable forest management
in different jurisdictions”, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 108 (2005) pp. 241-260. For a
detailed investigation of ‘new’ forest governance, see Peter Glück, Jeremy Rayner, Benjamin Cashore,
Arun Agrawal, Steven Bernstein, Doris Capistrano, Karl Hogl, Bernd-Markus Liss, Connie
McDermott, Jagmohan S. Maini, Tapani Oksanen, Pekka Ollonqvist, Helga Pülzl, Rwald Rametsteiner
and Werner Pleschberger, “Changes in the Governance of Forest Resources”, in Forests in the Global
Balance ed. G. Mery, R. Alfaro, M. Kaninnen, and M. Lobovikov (Helsinki: IUFRO, 2005), pp. 51-74,
at pp. 55-64.
44
Kooiman, “Findings, Speculations and Recommendations”, p. 259.
45
Kjaer, Governance, p. 190.
INSTITUTION
Governance
System
Outcomes Outputs
(Products: criteria,
standards, policies, etc.)
(Determination of
Legitimacy governance
quality)
46
Jan Kooiman, “Societal Governance” in Debating Governance, p. 159.
47
This approach is adapted from Lammerts van Beuren and Blom, Hierarchical Framework, pp. 5-9.
48
Lammerts van Beuren and Blom, Hierarchical Framework, p. 34.
49
This term first appears in the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted by
General Assembly resolution 41/128 of 4 December 1986 (Gaventa, John, “Making Rights Real:
exploring citizenship, participation and accountability”, Journal of International Development Studies
33 (2) (2002) pp. 1-11).
50 See for example John Dryzek and Valerie Braithwaite, “On the Prospects for Democratic
Deliberation: Values Analysis Applied to Australian Politics” Political Psychology 21 (2) (200),
pp. 241-266.
51
Lammerts van Beuren and Blom, Hierarchical Framework, p. 20.
52
The Montréal Process, Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management
of Temperate and Boreal Forest Ecosystems, Second edition, December 1999, p. 5.
53
Lammerts van Beuren and Blom, Hierarchical Framework, pp. 22 and 34.
54 Lammerts van Beuren and Blom, Hierarchical Framework, p. 22.
Equality
Resources
Transparency
Agreement
Dispute settlement
Problem solving
Durability
It should be noted that the P, C & I method of evaluation suggested here, and
derived from the forest management literature, is not without its critics in the
field of environmental science. Indicators in particular have been labelled a
“pathological corruption of the reductionist approach” resulting in a shadow
world based on voodoo science.55 This has led to the conclusion that they are
best used in a controlled manner to account for the critical dimensions of a
system, and only in conjunction with other simultaneous views.56
With these observations in mind, the second tool, designed to located these P,
C, & I within their institutional context, is presented here. This model
accounts for those critical institutional dimensions (or arrangements) within
the governance system to which the indicators and associated criteria and
principles presented above have been hierarchically related. See Figure 1.2
below.
KEY
Typeface indicates hierarchical relationship at the PRINCIPLE, CRITERION and
INDICATOR levels.
It should be noted in this representation that implementation is to be
conceived in terms of the interaction between structure and process, which
have delivered the outcomes in need of implementation. This model therefore
differs slightly from the hierarchical framework presented in Table 1.3. This
incompatibility should be seen as having arisen out of the attempt to
understand governance from an alternative, but simultaneous viewpoint,
which takes a greater account of the complexity of the interactions within the
system.57