FSC-Watch

An independent observer of the Forest Stewartship Council

FSC: 10 unanswered questions. And one new one.Tags: Worldwide, FSC Secretariat, Tropical Forest Trust

One of things that we at FSC-Watch worry about is that the FSC seems to have such a poor memory - so poor, in fact, that it keeps making the same mistakes over and over again. So, to help it along, we are issuing here a list of some of the questions we have asked over the last few months, and that have never been answered. And we have an important new question too.

  1. In what sense is wood covered by the 'Controlled Wood Standard' actually 'controlled', and by whom?

  2. When is a murder not 'violent'? (This is a 'trick' question, so we'll give you the answer: when it's got anything to do with a company that the Tropical Forest Trust is aiming to massage through the FSC certification process).

  3. Do the FSC's rules allow logging operators - such as the Presov Forest District in Slovakia - to seek certification from another certifier if their current certifier has 'de-certified' them?

  4. What has happened to the Papua New Guinea Eco-Forestry Forum's complaint about the certification of Ernslaw One, which was submitted to the FSC Secretariat in April 2005?

  5. Why was the certificate of Wijma in Cameroon not 'suspended' in February of this year, even though its certifier, Bureau Veritas, had been suspended for issuing the certificate?

  6. Why does the FSC never publish any information about certificates that have been 'suspended' or withdrawn?

  7. Where in the FSC's statutes is the action of 'suspension' of a certificate or a certifier defined?

  8. Why was the decision taken by the FSC Board last December to 'review' the FSC's pesticides policy that had only just been adopted, and to extend until June 2007 the period in which certifiers could apply for derogations from the pesticides policy?

  9. Why does SGS think that every log exported from PNG for the last 10 years was legal?

  10. Where are SGS's surveillance reports on Russia's Terneyles for the last 2 years, where is the FSC's accreditation report on SGS and Terneyles from June 2006, why has the FSC Secretariat done nothing about the fact that SGS has failed to produce the reports it is required to produce, and why has the FSC Board failed to do anything about the fact that the FSC Secretariat has done nothing? (OK, so that's actually four questions, but there are so many unanswered questions about Terneyles that we'll have to pretend that it is just one...).

And the new question is:

Where are FSC's audited accounts for the last 13 years?

Comments

What is total diference between a normal organization and a sect? This is transparency in relation to procedures, persons, money, relationships. If FSC is the sect they will disappear.

Oh me, call on me. I have a question. How can WWF and Greenpeace completely give FSC a clean slate of backing and not be held accountable for faciliating ancient forest logging? More on this burning question at:


Stop WWF's Betrayal of the Earth's Last Ancient Forests

Regards,
g.b.

No backlinks yet.

Add a comment

Please leave these fields blank (spam trap):

No HTML please.


You can edit this comment until 30 minutes after posting.

< 61 older entries157 newer entries >