An independent observer of the Forest Stewartship Council

Liedeker to quit as FSC DirectorTags: FSC Secretariat

FSC-Watch has received the following announcement from the Chair of the FSC Board.

Dear colleagues

The FSC Board of Directors regrets to announce the unexpected decision of the Executive Director, Mr. Heiko Liedeker to step down after more than six years of successful leadership of the FSC and thanks him wholeheartedly for his outstanding commitment and contribution. Upon request of the FSC Board of Directors, Heiko Liedeker will continue to manage the FSC until a successor is successfully recruited.

When Heiko came to the FSC in September 2001 the organization was in severe financial straits. He turned the finances around, built a stable global organization, and oversaw the difficult, but necessary, process of relocating the office from Oaxaca, Mexico to Bonn, Germany. He has guided the comprehensive review of FSC's core programs - standard setting and accreditation, and led the creation of FSC's subsidiary companies, the Accreditation Services International (ASI), to deliver credible global accreditation of certification bodies, and the FSC Global Development (FSC GD), to provide direct licensing of the FSC trademarks. Under his leadership, the FSC has grown dramatically to include over 8,400 certificates in over 85 countries, and nearly 100 million hectares of certified forests and plantations. During the search for a new executive, Heiko Liedeker will continue to manage the FSC as it begins a new era of trademark licensing and implementation of its newly developed Global Strategy.

We wish to thank Heiko Liedeker for his excellent achievements over the last six years for the FSC. Please join the FSC Board of Directors in wishing Heiko Liedeker every success in this new phase of his professional career.

FSC will begin a process of recruiting for a new Executive Director in the near future. Information about this process will be posted on the FSC website at www.fsc.org as appropriate.

Roberto S. Waack Chairman FSC Board of Directors


A quick search on the internet shows that Heiko Liedeker has been involved with controversial certifications for a long time. Good riddance, Mr. Liedeker.


Sounds like you can do a better job. Have you submitted your application yet???????


I'm a sailor and one of the most important rules is that you don't step on a sinking ship. Especially one that you are trying to sink.

Thanks anyway.



So in trying to sink the ship you have forgotten about the de-forestation and bad management practices around the world and you are contributing to overall destruction of our planet.

Come'on even Pirates help!

Peter Pan

FSC has done nothing to address this. Tembec in Manitoba has broken the law and is now lobbying to remove the same laws from their work permits--all with Smartwood's help.

Smartwood is another advocate and lobbyist for the forest industry. The conservation groups involved have told me that they have a 'hands off' approach to FSC certificates. So, what is left?

I will not waste my time trying to reform a scheme that is already clearly dead.

My efforts to protect forests involve grassroots organising. We are trying to get Tembec in Manitoba to stop breaking the law. We are creating a conservation community who think that logging in Provincial Parks (which we allow here in Manitoba) is unacceptable.

What are you doing to protect the forests of this world, Mr. Pan?

Mr Nickarz

Like you, working at grass roots level, I use the FSC as a concept to drive change. Although there are flaws within the FSC system, the principle behind it is sound. It sets out goals that provide a holistic approach towards sound forest management and if the managers, workers and contractors can stick to the guidelines, the overall management of the biotic and abiotic factors is better than when we first started the process. The certificate is a reqard for their efforts and they know that it can be taken away for bad practices.

The scope of the FSC system is so large that there is little chance that there will be consensus by all role players, (from the activists to the greedy capitalists) but it still gives us a framework to work within.

The system has therefore been made so complicated and confusing for a relatively simple activity of looking after our natural heritage.

Enjoy your day.


Having read Mr Nickarz correspondence to Richard Donovan and the alleged Tembec irregularities, I have been biting my tongue and (mentally) drafting a scathing response to Mr Nickarz who says he has decided to torpedo the good ship FSC.

Your response however, Peter, is measured and reasonable and I endorse it.

The malpractice from greedy capitalists and the hysteria whipped up by activists take the eye off the ball. The FSC framework IS sound but also worth improving.

We needn't start re-inventing the wheel again. Good (or better) policing is required to make it's revolution more smooth.



My condemnation of the FSC is based upon results.

Does FSC ask anyone to change the most basic problem of forestry--clear cutting?

I don't know what you believe, but clear cutting is bad for forests. It is a violent interruption of the forest cycle.

Defending clear cutting is really not helpful for forests.

Under an FSC certification pesticides are allowed. There is no plan to phase them out in Tembec's certificate. There is no talk of even reducing the amount logged from primary or old-growth forests. There is even efforts to help Tembec make the laws regarding clear cut size "more flexible".

Mark, my comments about Tembec are based on what Tembec and Smartwood told me in e-mails. If you want to see them, I will gladly send them to you. There is nothing 'alleged' about them. If you want to accuse me of lying, then say it outright.

Your good ship FSC is rudderless and adrift. I have yet to see any improvement in the way Tembec is conducting their forestry operations here in Manitoba.

Besides generalities, please enlighten me on the specifics of why FSC is any better.


My support of the FSC is based upon results.

I have personally experienced timber using industries changing to embrace the principles of the FSC

Printers changing their paper, promoting sustainability and printing such statements on their imprint pages
Authors specifying their book to be printed on certified paper (JK Rowling, Bill Bryson John Grisham etc);
Door manufacturers sourcing acceptable plywood;
High quality joiners specifying FSC timber and rejecting CITES timbers;
Bridge manufacturers refusing commissions that specified use of non sustainable timber (and then educated their clients on what is an acceptable timber);
Kitchen manufacturers re-thinking suppliers;
Pulpmills and newsprint manufacturers following sustainability rules;
Pen makers (using tiny quantities) specifying sustainable wood;
Papermills making massive changes to source sustainable raw materials;
Sawmillers undertaking complete re-thinks of their raw material supply;

I have also personally taken part in and witnessed:

Forest managers improving the following:
pollution control;
minimising the use of pesticides;
planning better for the long term;
Assessing the (non silvicultural) benefits of the forests they manage;
More consideration of the people in and around the forests;
Assessing environmental impacts;
Harvesting timber at lower levels than the total woodland production;
Millions of dollars of valuable tropical timber not purchased until the woodland it is from is sustainably managed;
Woodland owners undertaking woodland management improvements on a scale they've never attempted before;

The list goes on. Practical and positive changes for the better.

The common denominator? The FSC.

So I know the FSC works.

All in all there is greater awareness of the issues of sustainability in the public mind. The well-read member of the public now knows more of CITES species and the UN Red data lists.

You are upset at what you see in Manitoba. And on that basis you condemn the WHOLE organisation INTERNATIONALLY as incompetent, rudderless and adrift?

I challenge you to write the principles of a forest management standard fit for the Planet, and come up with something that does what I've listed above (and the rest) and not be similar to the current principles and criteria of the FSC.

In fact it may be identical (apart from your aversion to clear-felling).

Clearfelling however IS an acceptable practice in Europe and the UK. In fact clearfelling is necessary in the (plantation) forest managerís tool kit wherever plantations occur in the world. It adds to the age diversity of a woodland, and by adding age diversity it improves the wildlife habitats of the woodland and can actually improve growth, lower dependency on management interventions on the restock.

So no forest standard for the planet can exclude/proscribe clearfelling.

As I have said it is inappropriate to condemn the FSC based on your local experience. If Smartwood/Tembec are in breach, then better policing/withdrawal of certificate etc should be done by the FSC. One thing is for sure; more and more people are specifying FSC forest products and if a woodland is not certified then sales will become more difficult. And (come time) loss of a FSC certificate may injure where it hurts most - in the pocket.

I say 'alleged' of your experience, as I have never been to Manitoba, seen the irregularities or formed an opinion - so don't put words in my mouth. I have spent a lifetime calling spades spades and would have no hesitation in saying you were a liar - if I thought you were one.

Whilst I can understand your frustration it does not make any sense to start from the beginning again.

On a side note: I was in BC and hiked in the Casdcadian Mountains near Vancouver in 2005. I walked among 40m+ tall Douglas Fir and Western Hemlock. It was thick with signs of wildlife, birdlife and (alarmingly for a few minutes) bear. I was amazed that only 100 or so years ago the area had been completely logged. The planet has vast potential to repair itself - if it is allowed to. I believe that the FSC Principles and Criteria are an important tool to assisting in that.

And a final thought. I am a practising forester in the UK. I bitterly resisted the imposition of the FSC. It's only by seeing it in operation that I've become more positive.



They are fucking up our forests here in Manitoba, and from what I can glean from this site and google, other forests are being abused too. It looks like Sweden is having trouble with an FSC-certified forest company.

Do you seriously want me to turn a blind eye to what's happening locally because of some vague promise of better forestry elsewhere?

When Tembec starts to trumpet their certification in the local media, people are going to believe that the paper they make is 'green'. What are we supposed to do, spend years trying to get their certificate pulled?

I'm not going to waste my time trying to fix your problem. FSC is a failure. I'm going to do my best to make sure the FSC logo is exposed for what it really is.

FSC is not something worth saving. Basic grassroots activism is being thwarted by FSC. In the case of Tembec, it's harder to get them to follow the law now that they have FSC to lobby for them. FSC is a step backwards for conservation and a real boost for the forest industry public relations.

You say that no forest standard for the planet can exclude clear felling. What a sad lack of vision. Does every forestry operation need pesticides too? I suppose we shouldn't question the rate of cutting either, or the amount of old growth/primary forest logging, or any of the other established practices.

Clear cutting is a gross violation of the forest ecosystem.
The fact that FSC does nothing to even begin to address this is pretty sad. So what if clear cutting is an accepted practice in Europe and the UK? Acceptable to whom, the forest industry? So is FSC. It's the only method of forestry here in Manitoba and it still is bad for the forest.

What's my alternative? Smaller, mills using less wood. More labour-intensive operations, alternative fibres, higher prices for wood and paper products. If you have to feed hundreds of thousands of cubic meters per year into a mill, then it's unsustainable.



I am bust with a Masters Degree in Environmental Management and part of my thesis is trying to guage what effects certification (FSC, ISO 14001 and other food systems) has on environmental management practices.

It would be great to get your perspective.

Please email me at pan699@gmail.com



Peter Pan

What I would say is 'good': look for the *empirical* evidence (as every good Masters' student should do.) Please let us know what you find...



I realise that I am in the realm of the sceptics and perhaps where you are, the FSC may not be working for you. But from where I am, using the FSC to drive change towards good forest management has been significant. The thesis is there to test the effects the FSC has had on Environmental Management within the general management of the forests.

I was in anoffice talking to a land manager when the owner walked in and asked who I was. I told him i was a certification consultant and was busy with a FSC follow. Visibly upset he said he was very angry with the FSC/ Initially I thought he was a FSC watch blogger and to my surprise he said to me that for the 25 years he has owned this particular piece of property, he could not get his sons or his land mamagers to do certain practices, but when the FSC was introduced, it was implemented within 6 months.

This is one example that got me to use the FSC to drive change. Visa versa, there are things in the FSC that msut change and we are not oblivious to that.

It is better to go to bed half hungry than with no food at all.


Likewise I have found that some very good management practices were stifled by costs, 'no necessity' and any other excuse the parsimonious owner/land manager came up with.

However the drive to achieve an internationally acceptable standard has seen many rethink, and I have also seen forest management standards rise as a result of the FSC.

However no standard should exist without a procedure for detecting crimes against it and punishing them. If withdrawal of the certificate and the public infamy that results is all that can be done it should be done. In time that action will hit the malefactor in the pocket.

Right now the disapprobation of the big ENGO's should also help.

See the following for an example of how powerful they can be:


In the furore FSC approved alternatives were discussed at length - although there doesn't seem to be much mention in this report.

Perhaps David will be heartened by this?

But perhaps not, I think.



It is clear that David has little or no forestry background. Please do not get him too confused or mad. The more you explain, the more he exposes his ignorance of forestry principles and forest management criteria. I wonder if he knows that certification is based on principles and criteria.
We can't blame is local experience. Thats all he has. But please do not compare and condemn the international milieu based on your tiny experience.
On the other hand, if you have a better scheme, please put it forward and lets move on.
I for one, I was extremely negative to the efforts of FSC until I got to witness and experience of what FSC has changed in Africa. It might not be sufficient yet, but its better than nothing and better than all the other schemes.
If you solution of reducing volumes and putting up more labour intensive activities in Forestry, then you are welcomed to provide us with "human beings / animals" who can haul logs from tropical forests like skidders do. Do you have any idea of the demand for wood based products world wide? DO you prefer environmentally friendly products or concrete, steel, fuel, etc???? What can you replace paper with, if less paper is produced or if the price of paper increases???????? I am even surprised that you know that paper is a wood based product, because from you postings, you give an impression which makes one think that you hardly master what forestry is and what comes from forest products and even thier uses.
Please try to be objective and lets move on.
Thanks to people like Peter who are more objective and analytical. We know the FSC ship is not perfect and has loop holes, but the base is sound and fundamental. All we need is to get a good balance world wide and make it work.




Thanks for your comments.

Please send me a mail as I too have some experience in Africa.




Dear Mr. Baba,

No, I don't have a forestry background, but I do have a forest conservation background of 17 years. I've been to clear cuts in BC, Manitoba, and Ontario.

At least I have the guts to use my real name.

Oh, and another thing. Using several question marks doesn't make the question more compelling.

Your 'principles and criteria' fail to address many of the problems facing our forests--clear cutting, old/primary growth preservation, pesticide use and others. This is the fundamental failure of FSC.

The market for wood products is what you make it, Ali. Paper can and is being made out of other fibres besides wood. Newsprint in Manitoba can be made with wheat straw--I was told as much by the retired chemical engineer from the Tembec mill in Pine Falls.

I am objective. I take a reasoned and objective look at the FSC and I conclude that it is woefully lacking in it's objective in conservation of forests. It is the same old forestry re-packaged in a fancy new wrapper.

Again, I won't support a bad program just because there were some good examples in other places. Your experience in Africa may be positive, but it also may be negative for the people and forests there. I really don't know.

As you have pointed out, I can only speak from experience. My experience here is that Tembec has, and is continuing to ruin the Boreal Forests of Manitoba. The only difference is now they have a certificate from FSC.

David Nickarz (my real name)

Hello David,

Nice to read from you. Its also good to know that you take more time to analyse my punctuation and apellation, instead of analysing the message. Thats why you assume that FSC principles do not take care of pesticides use and conservation aspects. That also shows that you read and "see" just the 10 FSC principles and forget about the criteria and indicators which are offcourse "contextual". For pesticide control, please look at FSC PC&I 6.6 and if you have the opprotunity to see indicators somewhere, look at how it is evaluated. Once again, if you have a better proposal as to how to control this, you are welcome to put it forward.
Having 17 years of forest conservation and being able to talk only about Tembec, leaves us with many questions as to where you got the 17 years of experience. But thats not the most important issue. It also tells us that you are one of the extreme ecologists, who sleep on wooden beds but fight against logging - very 'objective' I think.
I don't see how you can say experince in Africa is positive but negative for the people and forest there. For your information, benefits from an SFM scheme is expressed with respect to the Forest and the people around, and NOT with respect to the logging company. Therefor, having a positive impact means the forest and people around it are benefiting from the SFM scheme which is confirmed or testified through a certification scheme like FSC.
Offcourse there are other possibilities of making products like paper, and others. If you can have time (which i think you do), please make a small analyses on what it costs on the environment, to use all the alternative processes. If it was the best, I can assure you that economic and ecological forces would have already put it in place by now. Just an example, there are projects that consume 1 litre of gasoil, to produce 1 litre of biofuel. How does that sound to you?
I think you have a very personnal problem with clear cutting. Peter's explanation should be clear to you, and besides clear cutting cannot be accepted by FSC, if the sustainable management system put in place does not provide an alternative or a remedy within the cycle.
I still do not see why you should assume that Ali Baba is not a real name. maybe its because you hardly recognise good schemes like FSC and thus can't recognise names that talk good about good schemes. I do respect you opinion, but the name does not change the content and the message. You can get to me at yuimeldi@yahoo.co.uk. Just for your information, I have experienced more than 10 FSC audits in Africa, and carried out projects with people around certified forests in Africa.

Have a nice day David



Ali, Peter and I have told you of positive experiences in Europe and Africa, yet you persist in your condemnation of the whole of the FSC - from your position of self admitted ignorance.

You say: 'Again, I won't support a bad program just because there were some good examples in other places. Your experience in Africa may be positive, but it also may be negative for the people and forests there. I really don't know.'

The 'good examples in other places' precisely proves that the FSC works.

So if you 'really don't know', and are not willing to learn then how you have the immortal rind to condemn the FSC from your basis of ignorance is a bit beyond me.

I don't argue that the FSC is perfect; I don't argue that things in Manitoba are as they should be. I do argue however that the FSC is the best we have got, and that we should do our very best to improve it and give it more teeth in it's policing. The FSC should also act positively against offenders.

The object of this website is to achieve improvements to the FSC. I don't see too much on this website saying that the principles and criteria of the FSC are fundamentally or fatally flawed. What I see is frustration that the policing of the FSC is wanting.

Once the policing of the FSC is correct then I think we shall see much more credibility.

But just one more point. It is inevitable that critics (of anything) will exist. Sometimes their criticism will be well founded, and all credit to them for bringing it to the attention (in this instance) of the FSC. At other times their criticism will be wrong.



You guys can waste your time trying to reform. I know a bad scheme when I see one. Obviously, I'm not the first one to bring up problems with FSC.

You call me extremist and ignorant. Fine. At least I stand for something real, like forests and ecosystems. You guys spend your precious time defending bureaucracy. That'll look great on your headstones.

It doesn't take an expert to see when someone is sick. It doesn't take a forestry degree to see that clear cutting is a disease upon the landscape. A ten year old child knows a clear cut when he sees it, and knows that it's bad.

I do question the legitimacy of your African examples. You point them out as a positive, and say that it is proof that FSC works and is worth keeping. Prove it. Show me.

There should be more policing, but there isn't. There should be no clear cutting, but there is. There should be no cutting of primary/old growth, but there is. There should be no cutting in endangered species habitat, but there is. Companies should follow the law, but they don't. Smartwood shouldn't help Tembec weaken the law regarding wildlife protection, but they do.

All you got is 'should'. Do you have any wills, cans or does's?

I looked into the issue of pesticide use about five years ago. The language used is very qualified and weak. It encourages the use of alternatives, but does not actively ban them.

This is the fundamental problem with FSC. You can say all the nice things that you want, but if they are not applied then it's all hot air.

6.6 talks about reducing pesticide use and finding alternatives but Tembec will still be using Roundup on their clear cuts. The only difference is that they won't be spraying it from helicopters--they will be applying it by hand. There is no plan to end pesticide use.

This simply isn't good enough.

Don't confuse the issue. Paper can be, and is made from all sorts of fibres. It doesn't make sense to build roads into untouched wilderness, cut down all the trees, transport them to the mill and process them when you can get farmers to deliver the wheat straw fibre right to your door.

If Ali Baba is your real name, the I apologize. People use pseudonyms on this site and I assumed that you used one too.

Dave Nickarz


You sound more like an English teacher (or is it American??)than an open minded forest ecologist with 17 years of experience.

So where doe sthe issue of succession and climax fall in to your realm. Is there in your opinion, a climax?? How much disturbance is required to keep youe ecosystems healthy and how much biodiversity is lost when there are man made control measures put in place???

The logic youa re using now is not dissimilar to the logic Greepeace used for the Brent-Spar Oil Rig. What a disaster. Putting it back in to Ali Baba's context, you would use 5 L of diesel to make 1 L of biofuel - nice one.

Neither Mark, Ali or myself totally agree witht he FSC system. It biggest assest is its biggest liability, and that is being run by the membership. I was very privelages to attend the GA in Brazil and I have never seen a system work like this in my life. When a vote was cast and the result displayed, everybody agreed to it, and the job is done.

I am sure that if you harnessed your energy in a more positive way, you could really make a huge difference to what is important to us - the forests and its people.


Peter Pan (not my real name)

I would like to follow up on what Ali was saying about the effects of certification in Africa, specifically in the Congo Basin. Although there are only a handful of certificates in the region, their effect can only be described as positive, both to forests and to people. I can provide specific examples if anyone is interested, but what is even more exciting is the general acceptance within the industry that certification is a must. The majority of medium and large forestry companies have integrated certification into their medium and long-term business strategies and are pursuing legality standards as a step towards it. How can that be anything but positive ?

Given the dire situation in the region ten years ago no-one could have predicted such a massive change in forest management practise. Of course this change is due to the many factors and the result of the hard work of a diverse range of individuals and organisations. However, the role of FSC has to be recognised here and despite the odd imperfection, no-one else has been able to provide a similar service in the region.

A Forester

Dear A Forester

I totally agree with your comments.
I would be very interested in reading about specific examples in Africa as to what FM practices have changed as a result of the FSC.

If you wish you can email me at pan699@gmail.com

Looking forward you your information

Peter Pan

A fascinating thread of debate. I'm familiar with FSC and Chain of Custody through work in the Printing and Paper industry. I'm not a Forestry or Ecology expert, but I have noticed in this thread and others of a similar nature the following:

1. A tendency to use qualitative rather than quantitative "facts";

2. A tendancy to to use a variety of techniques to "support" points of view which fall into the category of "Crooked Thinking" (I have a couple of copies of a book on this subject written by Robert Henry Thouless which make recognising these flaws easy);

3. A tendency to let emotion have precedence over objectivity.

Arguments are easier to defend when you stick to the facts and don't descend into insult.

As an example of FSC's effect on Forestry activities, consider how many other organisations and certification schemes have been created since FSC started.

If one of those proves ultimately to offer greater benefit to this planet, then FSC has served its evolutionary purpose. If FSC evolves to become the most effective ecological guardian, it will still need groups like this to act as its conscience.

Don't hesitate to criticise, but make it constructive if you want to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

ps My name is an accident of birth: I'm not writing under a pseudonym.

Mr. Wood,

Thank you for your call to reason.

Here are a few facts about Tembec's FSC Certification in Manitoba.

Before Certification; Tembec uses clear cutting as sole means of logging and logs in Manitoba's provincial parks. Tembec uses Roundup to suppress deciduous tree growth. None of this has changed. Tembec is also violating the Manitoba Endangered Species Act by logging and roading in Woodland Caribou habitat.

Tembec is also lobbying the provincial government to change the laws regarding wildlife protection after violating those laws.

FSC is being eroded by industry to become a rubber stamp with no real change. It is arguable that Tembec's operations have become less 'green' here in Manitoba.

My biggest concern is when consumers see the FSC logo, they are lulled into a sense of comfort about what they are buying. Conservation activists like me have a much harder time convincing both the company to change their ways and consumers to buy elsewhere.

Ultimately, this scheme will be tossed on the landfill of history. This scheme may have started off with hopeful intents, but has strayed far from it's origins.

David Nickarz

Dear David,

I have been investigating NGO's with principles based on sustainable development and found the FSC to be an excellent 'model' as it endeavors to balance social, economic and environmental interests in conserving the world's forests. It is a system designed to reward those who comply with a fairly rigorous set of standards. The work done by the FSC has also raised the awareness and interest in the preservation of forests globally and should work hand-in-hand with grass roots efforts being carried out by yourself and many millions of others around the world. It seems as though that there has been some controversy recently around some of the FSC certifications (APP) but evidence would suggest that they have done far more good than harm.
Any person or group needs to adapt and improve based on sound and constructive criticism. Working together in that spirit - Have you been in touch with the FSC to see how you can work together with them to raise the standards?




Yes I have. FSC Canada and the head office, and their dispute resolution people have given me nothing but the run around. They have discounted and diminished my inquiries, ignored my concerns and wasted my precious time. I have contacted them on several occasions.

Yes, I agree that FSC is an excellent model that endeavors to do all sorts of great things with forestry but simply doesn't. I guess I never looked closely until they arrived in my back yard.

You assert that FSC can be improved and adapted with sound and constructive criticism. I must respectfully disagree with you. FSC is a total failure and is now an excellent mechanism for wasting the time of NGO's and activists.

FSC has now become another forest destroying company--hand in hand with the forestry giants. FSC was originally designed to quell the "war in the woods". FSC companies have become my main target as a forest activist working for change in the forest.

I ask you this; Is clear cutting, using pesticides and illegally logging in endangered species habitat something that you want related to your forest products? The FSC on Tembec's newsprint from Pine Falls, Manitoba guarantees these and other awful practices--logging in provincial parks, illegal overcutting, polluting the Winnipeg River and Lake Winnipeg and excluding aboriginal people's concerns.

Some things are just too far gone to be reformed.

Thank you for the comment

David Nickarz

I consider the discussions about clearcuts top funny as long as you, Dave, disregard the large clearcuts of maize and corn throughout the "developed" world.
If you fight against some forest clearcuts while completely omitting the cornfields, cotton, raps, or potato fields that extend from one horizon to the other, with their annual erosion rate, then you are either blind or blinded.

You have your Manitoba example, which I am not going to judge due to the lack of first-hand info, and I have plenty of good examples from my 25 years in forestry on three continents where only FSC certification helped to or even initiated an elevation of not only forestry levels and environment protection, but also the health and safety of the employees and other aspects.

I also have examples of environmentalists who fight against any forest harvesting, wanting to ban cutting completely, and who publish on this very website, and who do not recognize a conifer from broadleaved tree. I can name them and prove it, but that probably would not mean that it applies to you.
Therefore, Dave, neither your local sample of possibly adverse effect of FSC certification can prove that FSC is a wrong way.

By the way, the strange feature of this site is a negative filtering - try to publish a positive photo, there is no chance you pass it through.


M. Juan
P.S. To avoid possible discussion, this is my true name, and English is not my native language, so sorry for possible mistakes.

Well said, M Juan!

I too have mentioned positive examples on this site as well, but there are none so blind as those that will not see.

There are plenty of positive examples of woodland improvement from the UK but of course they can't be displayed on this website.

This site (although set up as an instrument for improvement of the FSC) remains in danger of becoming a forum for the unenlightened and embittered.



re: Unenlightened and embittered.

Our FSC-certified company Tembec has just announced that they will no longer used recycled fibre in the production of their newsprint. So, they go from 22% post consumer recycled content down to zero.

There will be no consequences from the paid mouthpieces at FSC and their affiliated corporations. Nothing.

You can shove your certification scheme right up your enlightened asses. I've been working for the better part of two decades to preserve the forests in Manitoba from this industrial monster, and apart from a few key victories, we've been steadily losing forests to clear cuts, losing habitat for endangered species and watching these rapists break the law with no consequences.

FSC has done absolutely nothing to help the forests of Manitoba. FSC is part of the machine killing our forests and I will treat them like the enemy that they are.

Bitter? You got me on that one.

David Nickarz

Since when was $$$$ MONEY$$ an issue when it comes to SAFETY or ENVIORMENTAL Disasters???Tembec Manitoba Division cant even take care of 100meteres of land erosion envolviong our forests,and animals ,???What really goes on in our forests we dont know they are doing TEMBEC PINE FALLS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A BAD EXAMPLE GO to 13 lakeview Pine Falls, Manitoba THE ROCK SEE FOR YOUR OWN TWO EYES ,LOOKS like tembec well take the money and run and not clean this up ,when they recaptlized and could have fixed it right away ?????How can they clean this up when theydont even have enough for locks on the doors when they go Shut down after poluting the Fort Alexander Indian Reserve area????

Veracel: FSC’s ‘Death Certificate’ | FSC-Watch
FSC Watch: Veracel: FSC's 'Death Certificate'
World Rainforest Movement expresses strong criticism of the FSC in its statement reacting to the news that Veracel's monoculture eucalyptus plantations are now FSC certified. WRM notes that Veracel is the "last pie...

Add a comment

Please leave these fields blank (spam trap):

No HTML please.

You can edit this comment until 30 minutes after posting.

< 100 older entries118 newer entries >