FSC-Watch

I don't have a problem with Glen Barry targeting FSC on getting bans on stopping logging old growth. I do have a problem with Glen Barry casting a wide net and slagging off people/groups who may have never supported old growth logging.

By branding Friends of the Earth as being forest liars I believe Barry has branded myself as a liar despite the fact that I have never supported old growth logging or even met him (I regard this as a personal insult). I believe that he has also branded the organisation that currently employs me as also being forest liars, because we may have some interests in FSC Australia. FoE Australia has never supported old growth logging, nor has FSC Australia.

It could also be argued that his forest-liar tag also extends to supporters and members of Friends of the Earth, even in countries that do not have forest campaigns. We are now talking about millions of people in 72 countries, all being branded forest-liars!

Barry also blames not only current supporters of FSC, but also those who may have written something supportive about FSC in the past, but have now changed their minds. All of these people could also be described as being forest liars under Barry's definition (or that's what he's made clear to me in an email this morning). These people, like myself, may never have supported logging in old growth in any shape or form.

If you draw this nonsense to its logical conclusion, Barry himself is a forest liar or in simple terms a hypocrite.

Several years back Barry wrote http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/ecol-econ/msg03932.html;

"Many forest conservationists, myself included, have eagerly embraced forest certification, particularly standards set by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), as a promising tool to protect forests... Despite this scathing critique, this author continues to hope that FSC certification will realize its potential as a force for sustainable forestry AND forest protection...Certified forestry in concept clearly shows great potential to be ONE component of a strategy for the eventual elimination of deforestation and achievement of global forest sustainability. But not until rules are developed that clearly state and promote preservation of most remaining old-growth wildlands, limit most certification to regenerating secondary forests, and place any certified management of wildlands that does occur within a matrix of protected areas adequate to guarantee sustainability of ecosystems across landscapes."

Does Barry still support FSC certification of future old growth forests, ie secondary forests or has he like many others changed their minds about this controversial issue. If he has changed his mind why does he not allow others to do the same!

People in Glass Houses...

Anthony Amis

While I have little knowledge of FSC on a global scale, I am very well up to date on the FSC process in Ireland, having initially been a member of that process. I then became a very strong critic of what has turned out to be an utterly farcical process, even by what seems to be FSC International's low standards (low standards proven by the fact that FSC has and continue to accredit the Irish National Initiative).

I also can't speak about the certification of logging companies that fell ancient forests - we have little or none ancient forests in Ireland. However, there is a process by our semi-state forestry company, Coillte (the largest forestry company in Ireland by far, and manager of 1.1million acres), by which our high-value native forests are disposed of in land sales for developments of high-value estate. (I make the differentiation between ancient and native forests).

However, while Coillte has continued to enjoy FSC certification (and you can see many other postings on this site explaining exactly why Coillte shouldn't be certified), the biggest damage to the actual FSC process in Ireland and the development of the national standard has been the continued support by several NGOs and pseudo-NGOs (such as Friends of the Irish Environment, Woodlands of Ireland, An Taisce, Crann and Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment) for this damaging process.

So, I support Dr. Barry's motives, even though there may be question over the accuracy of what he says and his methods. I'm not saying that there IS or ISN'T a genuine question, honestly I don't know enough about these international organisations to be able to give an opinion.

All genuine NGOs have left the Irish process. As far as I'm concerned, any International NGO that continues to support FSC International and doesn't call for the immediate withdrawal of both Coillte's FSC certificate and the Irish National Initiative's accreditation is deserving of all criticism laid before them. As far as I'm concerned, these organisations have aided in the certified destruction of our landscape, and have worked completely against the genuine NGOs in Ireland.

With regards

Ciarán Hughes

Mendocino Redwoods Company has FSC certification.

MRC's Option A from their site states:

Option A

Wildlife Habitat Old Growth

MRC will not harvest old growth as defined below:

Terrestrial – Un-entered stands of more than 20 acres.

– Stands of 5 acres or more with an average of 6 old growth
trees per acre or more (old growth trees defined as trees over 250
years old and 48 inches d.b.h. or larger) .

– Individual residual old growth trees with significant wildlife
value (eg. large limbs, cavities, nesting platforms, limited available
structures).

I have to ask:

-Can the MRC log "entered" stands containing old-growth?

(Most TPZ's have been entered, in fact, I'd like to see an unentered stand that is not a park or refuge)

-Can the MRC log old growth stands less than 20 acres?

(Most of the old growth stands left in TPZs are very small residual groves)

-Can the MRC log stands of old-growth that are more than five acres containing 5 or less old growth trees per acre?

(An acre is a very small piece of land, how many old growth trees can you fit in an acre? To achieve this requirement, 30 OG trees would have to exist on 5 acres. Furthurmore, residual Old growth trees and groves are extremely rare on TPZs, and the chance of finding 6 or more OG trees on one acre is extremly low).

-Who determines the "significant wildlife value" of residual old growth trees? (Besides wildlife surveyors, who else but the MRC?)

Our old growth may be safer if MRC takes over, but they better get up, walk, and clump together in a central location. Saftey in numbers, right?

Anthony needs to get a grip. Never have I or Ecological Internet's end ancient forest campaign suggested FSC Australia supports ending ancient forest logging. We generically listed the Friends of the Earth movement in the forest alert because many national groups do indeed support primary forest logging, and it would have taken several pages to list each member organization's decision on the matter. The truth of the matter is the UK FSC affiliate has since announced it is no longer recommending FSC and is considering pulling out. It is unacceptable for a movement as important as FOE to have ad hoc, conflicting national policies and thus the entire movement is a target.

Anthony, it was never suggested in the alert that at one time I did not believe FSC may be a force for good. I worked for years doing small scale community forestry in Papua New Guinea. This is what we had in mind for sustainable forestry -- local communities with small hand held mills felling a couple trees a hectare under a rigorous ecological management plan and tied to large-scale protection nearby. As we know it has instead become something far less ecologically rigorous, essentially warmed over industrial best management practices.

Your behavior towards me is bizarre and shrill. The last resort of a bereft ideology is to attack the messenger on peripheral issues not central to the claim that most large NGO have sold out ancient forests. This is not about me, it is about your FOE movement supporting ancient forest logging.

If my behaviour is bizarre and shrill then how do you react when you are falsely labelled as being a liar? How do you feel for instance when someone labels you as a hypocrite?

Could you please provide the methodology you used to determine that 'many' FoE groups support ancient forest logging? Could you also provide the final list? Are the many FoE groups listed simply because of their membership of FSC or are there other factors involved (ie consumer countries in Europe)?

In terms of your work in PNG, where were you operating and over the years how many hectares of ancient forest were eventually logged? Was your work certified by FSC? Has your work in PNG in any way opened up PNG forests to further logging by wokabout sawmills? Do any communities that you worked with, now support larger scale logging after initially getting involved in logging via wokabout mill projects?

It is a shame that people are taking things personally.

From an Irish perspective we have tried the FSC process to the bitter end. FSC ignore our valid concerns and have found over the last eight years that the process is basically industry led.

In Ireland FSC certified forestry practices continue to damage soils, water and biodiversity and benefit the big industries not local communities.Ireland is a wealthy country. I dont like to think what forestry practices go on in poor countries.

FSC may have been a good idea and have had the best of intentions but it is failing and on the ground FSC certificaiton certianly doesnt represent sustainable forestry.
Therefore I support the call for groups to remove their support for FSC.

Caroline

It is a shame that people are taking things personally.

From an Irish perspective we have tried the FSC process to the bitter end. FSC ignore our valid concerns and have found over the last eight years that the process is basically industry led.

In Ireland FSC certified forestry practices continue to damage soils, water and biodiversity and benefit the big industries not local communities.Ireland is a wealthy country. I dont like to think what forestry practices go on in poor countries.

FSC may have been a good idea and have had the best of intentions but it is failing and on the ground FSC certificaiton certianly doesnt represent sustainable forestry.
Therefore I support the call for groups to remove their support for FSC.

Caroline

This discussion is absurd. So easy to criticise our people in southern countries with a nice northern living standard, education, welfare and pension plan. You in Europe and North America destroy your biodiversity decades/centuries ago and now you make up by trying to dictate to us, what we must do or not. Remember that it is not southern people, which are the biggest burden to this planet - it is you in the north. You are emitting most of CO2, you consume the earth natural resources, you close markets to southern products, you leave little economic choice for people in the south, and your activities destroy most of the natural diversity and social conditions in our part of the world. I can not stand your self righteous, northern bullshit about saving the planet any more.

Barry, Counsell, Lang, and colleagues are making a nice living in the safety and luxury of northern countries by selling the stories about our misery. Did they ever think about equitable sharing their consultancy fees, fees for photos of indigenous people or communities, their fundrsaising donations with the communities or peoples they write about/photograph or otherwise abuse? Not likely.

Counsell is financed by singer Sting - why do we not campaign about Sting dictating to southern people what to do. Why do we not write to Sting a invoice about the jobs lost to Counsell's camapigns.

This is not about saving the planet - this is about a few more northern people having found a comfortable market niche. And what does it matter if their campaigns cost some of our people their jobs.

FSC is one of the few concepts which at least tried to let us people in the south decide how we want to run our affairs. It made sure that we were at least partly involved in our affairs and not only dicatated by northerners. It is obvious from these anti FSC campaigns, that this is not good enough for northern interests and campaigners - they want total control. And if they cannot have it in FSC then destroy it.

I remember when Counsell presented himself as advocate of our interests at the founding of FSC. We told him to leave us alone and we tell him again - leave us alone. We and FSC don't need you.

If you and your colleagues do not like FSC, set up a better system. But stop pissing on other people hard work and on the south.

Jose