FSC's forthcoming 3-yearly General Assembly in Cape Town, South Africa, looks like it will be a farcical exercise in corporate-sponsored public relations, whilst the disparity between what the organisation likes to think it is doing and what it is actually doing continues to grow.
Nothing illustrates FSC's absurd self-deception better than the field trip planned for the pleasure of assembly participants. FSC's invite to this promises that "FSC has organized a field trip to one of the most beautiful nature reserves near Cape Town - the Jonkershoek Nature Reserve. Mammals like leopards, hone (sic) badgers, baboons, klipspringers and mongooses call the reserve home....A visit to FSC certified pine plantations is a distinctive element of this field trip".
What FSC's members and guests will no doubt not be taken to is the certified plantation operations of Global Forest Products in South Africa's easterly Mpumalanga Province. Here, they would be able to get much closer to the native wildlife, albeit that it would probably be dead: against the protests of local conservationists, GFP has been trapping and shooting the local baboon population, evidently in an attempt to protect the plantations that have been established on the primate's habitat and which they evidently wish to carry on living in.
Up close and personal: FSC's certified baboon slaughter
South African activists have now started an on-line petition against the baboon cull. They say that "There is an urgent need for a moratorium to be placed on the killing of free ranging baboons by these timber companies. According to at least two recent witness accounts, this genocide has been ongoing in spite of the forestry companies insistence it had stopped. Hundreds of baboons have been killed in the area in the past by what was then Global Forest Products (now bought by York Timbers) and Komatiland Forests PTY. Once this was confronted, a moratorium was placed on the killing of baboons. Although witness accounts claim these killings have been ongoing, Komatiland Forests have made a statement saying the moratorium was officially lifted in May 2008".
Alternatively, those gathered for the General Assembly could be taken to see the smoking remains of FSC certified plantations. Once again, dense industrial stands of pine trees have been catching fire across South Africa, often with tragic consequences. As FSC-Watch reported last year, more than ten thousand hectares of FSC certified plantation owned by South African pulp conglomerates Mondi and Sappi in nearby Swaziland had gone up in smoke, with much loss of life. This year, the South African press is reporting that fires are again raging across thousands of hectares of plantation in Mpumalanga, including some owned by the FSC certified Sappi.
This will all no doubt come as an embarrassment to the corporate backers for the General Assembly, which include 'Gold Sponsor' Mondi, as well as Tembec and Sveaskog, all of which have been accused of major violations against the FSC's requirements. But most curious of all the Assembly's sponsors is South Africa-based certifier SGS - which has been banned from carrying out FSC certifications in several countries and is now languishing in a self-imposed global 'moratorium' on issuing new certificates. Perhaps SGS are hoping that their corporate generosity will help smooth troubled relations with FSC, but many FSC members will no doubt be wondering what the FSC is doing taking largesse from one of the certifiers that it is supposed to be controlling.
I'm surprised that there are still people who believe that FSC is at all credible. I mean, really. Has FSC done any work that is demonstrably good?
Tembec's FSC certification in Manitoba, Canada is just awful. They clear cut log in one-third of the endangered Woodland Caribou habitat, use pesticides and log in parks.
Oh, and they just recently eliminated their post consumer recycled content. What planet do these people think they're on?
Is FSC certification the "be all" answer some people want? no. But is it better than any currently viable alternative? or, nothing at all? ABSOLUTELY
I don't want to know whether FSC is the 'best of a bad bunch', I want to know whether it is doing what it claims to do, which is to guarantee the delivery of 'environmentally acceptable, socially beneficial and economically sustainable' forest products. As far as I am concerned, unless it is doing this then it is lying to me and the public.
Certiyfing companies that massacre baboons and allow their plantations to burn down certainly doesn't sound very 'environmentally acceptable' to me, and I suspect most people would think the same. I can't say to my customers "sorry, this timber has got rather a lot of baboon blood on it, but it's better than anything else, therefore you should buy it".
If there is no better alternative at the moment, then it's about time someone set one up. But that's still no excuse for FSC allowing this kind of disgrace to continue.
FSC is not the baboon police. 'Environmentally acceptable, socially beneficial and economically sustainable' is a journey, not a destination. Building a consensus is wrought with compromise. Particularly in parts of the world where you have no and get no government support through regulation or legislation. In those instances, participation is voluntary and ANY movement in the right direction is welcome and appreciated. You want to start the "John Certification" process? and write standards that nobody will endeavor to meet?, go right ahead. But the FSC, by demonstrating to participants that there IS a financially viable market that can reward sustainable, economic and social efforts will ultimately bring people all the way to the point you seek, but they're not going to start there.
Your "beef" shouldn't be with the FSC, but rather should be with the consumers who continue to reward, through their actions, company's that murder baboons.
So, you want me to say to my customers "OK, so this piece of timber is soaked in baboon blood, but it's OK, because the FSC is not a destination, man, it's a journey, and we're like kind of on it, and anyway whilst the FSC claims that it guarantees 'ecological timber' it can't actually police any of what it certifies, so your guess is as good as mine as to how ecological this product really is, but you should buy it anyway because it's the best of a bad bunch"?
All I can say is that you clearly know nothing about the realities of satisfying demand for ecological products, and if I were in all honesty to say the above to a customer they would rightly walk away and never touch an FSC product ever again.
I don't want standards that no-one wants, I just want the FSC to comply with its *own* standards. Forgive me if I am wrong, but does not FSC Principle 6 state that "Forest management shall conserve biological diversity and its associated values". How can this possibly be complied with if the local wildlife is being eradicated??
My beef *is* with the FSC, because the FSC *is* rewarding (with its certificate) a company that is mudering baboons.
Why are you selling that product? In your analogy, you are perpetuating the problem the FSC is trying solve by validating a market for what the baboon murderer's are selling.
FSC certification stands for doing "something" to conserve biological diversity. You're expecting them to only recognize if a company does "everything" to conserve biological diversity. That's unrealistic.
And no, principle 6 doesn't come close to stating what you describe. Please familiarize yourself with the FSC and its principles, before you try and bash them. You now have no credibility.
Principle 6. Reduction of environmental impact of logging activities and maintenance of the ecological functions and integrity of the forest
I'm sorry, but you need to check your information more closely.
Firstly, you seem to miss the point of this article that the baboon murderers are, indeed, FSC certified.
Secondly, I am not referring in my earlier message to the inaccurate 'overview' of the FSC Principles and Criteria on the FSC's website - which have come from I don't know where - but to the *actual* Principles and Criteria, which are the foundation of the FSC, which its members have signed up to, which the certifiers are supposed to uphold, which are the basis of the FSC 'promise' to the public, and which are also to be found in their entirety on the FSC's website, here:
Please note carefully the wording of Principle 6, which is as I have quoted from above, and consider whether you feel that this would allow for baboon extermination.
Please familiarize yourself with the FSC and its principles, before you accuse others such as myself of not understanding them, and before you make any assessments about how well the FSC is upholding them.
There is a better "source differentiated identity" forest products system available right here in the U.S.
We have a program called DRAFTWOOD that is community certified to produce forest products from "restorative forestry". We submit that if your forestry isn't restorative, then it doesn't have a chance of being truly sustainable. Our 501c3 Healing Harvest Forest Foundation, promotes "Carbon Positive Forestry" and "Ecological Capitalism".
Anyone may visit our site. We know it is not perfect or the silver bullet or the one answer, but is real and what we have developed from having 30 years of concern and practice on these issues.
I sat on the advisory committee for one meeting in DC when FSC was started. It was never about being the best it could be. It was about redefining what was already going on mostly with the hope of collateral influence on mainstream forestry. It is like the E85 of liquid fuel addiction in the forest products markets. A real change is needed and FSC is just a start.
We have since rejected the program as the greenest of the green washes, but not as good as it could be. It is full of costly unnecessary middle management. Private landowner education has got to be more than a consulting forester's phone number.
FSC is not about bottom up change, the structure is just another autocratic top down system.
FSC is better than nothing, but barely. Our system, principles, guidelines and criteria are superior, simple and virtually free.
But being poor animal powered loggers centered in Appalachia we can't afford to play the FSC game, so we are sticking to our own story.
It will be interesting to hear any responses to this post.
BTW - we have a series airing on RFD-TV cable network starting on the 15th of September. Watch and see this work and the biological woodsmen that do it.
This post is not to bash FSC, but to expose this interest group to another approach. FSC's record speaks for itself. It is grant dependent and easily confused by industries SFI big green wash.
Healing Harvest Forest Foundation
Sorry Mark and Barry, FSC is a complete joke and will be completely irrelevant in five years time. The FSC certificate holder in Manitoba is doing a horrible job and has just moved backwards with no improvements for the forests.
Tembec in Pine Falls has just reduced it's Post consumer recycled content to zero from 22 percent. They destroy endangered Woodland Caribou Habitat--in fact, they are now violating the Manitoba Endangered Species Act as we speak (write).
Now, I'm sure you can come back with all sorts of platitudes about FSC being better than anything else, but do you have specifics? Can you give me specific examples of what FSC has done to improve forests here in Manitoba, or even across Canada?
Please be specific.
John - want you want is a western cultural definition of "conserve" imposed in Africa, in order to "buy in." That kind of insistance and inflexibility is what contributes to most of the rest of the world seeing the US as arrogant. As most have recognized, the FSC is not perfect and certainly, in the scope of things, not expensive. Progress, no matter how small, is still progress; awareness, no matter how little, is still better than unaware.
I applaud you for not supporting baboon mudering companies, but to suggest that this attribute is something the FSC endorses without considering anything else, is ignorant.
What a sad state of affairs. All you got is platitudes and generalisations. You expect us to believe that slaughtering wildlife is a bad thing only from the point of view of the west?
Your sense of progress and awareness is cynical.
Your assumption that the "slaughtering of wildlife" is either being done for no reason, or for simple sport of it, is also ignorant - I'm sure you have a clone on an Indian web sight condemning America for the heartless slaughter of cows and chickens.
Go impose your beliefs someplace else. Global environmental efforts require collaboration and compromise. Your "my way or the highway" mentality has failed every time.
I've never said "It's my way or the highway". You're the one saying there is no other options besides the failed FSC process. I'm also not going to play your amoral zero sum game. Some things like clear cutting, pesticide use and destruction of endangered species habitat is wrong, no matter where you come from. FSC is certifying all of this and worse.
Again, you have no specifics on how FSC has changed anything on the ground, have you? I didn't think so.
It seems as if your fraudulent certification scheme has failed every time, Barry.
There really is no defense of the FSC certification fraud. The principles sound good, but there is no enforcement. The language allows certificate holders to get out of anything. Pesticide use is a glaring example. So is logging in endangered species habitat.
Can anyone point to a certification that has lead to an improvement that is visible on the ground?
I think the way around FSC--the way to true forest protection is to affect the markets. Ironically, this is one of the reasons why FSC was developed in the first place.
There is a markets based solution in the works for Manitoba. It has been shown to be the best hope for forests.
My amoral zero sum game? you are the one proposing "absolute" zero tolerance and you know what? that's great. Have high expectations, don't patronize offenders, good for you. You don't need FSC or any certification company for that. I doubt any will ever be good enough for you. The dream you have of a participatory certification process with enforcement? cross cultural, unilateral, financially viable!? with substantial penalties for non conformance? those expectations are way out in left field. I am anxious to witness Manitoba's "market based solution"
Even though, even now; the biggest free economy in the world cannot support, due to extreme apathy and an unwillingness to pay even 1 cent more, most "green" products? if it weren't for the USGBC and LEED's, this effort would be dead in the water. That monumental and extremely well funded effort is skating on thin ice. I will embrace your Manitoba markets based solution, if I ever hear of it. And I applaud all efforts, whether they last a month, a year, a decade or longer! that try to properly influence environmentalism of any kind; radical and extreme - like yours, or collaborative like the FSC's. FSC, SFI and PEFC have the most traction now. I hope they go far and last long.
Thanks Barry, I will.
Tell me one thing, Barry. (Since you can't point to any good FSC does on the ground). What is so extreme about opposing a failed and fraudulent certification system like FSC?
What have I said that's so extreme? FSC is so clearly a failure. Why is it worth defending so much to you? Do you work for FSC or a certification company?
I think it's extreme to clear cut primary forests, use pesticides and destroy endangered species habitat. Extinction is extreme, Barry. Or, is that just my cultural bias?
David - The world is full of people who criticize without offering either a solution or an alternative. That's just too easy. Coming up with solutions is the hard part. If you can't offer a viable alternative, then what are you opposing? the effort? I don't get it.
The world is full of people who simply repeat everything that they're told, accuse others of not knowing their facts when they actualy fail to check their own, refuse to answer direct questions or provide justification for their arguments, then revert to accusing people of things they have not said when the weaknesses of their arguments are exposed.
'Fixing' FSC might be a 'solution': pretending everything is OK with it at the moment certainly isn't.
John - I agree; proven by your email.
So, geniuses, how do you "fix" the FSC?
And; I also get a kick out of all your feigned outrage over this baboon issue. Wow, lets kick the crap out of the FSC based on eyewitness accounts of 2 people!?! How about this;
"The company shot 200 baboons last year. McNamara said the decision to kill the baboons was taken after strict protocol processes had been developed by an expert consultant for the Baboon Damage Working Group (BDWG) of South Africa.
The group includes GFP and other commercial forestry companies, the national Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency, and Animal Damage Management."
There you go again, shifting the issues, failing to check your facts, and being personally insulting. What a true 'genius' you are, my friend.
I guess if you had bothered to spend even five minutes actually looking into what you were talking about, you would have seen that even just this website has scores of other cases where there are problems with the FSC, and I've seen a few good suggestions here too for how to fix things.
But no, best just to insult the critics, eh?
Hopefully, the future of the FSC will rest with people who show a bit more seriousness than you evidently do.
What this website has "scores of" is nay say'ers and crybabies. Why would I spend 5 minutes looking into any of the sensationalized claims on this website when, after 30 seconds, this most recent "claim" is debunked? Can't I assume the same lack luster and fraudulent effort extends to all the stories here? that's the same type of generalization afforded the FSC?
I'm still waiting for your on-the-ground examples of positive FSC influence, Barry.
FSC is actually a step backwards. FSC certified Tembec in Pine Falls, Manitoba has reduced it's post consumer recycled content from 22% to zero. You can confirm this easily, but you won't.
A viable alternative--actually, a positive step for forest protection in Manitoba is to abolish the FSC system. FSC allowed Pine Falls to easily eliminate it's recycled content. They now stand proudly and say they are doing and experimental harvest in endangered Woodland Caribou habitat. FSC has made things worse. It's greenwashing of the worst sort.
And you have nothing good to point to. You can't back up your claims or your fraudulent certification system.
What is your role here? Do you work for FSC or the deforest industry? Please enlighten us.
Alright David, I'll bite. Let's investigate further, your claim on Tembec. Assuming your information is correct; What is so appalling to you? That Tembec could be FSC certified and yet reduce their Post Consumer inputs? what type of FSC claim is Tembec making? how are they labeling their product?
Oh, and as far as "backing up my claims of my fraudulent certification system?" How about we just rely on the support and endorsement of the American Lands Alliance, Dogwood Alliance, ForestEthics, Greenpeace, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Council, Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club and many others.
Are you suggesting that all these groups are also complicit in your "greenwashing" charge?
Right, Barry, try and make it look like a step forward when it's a step backwards. How about logging in endangered species habitat? How can you possibly spin that one as good?
Reducing the use of PCR content increases the amount of clearcutting in Manitoba's forests. They only clearcut, by the way. Clearcutting is bad for the forest no matter how you look at it. So, spin that one Barry.
Yes, reducing your PCR content is appalling.
I don't know what sort of 'FSC claim' Tembec is making. FSC says that the forestry operations are sustainable. Tembec in Manitoba is pretty far from sustainable--in any sense of the word.
I don't know if Tembec is labeling their product yet. We're watching for that one too. We hope to take care of that for them.
I answered your questions, now answer mine.
Do you think the use of pesticides is a good thing?
How about clear cutting?
How about the destruction of endangered species like Woodland Caribou?
What do you think about PCR content?
Who do you work for?
RAN has criticized the FSC system, but has yet to pull out. As for the other groups, they need to re-examine their involvement with a certification system that destroys primary forests and calls it 'sustainable'.
So few of the contributors on this site are actually out there on the ground seeing what's happening in the forest and the international wood products marketplace. The FSC is certainly not perfect, and it definitely doesn't live up to all of the claims made by it or its supporters, but to hear people say it's a farce and should be ignored or shut down is ludicrous - that's like saying we shouldn't have the press because their reporting isn't always accurate. The alternative to FSC (which in the tropics is nothing) is worse, and demand for wood products per capita is going up, not down, so we'd better find a way to impact the marketplace other than just complaining.
In many cases/regions FSC is doing tremendous good, saving forests that might otherwise disappear completely. Here are two examples I've recently witnessed first hand in Latin America that help illustrate why the FSC is not just the 'lesser of evils', but is actually a positive environmental force:
1) In the Peten region of Guatemala, the government set aside a large biosphere reserve as a 'no-touch' zone. When the local Mayan communities complained, the government compromised and gave them rights to manage 1/2 the area under FSC guidelines. The other half was left as a 'no-touch' zone. Now, 12 years later, the 'no-touch' zone is a patchwork of illegal slash & burn agricultural plots, whereas the FSC side has an in-tact canopy and a relatively healthy ecosystem. I've flown over and seen the difference between the 'no-touch' area pused for by environmentalists and the FSC area, and it's night & day. FSC certification saved that rainforest.
2) In Bolivia, demand for FSC tropical wood from a US company pushed its supplier into approaching a group of indigenous communities who had just been granted rights to some large tracts of untouched Amazon. Those communities were planning on clearing the forest for agriculture. When the Bolivian factory approached them and offered to buy them equipment and build them a sawmill in return for them adhering to FSC harvest guidelines, they accepted. They will now have a steady income higher than what they would have gotten from agriculture, and the forest has been preserved (albeit with some impact due to selective logging). In this case, demand for FSC wood from a US company kept over 500,000 acres of rainforest from being cleared for agriculture.
Some of you need to realize that, particularly in the tropics, we are facing a 'use it or lose it' situation. Advocating logging bans in places where people are hungry and governments have no enforcement capacity is simply counterproductive. Demanding FSC-certified wood has real, positive, on-the-ground consequences. If you don't like Tembec, don't buy their products, but telling people that the FSC is bogus because it certified Tembec is only going to push the demand elsewhere, toward companies like TimberWest and Weyerhauser that are far worse.
Regarding the Baboons, it's unfortunate, but it's not a reflection of a failure of the system. Baboons are not an endangered species. Farmers (including organic farmers) kill pests all the time, and I don't hear anyone griping that their food shouldn't be sold as organic. Putting a primate face on this practice makes it more emotionally powerful for us, but the truth is that this is no different than what happens on farms all over the world every day.
Another contributor here made a good point. Groups like Greenpeace and WWF have people on the ground closely monitoring forestry practices in many of the places that generate all of these criticisms. Those groups are critical of FSC, but they still endorse it overall, precisely because the alternative is worse. Do the people contributing to this exchange really believe that the dedicated lifelong activists, biologists and ecologists that work for those major ENGO's are simply blind and ignorant ? I don't think so. They aren't happy with FSC, but they know it's the best thing going and it's a heck of a lot better than nothing.
Danny, thanks for giving me some on-the-ground examples. Those are honestly the first positive examples of FSC that I've heard of.
Thanks for this.
I too have seen massive changes for the better, not in the tropics nor in old growth areas, where much focus is and emotions run high.
I operate in the UK. Forest products are our third largest import (after oil and food) - so the improvements I've seen are out of proportion to the size of the small island we are perched upon.
I am a forester and I audit UK woodland (to FSC standards) and I provide FSC consultancy to forest management companies. I also audit the CoC system and provide consultancy to timber using industries. I am also a forest manager in my own right.
I have seen woodland management improve, the managers of timber using industries (printers, builders merchants, saw millers, timber frame builders, pulp and paper mills) all thinking seriously about the source of their supplies. And not just thinking about it but doing something about it.
In almost all situations they are motivated by the conviction that certified timber MUST be the way forward. The 'man on the street' in the UK who runs these businesses is concerned about global deforestation. Yet most know nothing of the CITES list, and view the IUCN red data list as something appertaining only to animals.
However after applying for FSC certification and acquiring the FSC 10 P&C's there is often a sea change in their attitudes. They know what CITES and the IUCN lists are, and they act upon them.
They now know (for example) that there is a massive difference between FSC OSB produced in the UK, and cheap sheathing ply from the Far East. And they are now more inclined to stock FSC OSB than unknown source material from Brazil, China or the Far East.
So I support FSC. Material changes for the better are happening in the wood chain.
My faith in it is not blind, however. So FSC isn't perfect? No-one in human history has come up with a perfect system for anything. But at least FSC is trying hard. OK it can do better. OK some rogues have slipped in. With a bit better policing the FSC will get rid of them.
Dear Barry and others….,
few Years ago an Indian said: “Only after the last tree has been cut down. Only after the last river has been poisoned. Only after the last fish has been caught. Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.” You will remember, I am sure...Please keep that in mind for the next 5 years, when hopefully nobody will speak about this mafia-like fraud and stupid System of the FSC any more. We cannot delegate the wood industry to a strong member and leader of a environmental protection system and wonder why primary forest disappears. I am working in that branch, so I know that structure and system very well.
Please be careful when making a statement like: “the FSC is a journey and not a destination”.
Of course it will always be necessary to adjust the regulations a bit, so it will always be under development. But we are talking about serious and fundamental problems.
How much time will be left to carry on like now? Do you really think the FSC is doing a good job? Is there anything what has been improved by the FSC? Was anything saved? Please show me one example and I will be silent for some time.
Let’s take the example of the boreal forest and look what is happening in the climate discussion: the FSC certifies millions of hectares for clear-cut, million tons of methane will be released to the atmosphere, nobody cares…. Is that sustainable, in which sense?
The FSC is supporting the expulsion of native people from their home areas. Is that socially responsible? Have nobody learned from mistakes which were made in the past? How is the situation of native people in Canada or in the US?
Do you really believe in the system FSC? I don’t…
I guess it really is our duty to keep the earth in a condition which it is worth to live on.
I don’t want to show my children forests where only FSC certified stumps are visible.
Nowadays it suggested using FSC certified timber from Siberian primary forest, from Brazilian primary forests, or from GMO plantations from Portugal. This should be better and more responsible than to use timber from local temperate forests?
Is it reasonable to switch from recycling paper to FSC certified fresh fibre paper, like “Deutsche Bahn” did because of motivation by WWF?
There really is something terribly wrong in that system.
There are only a few NGOs left, who are supporting a system which is violating their own values and criteria’s. Human rights are not considered, pesticides are used which are almost illegal, cloned trees are supported, and primary forests are suggested as sustainably useable forests….but at least some countries make a report.
Most of that would have not been possible 20 years ago.(Mainly I speak from Germany, with its Hugh tropical wood boycott in the 1980/1990)
You always asking the strange question: Is there a better certification system than FSC? That question is so far not fair, because we all know there are not too many certification system existing… But there is one….no system. For sure it is better to have no certification at all than to have a system which is not trustable.
No system is better? interesting take. Thanks to the previous posters. Any more questions David? my last comment is similar to one I made earlier that you dismissed; your beef is with Tembec, not FSC. Unless and until Tembec makes an FSC claim, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Sorry to have to put it this way, but every time you make a comment you merely reveal the depth of your ignorance: Tembec is the largest of all FSC certificates by a very long way, and thus the company makes the same 'claim' as every FSC-certified company; to be conducting 'environmentally acceptable, socially beneficial and economically sustaimable' forestry, and complying with the FSC's Principles and Criteria.
If you bothered to find out what you're talking about before hitting the keyboard with your fingers, you'd see that there are several acticles about Tembec already on FSC-Watch, as well as dozens of other examples of where the FSC is clearly falling down.
You're the moron, John. Being 'certified' and making a 'claim' are 2 very different things. You're the one who needs to find out what they're talking about. D-bag!
What a wonderful person you are, Barry.
With friends like you, the FSC certainly doesn't need any more enemies.
i don't know who You are, several people ask You, but You don´t want to give an answer;
Seem That You work for DHL or other criminal woodmafiosis.
Seems to be crazy: You try on a very plump level to missunderstand totally what I (and other people) say. Please take more care, what You want(!) to read and what the people write reality (!): Their is not only one system better the FSC: better is:
a) a dead FSC
b) every system without lies, corruption, without fraud and Stupidity, unsocial and throughing all scientific ecological recognitions in the mood.
ONly the question: sustainable logging of an Primaryforest?, i must laugh about people who say this (FSC)and get angry about this contradiction. When we believe in that, we can say in the same breath, that G.W.B. is the most peaceful man i the word, or Atomic power is the nonhazardous energy. Its the same level.
So i ask You again: Please out Yourself, and please answer the questions what have ask several people e to You.
So come back to the reality or let it, like You wish, but stop to disturb in this fraud way, sorry to say.
I have many more questions and none of them will be answered by you. The Tembec mill in Manitoba is being audited right now, and the auditor won't take my calls. FSC fails the public and its stakeholders yet again.
I was glad to hear at least some good was happening somewhere with FSC. FSC has failed the forest in Manitoba and needs to be stopped.
Actually, no system was better. Tembec couldn't have reduced it's recycled content to zero without the protection of FSC. When I see the FSC logo, I'm assured of fraud and primary forest destruction--to be sure.
Thanks for showing your true colors, Barry. Give us your name, you coward, or get lost.
'Their is not only one system better the FSC: better is:
a) a dead FSC
b) every system without lies, corruption, without fraud and Stupidity, unsocial and throughing all scientific ecological recognitions in the mood.'
Didn't you read the posting by Danny? And the subsequent comment by David?
FSC is not perfect - but it is better than no system. Just remember that 'no system' is what got us to where we are.
only this little example (what i cannot proofe give You the rigth to say its a good system (the exception proves the rule)
Yes of Course i have read, but sorry, i absolutely not agree! ... not a perfect system... i must laugh: For whom not a perfect system: For the survive of the Primary forest or the Hugh "clon-Plantations"? for the Wood industry to get Hugh profit logging the future of our childes? for a few regimes washing Bloodwood to green? for the few NGO getting "second hand" profit too (WWF/GP/RAN....)? or for the finance industry who can give out green shares?? For whom????? for me not!
Something is terrible wrong in the system, i can allways underline....
I mean what i write, maybe not clear enough, my written English is not so good, sorry. Just because the FSC system exists, logging of primary forest still goes on, more and more tehn ever before!, and FSC is proud of this desaster.(I know, not so easy, but "all" NGOs agree suddenly with the strange system of FSC while appear 1995 i Europe and suddenly everybody accept Tropical (and -Boreal)timber (with or without FSC). The Boycott movement brake together in few months. No other possibility checked(i konw, not just so easy, but exaggerated)otherwise in the 1990 have happened something others, i remember very well the discussions in Germany in this time.....
This System is not acceptable. This reason is, why in my eyes is every system better then FSC, means FSC is so extrem bad and fraud. unbelievable, that NGOs can any longer trust in the fraud system....When FSC disappear from the landscape, what i really hope, another discussion about saving our (primary)forest can start. So long every consumer believe the "good System" of FSC and will changed nothing essentially, the Primary forest are harvested like before and disappear piece to piece too. At the end will disappear the last Primary forest together with the FSC (but sorry to say: together with the species Homo "sapiens(?)" too).
I have learned in the University in early 1980 that Primary forest are the biggest terrestrial Carbon sinks (even not neutral!) on the planet. When they start logging inside the Primary forest, nobody know what willhappen. When You read now the article just appear in Nature("Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks"), this forgotten sentence get true: So the FSC have to think about, If they allow any!!!!! longer harvesting in Primary forest all over the world. FSC must renounce at once all certificates in Primary forest! Otherwise its clear, that FSC don't want to have sustainable logged wood, only having green washed Wood. And this a a little different.
The FSC Chairman in Germany write me as its just nothing extraordinary: ... "...Mr Harms have right that through logging in the Primary forest, the original character of the old growth forest demolished!..."... Means among others that the FSC accept to let free Gigatons!!! of Carbondioxid under the name of suatainable forestry. And You will tell me: Good system, not perfect? Coming to the end of FSC....
No other comment.
sorry to say.
If FSC dies, this website dies too!
If FSC dies then forest companies can go back to doing what they want without anyone in their way, and can claim whatever they want.
FSC certification bodies have given thousands of "nonconformities" and "corrective action requests" to forest companies. These companies have "changed" their practices to meet the FSC standards.
No the system is not perfect, and it will always be possible to point at the errors. This is the only goal of this website. The discussion here is bias and unproductive.
David Nickarz lives off negativity and pointing the finger at the weak aspects of environmental programs. Others, choose to try to improve they system.
In Davids perfect world FSC would die. Then he would die and the forest would not be better off.
What David fears the most is the all the positive things FSC has done. He refuses to spend one second of his life trying to find something positive. In stead he asks people commenting on this bias website to bring the proof to him. Even when some do, he will forget about it and go back to his negative mind set agenda.
I feel for David as he has painted his world black. How unhappy he must be; unloved people try to convince and control others around them so they are not alone.
David, I dare you to spend a few month of your life reading FSC certification reports and writing down all the "corrective action requests" you find, and then how the companies "changed". Then, write a report on your findings. Be fair and look for positive things. I DARE YOU!!!!
seems You are blind....
sorry, but i read a lot of reports and i search since Years, for one, only one good example what FSC has made good, or only littel better then was before. Do YOu have done, or You read only the blabla from FSC/WWF/RAn and co? Sencefreee words...
Maybe You are able to show me one.
and really, its welldone, when in boreal forest the pressure on the forest grow, the corruption between NGO and Forestcompanies, and all consumer thinks, now we can start to use all wood we want, when FSC certified...Yes, this is a good idea; the human race will die earlier......
Paul: Please come back on earth, and dont dream any longer, its a fraud, corrupt and criminal system. They try to stop everybody critics, and the onliest interest is: marketpower and money. They are not a forestprotectors.
i am happy when this webside (and my blog as well) can die, i will make a big party under the Motto: "The old growth forest have get a new chance".
No backlinks yet.
Add a comment