Another of FSC's longest-term NGO supporters, the San Francisco-based Rainforest Action Network has added itself to the list of NGOs expressing serious doubts about the FSC. In a new posting on RAN's website, the organisation's Programme Director, Jennifer Krill, states that the credibility of FSC "continues to be threatened". Krill specifically identifies the so-called Controlled Wood Standard as being problematic, and hints that RAN might withdraw its support for the organisation.
"RAN's Old Growth [forests] campaign is committed to end logging in ancient forests worldwide. As part of planning this new phase for the campaign, RAN has begun undertaking a strategic review of the Forest Stewardship Council's (FSC's) benefits and costs. The credibility of the FSC continues to be threatened by controversies with specific certifications, with contentious policies such as the Controlled Wood Standard which operates much lower standard into than the FSC itself, and with the volume of wood certified from old growth forests. These controversies affect whether, and how much, RAN can continue supporting the FSC. RAN staff will attend the FSC annual meeting in November, we will report back our conclusions to our members and supporters as well as through dialogue with other NGOs."
Keep up the pressure, no more mealy mouthedness. You're one way or the other. No FSC!
RAN staff will attend the FSC annual meeting in November, we will report back our conclusions to our members and supporters as well as through dialogue with other NGOs...
The setup to pull out, under enormous pressure, by the way. Funders even pulling out of events till they get the position right.
This is an excellent and much appreciated turn of events. Although I feel it's really not good enough:
everyday RAN is 'reconsidering' FSC's credibility 1000s of acres of pristine rainforests are destroyed under FSC certification schemes.
RAN suggests its the volume and not the fact that old growth rainforests are industrially logged that is the subject of controversy. Aren't they familiar with the biodiversity of these forests? Don't they know about the dense concentration of carbon they contain and their values to local communities and to fresh water supplies and vibrant, functioning hydrological cycles?
What's needed is a 'zero cut' campaign to end industrial logging of ecologically intact and OTHER high value forests.
That said, thank you, RAN, for taking this (late) step to reconsider. Much appreciated.
Look forward to your dedicated work to protect all of these important ecosystems soon.
The FSC model is obsolete and based on now stale world-views two decades old. It hasn't, in many cases, been able to adequately adapt or properly deal with the relentless march of rampant industrial capitalism which is still the MAJOR threat to the world's forests. FSC is part of that same destructive system no matter what spin is rolled out to justify its existence.
The certifiers are a rule to themselves whose ultimate motives are also driven by profit. The companies are holding up the certifiers with puppet strings made out of dollar bills and the certifiers seem most happy with this arrangement. Why wouldn't they be. "Won't bite the breast that feeds". No logging = No profits to Certifiers.
FSC has also got "too big for its britches", letting in way too many charlatans, egomaniacs, corporate con-men (& women) and mediocre timber industry apologists more interested in making a buck than getting outcomes based on ecological reality. As a result it has copped too many knives in the guts and is haemoraging all over the place.
What defenses has FSC got to guard it from now being raped by the same corporate psychopathic deviants that just stuck all the knives in?
No backlinks yet.
Add a comment