However, the certificate started running into serious trouble already in July 2008, when the FSC's 'certifier watchdog', Accreditation Services International (ASI), carried out a field inspection of the certified company. ASI found, according to their report (pdf file, 340kb) that ICILA had "issued a certificate to the company despite the fact that there was evidence that the company was not in compliance with many FSC requirements...FSC standard FSC-STD-20-001, section 19.1, requires a certification body not to issue a certificate if there are outstanding major non-compliances with the FSC Principles and Criteria".

As a result of ASI's inspection of the SEFAC certificate, ICILA was issued with five 'Corrective Action Requests'. One of these related to the finding that the certification standard against which ICILA had assessed SEFAC was not consistent with the FSC's Principles and Criteria.

By the end of January 2009, ICILA had failed to convince FSC-ASI that they had addressed all the problems in their certification system. FSC thus 'suspended' their accreditation for certifying forest management activities in Cameroon, finding that "the instances of major non conformities outline a breakdown in the implementation of ICILA's accredited procedures and create a risk for the credibility of the FSC in Cameroon". This should have meant that SEFAC's certificate was no longer valid.

FSC-ASI seems to have acted properly in this case, and it is encouraging to see that it was relatively swift in removing ICILA's accreditation. However, some worrying aspects remain. The linked Cameroonian timber company, SEBAC continues to retain its ICILA-issued Chain of Custody certificate, though it is unclear where the company could be obtaining FSC-certified timber from, if not from the now de-certified SEFAC.

More importantly, however, ASI seems to have failed to address the question of SEFAC's underlying legality. As previously noted by FSC-Watch, the company's logging operations appear to greatly exceed the legal size limit for concessions held by any one company. ASI claims to have found that the complicated shareholding structure of the company somehow circumvented this concession size restriction. However, in its report on ICILA, ASI noted that ICILA had "issued a certificate to the group SEFAC and ICILA's report refers to the group SEFAC-Cameroun. The FSC certificate database also refers to "Groupe SEFAC". However, the "groupe SEFAC" is not a legal entity. ICILA's certificate should have been issued to SEFAC AC and ICILA's report should refer to SEFAC AC as the group entity".

This was an important observation, because any such legal entity as 'Groupe SEFAC' would have fallen foul of the Cameroonian law, for holding too large a concession. However, investigations have failed to turn up any legal entity entitled 'SEFAC AC'. Furthermore, the also-linked Vasto Legno SpA, the Italian company which, according to ASI, "defines the commercial and marketing strategy of SEFAC's certified products" itself states on its website that "VASTO LEGNO is an exclusive world distributor for SEFAC GROUP [...] composed by three society [sic] SEBAC S.A., SEFAC S.A. and FILIÈRE BOIS S.A.". FSC-ASI has so far failed to answer questions to it concerning where the company 'SEFAC AC' is legally registered.

Despite these 'anomalies', SEFAC is now undergoing a process of re-certification by Bureau Veritas - which hopefully will do a better job of getting to the bottom of the legal status of 'Groupe SEFAC/SEFAC AC/SEBAF/Vasto Legno'....

The Massachusetts DCR certificate 'disappeared' in April 2009, without any explanation from the FSC or the certifier. DCR Commissioner Richard Sullivan has claimed that there was simply a 'gap', in reissuing the certificate and that "because of the timing for the application for re-certification, it was known from the outset that the certification would lapse."

However, a new report by local TV company The Boston Channel has raised further questions about why the Department of Conservation and Recreation (formerly the equally euphemistically-named Department of Environmental Management) was ever certified in the first place, and whether it would be re-certifiable.

The Boston Channel's Team 5 investigative journalists focused on a plot of forest that had been granted to the state by the Zimmer family in memory of some of their relatives, on condition that it was permanently protected. Instead, the DCR felled it, and continued doing so even when requested by the Zimmer family to stop.

Disrespecting the dead: memorial forest trashed by ex-certified DCR

In the report below, it is also pointed out that Massachusetts taxpayers paid up to $2 million for the certification. Because of FSC's commercial confidentiality arrangements, it is not possible to know how much of this ended up in the pockets of FSC-accredited certifier SCS.

(Full report, with video clips, here)

State Betrays Family's Trust, Cuts Down Trees: Massachusetts Admits Errors In Timber Harvests

One family's trust has been betrayed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation, the state agency in charge of protecting forests and parks, Team 5 Investigates reported Friday.

NewsCenter 5's Sean Kelly reported that DCR is finally admitting that it should not have harvested land for timber when it was given to the state for the sole purpose of public enjoyment.

Fifteen years ago, Raymond Zimmer donated a 30-acre lot in Chesterfield to the state of Massachusetts in memory of his late wife and three of their nine children who died earlier.

The state Department of Conservation and Recreation began harvesting timber on the property earlier this year after a cutting plan was approved by town officials in Chesterfield.

Zimmer's children told Team 5 their father never intended the property to be harvested for timber and point to language in the property deed that prohibits the removal or destruction of trees.

"I can state without reservation that the specific wish and intent of the trust donating the land was that the property was for public enjoyment in its natural condition," said William Zimmer, Raymond Zimmer's son.

But that's not what Team 5 Investigates found happening. According to DCR, the state has already been paid $7,210 for the wood that has been cut down. "It shouldn't have happened, it has happened and it's a result of a complete lack of oversight and accountability in the Bureau of Forestry," said Chris Matera of Massachusetts Forest Watch.

The family asked the state to stop all logging on the property, but it refused. DCR Commissioner Rick Sullivan now concedes the state should not have logged the property. "We didn't do it intentionally to not follow the wishes of the family. We'll make sure going forward that that type of thing doesn't happen on that property, or any other property," Sullivan said.

This isn't the first time DCR destroyed state parks and forests it was supposed to protect. Earlier this year, Team 5 Investigates found signs threatening prosecution for tree cutting were being ignored. Tombstones in a historical cemetery near Savoy State Forest were knocked over by the weight of falling timber, and healthy trees were slashed into thousands of debris covered acres.

All of the damage occurred while DCR claimed its forestry management practices were among the best in the nation.

The logging occurred under the watch of the Forest Stewardship Council, an international organization that claims to promote the responsible management of forests.

Team 5 Investigates obtained an audit by auditors for FSC that shows the state has finally lost its FSC certification. "I'm not surprised the state lost its certification. Their logging was so bad, so egregious, I don't see how they could have possibly kept it," said Matera.

Taxpayers paid more than $2 million to qualify for that certification. Commissioner Richard Sullivan said the department will now do everything it can to get that certification back and make sure taxpayer money wasn't wasted.

"Are you willing to admit now that mistakes were made?" asked Kelly. "Mistakes were made. I am interested in correcting the mistakes and moving forward and making sure they don't happen again," answered Sullivan.

The Commissioner's response doesn't satisfy critics who insist there's no need to pay an international body to protect state forests because state laws are more than adequate.

FSC 'Frosty' Friday also World Eco-debt Day

The FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) has declared today "FSC FRIDAY" as part of a campaign to boost its reputation in the face of growing criticism of its 'greenwashing' of unsustainable logging of the world's rapidly diminishing forests, as well as its efforts to certify vast new areas of socially and ecologically destructive tree plantations as "responsibly managed forests"! (see www.fsc-watch.org)

It is abundantly clear that the driving force behind the environmental plagues troubling humanity - in particular Climate Change - is little more than old fashioned greed, manifesting itself in the form of the gross overconsumption of energy and material goods by the wealthy of the world. 'Certification' as practised by the FSC, amongst other organisations, serves merely to absolve the guilt that should otherwise bring people to change their wasteful ways.

It should also be obvious that excessive consumption by some will inevitably cause others to have access to less, and this inequity is being encouraged and endorsed through marketing campaigns of organisations like the FSC and others, that are pushing greater consumption (and production) of 'responsible' soy, palm oil and ethanol derived from sugarcane!

The Ecological Debt owed by industrialised countries to former colonies in the South continues to grow as Northern use of global resources expands. More and more developing country land is being appropriated by multinational corporations either for food or fuel crop production, or to plant vast exotic tree plantations in the name of mitigating climate change.

These so called 'carbon sink forests' that destroy natural habitat, displace communities, and steal local water resources from their rightful owners - people, biodiversity and ecosystems - are also being certified as a way to justify greater energy consumption and therefore increased CO2 emissions by those that have historically taken far more than their rightful share.

See Recession barely dents 'eco-debt'.

The FSC started life as a do-gooder organisation back in 1993, but has since seemingly been steadily transformed into just another business corporation, with a few deluded 'corporate-type' NGOs blindly clinging to the sinking ship. One of these is WWF which has become known as a partner of large business organisations that are also major climate change culprits, such as plantation and paper company Mondi, and the diamond mining monster, De Beer's. The WWF (SA) membership list includes the likes of Monsanto, BHP Billiton, and Shell Energy, and tells a grim tale of how deeply indebted WWF is to its corporate sponsors.

In the final analysis, unashamedly accepting money derived from resource exploitation means that BINGOs (Big International NGOs) like the WWF are in the same corner as the governments and corporations that are so deeply indebted to our Earth.

Using organisations such as FSC to present fake assurances of sustainability to the teeming masses of gullible consumers living in countries that go into ecological debt long before September 25th every year, is a false solution!

So on this Frosty FSC Ecodebt Friday (Frosty = unpleasant, miserable, unwanted) FSC really has nothing to celebrate.

Activists Unfurl 35-foot Banner on High Line to Protest Park's Use of FSC-Certified Amazon Wood

Two New York City-based groups, Rainforest Relief and New York Climate Action Group coordinated the banner action to confront the "First International FSC Friday," an event held on September 25th by the Forest Stewardship Council to promote their certification scheme.

According to Friends of the High Line's website, the tropical hardwood used throughout the High Line was certified by FSC-accredited agencies. The wood, called ipê, originates from primary Amazon forests in Brazil and Peru. Ipê trees are typically 250 to 1,000 years old and grow an average of one or two trees per acre.

"We targeted the High Line because it's one of the highest profile parks in the world," said Tim Doody, a spokesperson for Rainforest Relief. "We think there are well-intentioned designers and architects who have no idea that the FSC certifies wood from ancient primary forests, including the Amazon. That kind of logging destroys vital carbon sinks and opens the forest to land speculators, cattle ranchers and plantation farmers."

Formed in 1993, the FSC accredits agencies that in turn certify logging operations according to a set of principles that the FSC claims will protect forests and local people. However, a growing number of environmental groups, including Friends of the Earth UK, Rainforest Foundation, Ecological Internet and World Rainforest Movement, are accusing the FSC of violating their own principles.

"Instead of launching vacuous marketing ploys such as 'FSC Friday', the FSC would be better off trying to address some of their underlying issues," said Simon Counsell. Counsell, a founding member of the FSC, now monitors the agency on FSC-Watch.org.

Citing a study reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, Counsell stated, "Research in the Amazon has shown that, over a period of years, commercial logging greatly increases the overall propensity of the forest to dry out, burn and disappear. This happens regardless of whether the logged areas are certified or not."

On July 12, 2009, the Brazilian government announced that federal police had broken up a timber-laundering ring in the Amazon involving 3,000 "eco-certified" companies that had been receiving illegal wood for years. FSC-certified companies are among the implicated.

Dr. Glen Barry, founder of Ecological Internet, said "It has become evident to environmentalists in the know that FSC has become an obstacle to ending ancient-forest destruction and addressing climate change and biodiversity loss." EI is demanding that FSC stop certifying wood from ancient primary forests around the world.

The government of Norway has turned criticism of "eco-certification" schemes into policy. In 2007, officials there banned the use of all tropical timber in public buildings. "The government wants to stop all trade with unsustainably or illegally logged tropical forest products," stated Norway's Directorate of Public Construction and Property (Statsbyyg). "Today, there is no international or national certification that can guarantee in a reliable manner that imported wood is legally and sustainably logged."

"What's missing in the certification debate is the broader issue of simply reducing the consumption of wood products," said Tim Keating, Executive Director of Rainforest Relief. "All the world's forests cannot be industrially logged, and there are so many alternatives - like post-consumer plastics - that should be considered first."

More pictures and video of the action are available at the Rainforests of New York website.

In a press release, Greenpeace states that "The revised standards will enhance the protection of Endangered Forests and increase the use of both Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified fiber and recycled fiber." Greenpeace has even made a little thank you card that you can send to Kimberly-Clark to thank them:

This might all sound great, but a look at the details of Kimberly-Clark's Fiber Procurement Policy reveals a few problems. Here's the catch:

"By 2011, Kimberly-Clark will ensure that 40 percent of its North American tissue fiber is either recycled or FSC certified."

Dr. Glen Barry at Ecological Internet was quick to criticise the Greenpeace/Kimberly-Clark deal. "Greenpeace Wipes It's Soft, Virgin Butt with Canada's Ancient Boreal Forests", was the headline for one of Ecological Internet's recent press releases. "We are appalled," Ecological Internet says, "that Greenpeace supports the continued first time industrial harvest of Canada's ancient boreal forests to access 'virgin' fibers to make toilet paper, in return for vague promises of small amounts of certified and recycled fiber use in the future." To date, about 4,000 people have sent protest emails from Ecological Internet's website to 84 people at Greenpeace, Kimberly-Clark and FSC.

Greenpeace's Forest Campaign Coordinator, Richard Brookes, responded: "We hope you understand that complete change does not happen overnight - neither for governments nor individuals, nor for multi-national corporations like Kimberly-Clark. But change has already taken place for the betterment of ancient forests under Kimberly-Clark's new policy. We are confident that change will continue to happen."

This doesn't seem to have reassured Dr. Barry, who writes:

"Change never happens if you fail to ask for the necessary outcomes. Old forests must be fully protected and ecologically restored globally. The new policy does not implement any change, it is based upon the false assertion that FSC sustainable forest management of first time logging of ancient boreal forests somehow 'protects' them."

Others have also got involved in the discussion, including the CEO of a paper company, Tim Spring of Marcal Paper, which produces 100 per cent recycled paper. Spring writes that

"it is unnecessary to kill even a single additional tree to manufacture toilet paper, facial tissue, napkins or paper towels. Given the ability to easily make high performing, affordable paper products out of 100 percent recycled paper, Kimberly-Clark's new agreement to manufacture paper products with as much as 60 percent virgin tree fiber is not a 'truce' for the planet, and it should not become the new standard for eco-friendly paper manufacturing. ... Since when is 40 percent a passing grade? While I understand the negotiating process, Greenpeace needs to rethink these standards. There is no excuse to make paper from anything but 100 percent recycled fiber, especially when you consider that paper takes up a quarter of our landfill space today."

Another critique of Greenpeace's acceptance of Kimberly-Clark's sourcing policy comes from The Natural Resources Defense Council. First NRDC acknowledges that the deal is an improvement: "Kimberly-Clark's announcement that it will move to incorporate higher levels of FSC-certified fiber is a meaningful step in the right direction," NRDC writes in a Memo to its Corporate Greening Partners. "We hope all paper companies will similarly adopt FSC forestry management practices in order to reduce the ecological and cultural destruction typically associated with the paper industry's intensive logging practices."

Then NRDC explains why the deal isn't worth the paper it's written on: "[V]irgin fiber, even if it is FSC certified, is not the optimal fiber source for disposable tissue products. Instead, disposable tissue products should be made from recycled fibers, which avoids forestry impacts entirely." Kimberly-Clark's policy makes no commitment to increasing the total recycled content in its tissue paper. "Under the agreement," says NRDC, "there's no guarantee that Kimberly-Clark's at-home products will improve at all."

Then there's the plantations loophole. As NRDC points out, "Kimberly-Clark's policy also allows Kimberly-Clark to use wood fiber from forest lands which have been converted to biologically impoverished monoculture tree plantations, provided that the supplier can verify 'through certification by FSC or another forest certification system' that the pre-existing forest lands were not Special Forest Areas." "Special Forest Areas" are defined in Kimberly-Clark's policy and account for only a small subset of natural forests. Kimberly-Clark can use raw material from forest converted to monocultures, as long as the monocultures are rubber stamped by just about any old certification system.

On 6 August 2009, Andy Tait, Greenpeace's Biodiversity Campaign Manager was quoted in a Guardian article as saying, "There is a really obvious way to promote sustainability in the paper sector and that is to use recycled paper." Exactly. Perhaps Tait would like to have a word with Richard Brookes, Greenpeace's Forest Campaign Coordinator?

When Ecuadorian Timber Group Durini obtained the longtime announced FSC certificate for 8,380 hectares of its industrial timber plantations in April 2006, this was loudly celebrated by the timber lobby as a milestone for Ecuadorian wood industry and "forest" management. In contrast the suspension of the certificate two and a half years later, happened quietly and without any notice by the public.

On 27th of November 2008 German certifier GFA suspended the FSC seal of Rio Pitzará Forest Management Unit (GFA-FM/COC-1267), the industrial timber plantations of the infamous Timber Group Durini in Ecuador. The reason has been the use of a banned pesticide. According to the evaluation report the pesticide Fluramide (active component sulfluramid), prohibited by FSC, was found on the plantation. The pesticide is being used to control defoliating ant (Atta sp.).

Since then, the group did not contact GFA or tried to regain the certificate, explained GFA by phone. Maybe Durini does not need the certificate anymore, or the prohibition of the use of the pesticide is a requirement which cannot be fulfilled by the company. Anyway, in Ecuador the Durini Group and its plywood companies Endesa (Quito) and Botrosa (Quinindé) and timber extraction company Setrafor are synonymous for the destruction of the Northwestern tropical rainforests and its habitants: indigenous Chachi, Embera, Awá and Afroecuadorian communities, as well as countless numbers of animal and plant species. For more than thirty years the Durini Group has plundered the lowlands forests on the Pacific coast as a resource of cheap timber. The so called "selective" logging has shrunk the former continuous forests to some forests remnants in the remote parts of some indigenous territories.

Social conflicts have also been daily bread, like the case of a property covering 3,123 hectares known as El Pambilar, allocated to Botrosa in 1998 by the National Agrarian Development Institute (INDA). After over two years of violent confrontations between peasants and company staff, complaints and official investigations, in 2000 the Ministry of the Environment confirmed that 90% of the land (2,830 hectares) was located within the State Forestry Heritage (PFE) and had been illegally allocated. The Ministry decided that Endesa-Botrosa must return the land to the State and the Constitutional Tribunal resolved that the peasants should be compensated by the company for the prejudice caused to them. Until today, the peasants still wait for any recompensation, and some of them like campesino leader Floresmilo Villalta, have been thrown to prison.

As an important player in the forestry sector, Endesa-Botrosa has been supported for years by a number of public and international organizations, like the federally owned German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ) and USAID, and industry financed NGOs like Fundación Natura and its partners WWF, IUCN and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). An important part of the plywood is sold under the brand Sandeply to ten countries abroad, among them the US, Mexico, and the Caribean. Oregon based Colombia Forest Products, imports Sandeply to the US, which is sold at important retailer chains like Lowes and Home Depot.

Photograph: Cessation of illegal logging of Durini group by the Ecuadorian Environment Minister Ana Alban and Director of the National Forest near the Awa territory in 2006

The case of Endesa-Botrosa is symptomatic of the key problems of FSC. The company did not lose the certificate because of its ongoing destructive logging in primary community forests of Esmeraldas and Pichincha provinces, neither the devastating environmental and social impacts of large scale industrial timber plantations. The reason was because of a technical "detail", the use of a forbidden pesticide. That's how the "logic" of FSC works. FSC certifier GFA handled the plantation company as a legally independent company, which cannot be blamed for the crimes committed by the other companies of the same Durini group, namely Endesa, Botrosa and Setrafor. In the meantime, the struggle against the Durini Group in Ecuador goes on.

Klaus Schenck, September 2009

The world's leading environmental magazine, the Ecologist, has today published a major feature article on the FSC. The article questions the role of FSC in certiyfing plantations, raises doubts about how 'multi-stakeholder' an organisation FSC really is, and questions the motivations of some of the big NGO members of the organisation, including WWF and Greenpeace. The article asks whether regulatory mechanisms are more likely to be effective, and concludes that, whilst there is clearly a high level of public concern about the world's forests and the impact of wood and paper consumption, "The question is whether labels can live up to our expectations."

Can we trust the FSC?

Matilda Lee

22nd September, 2009

It's the logo we all look for when buying furniture and wood products. But the Forest Stewardship Council has come in for some serious criticism. Matilda Lee looks at both sides of the argument

The Ecologist Magazine has kindly agreed to make the full article available to FSC-Watch readers here. We encourage readers to log on to the Ecologists's site here and register/subscribe. We also ask that this link is not replicated elsewhere.

Given that New Forest Company plans to sell carbon credits from its plantations, this news should be of particular interest to FSC's Carbon Working Group. The Group was established in July 2009, and is supposed "to explore the role that FSC and forest certification can play in frameworks and projects to mitigate climate change." Last week, the Carbon Working Group held a three day meeting in Bonn, sponsored by GTZ (the German agency for technical cooperation), where it discussed "FSC's representation and message at the UNFCCC COP-15". Clearly, the Carbon Working Group needs to take a look at the impact of some FSC-certified carbon projects first. FSC-Watch would like to suggest starting with the FACE Foundation and New Forest Company in Uganda followed by Plantar in Brazil.

Uganda: Mubende Residents Petition Lands Minister Over Eviction, Harassment

By Moses Mulondo, New Vision, 20 July 2009

Kampala - OVER 10,000 residents of Kitumbi sub-county in Mubende district have petitioned the lands minister, Omara Atubo, to stop a private company from evicting them.

The residents said tensions were high in the villages of Kyamukasa, Kyato, Kicucula, Kisiita, Mpologoma, and Kanaamire where armed groups are beating people, abducting them and destroying their crops and houses.

While handing the petition to Atubo in his office in Kampala yesterday, residents said the harassment was meant to subdue them to leave their land, which they have occupied for decades.

They explained that the land was allegedly bought by New Forest Company to plant trees. "My banana plantation on three acres has been destroyed by the people who are trying to evict us. They even took 10 bags of maize from me," Jessica Nyinamatama, a 56-year-old widow, who is taking care of nine orphans, said.

The LC3 land committee chairman, William Mpamira, informed Atubo that Kyamukasa and Mpologoma primary schools had been closed following the chaos. Over 700 pupils, Mpamira noted, had stopped going to school.

"Two of our neighbours were abducted by armed people who are trying to evict us," Mpamira said. "Richard Twahirwa was arrested on June 26 and Cyprian Munyagaju was arrested on July 13. Up to now, we don't know their whereabouts."

He narrated that their tormentors attack at night and that most residents had resorted to sleeping in the bushes. "Our land is not a forest reserve. Besides, we doubt whether the intention of the company is to plant trees and protect the environment," Mpamira argued.

"Since 2005, they have been cutting down trees which we had preserved for commercial timber," he narrated. Responding to the petition, Atubo vowed to stop the investor from evicting the residents.

"As a ministry in charge of land, we are saddened by what has happened to you. It is important to respect your rights irrespective of whether you occupy the land legally or not. There is no need for your colleagues to disappear, your property to be stolen or crops to be destroyed," Atubo said as the villagers applauded.

The minister said he would summon the resident district commissioner and the company officials to respond to the reports. Atubo also promised to lead a team of investigators to Kitumbi on a fact-finding mission.

"This is an urgent case because it is about life and death. These acts against our citizens should stop immediately. Investment is only good if the residents benefit from it. Human beings are more important than trees," he stated.

Uganda: Carbon sink plantation - where trees are more important than people

World Rainforest Movement, Bulletin 145, August 2009

The UK-based New Forests Company is establishing tree plantations in Uganda, Mozambique and Tanzania. The company states that "Whilst based on commercial forestry economics, our projects are underwritten by carbon credits ... in compliance with the Clean Development Mechanism". This means that its profits from the sale of wood will be increased by selling "carbon credits" to polluting industries in the North. It also means that companies buying these carbon credits should be also held responsible for the impacts of these plantations on local peoples and the environment.

Given that New Forests "has already established itself as the biggest tree planter and the dominant player in Uganda" and "is set to begin operations in other countries", it is important to let people know about what is actually happening in its 54,000 acres of land in this country.

The company defines its activities as "Sustainable and socially responsible forestry". The meaning of this is shown clearly in the pictures and short text in its own web site. The "responsible" process begins with the destruction of local biodiversity in two steps: 1) manual "bush clearing" 2) "chemical spraying". Once the local vegetation has been totally eliminated -and the environment polluted with chemical herbicides- it is substituted by two fast-growing alien tree species (Eucalyptus and Pine) planted as monocultures over large areas of land. These green deserts are the "New Forests" from where this company takes its name.

Evidence about how "socially responsible" the company can be is also provided in the above mentioned pictures. Two of them show a few women working in very uncomfortable conditions in a makeshift tree nursery. Another photo shows a 16-strong "clearing team" without appropriate clothing for the task. Finally, the 12 workers of the "chemical spraying" team are shown from too far away to assess if they have been provided with the necessary protective gear and clothing. Given that the company does not provide any information on the figure of 1800 workers that are "expected" to work in the plantation, one can only guess that most of them will be employed in tree planting and dismissed once that activity is completed.

But even in the impossible case that all the 1800 workers were to be employed on a permanent basis, the company fails to mention that over 10,000 residents of Kitumbi sub-county in Mubende district are facing eviction to make way to its plantations. Which means that -on balance- 8,200 people will be in a far worse condition than before the company's arrival. And "far worse" is in fact an understatement of what they are being subjected to.

The following quotes from an article published on 20 July in the Ugandan web site New Vision, provides more than ample evidence about the "significant social benefits" that the company has been providing local people with.

According to the article, residents in the villages of Kyamukasa, Kyato, Kicucula, Kisiita, Mpologoma, and Kanaamire denounced that armed groups were beating people, abducting them and destroying their crops and houses. Such actions were meant "to subdue them to leave their land, which they have occupied for decades", so that the New Forests Company could plant its trees.

"My banana plantation on three acres has been destroyed by the people who are trying to evict us. They even took 10 bags of maize from me," Jessica Nyinamatama, a 56-year-old widow, who is taking care of nine orphans, said.

The local land committee chairman, William Mpamira stated that "Two of our neighbours were abducted by armed people who are trying to evict us," adding that "Richard Twahirwa was arrested on June 26 and Cyprian Munyagaju was arrested on July 13. Up to now, we don't know their whereabouts."

According to Mpamira, the population is suffering night attacks and as a result most residents have resorted to sleeping in the bushes. He also added that "we doubt whether the intention of the company is to plant trees and protect the environment," because "since 2005, they have been cutting down trees which we had preserved for commercial timber."

As a result of the situation they were suffering, the villagers decided to go to Kampala, where they petitioned the lands minister, Omara Atubo, to stop the evictions. In response, the minister vowed to stop the investor from evicting the residents and said:

"As a ministry in charge of land, we are saddened by what has happened to you. It is important to respect your rights irrespective of whether you occupy the land legally or not. There is no need for your colleagues to disappear, your property to be stolen or crops to be destroyed," Atubo said as the villagers applauded.

The minister said he would summon the resident district commissioner and the company officials to respond to the reports. Atubo also promised to lead a team of investigators to Kitumbi on a fact-finding mission.

"This is an urgent case because it is about life and death. These acts against our citizens should stop immediately. Investment is only good if the residents benefit from it. Human beings are more important than trees," he stated.

New Forests Company officials should repeat after him: Human beings are more important than trees!

The Times reports that "The legitimacy of the $100 billion (£60 billion) carbon-trading market has been called into question after the world's largest auditor of clean-energy projects was suspended by United Nations inspectors. SGS UK had its accreditation suspended last week after it was unable to prove its staff had properly vetted projects that were then approved for the carbon-trading scheme, or even that they were qualified to do so." The full story is available here.

This will sound familiar to FSC-Watchers, a number of whom have called for the removel of the FSC accreditation of the Johannesburg-based SGS forestry certification subsidiary, SGS-Qualifor, for failing to properly vet companies for FSC certification.

Some forestry carbon credits for the voluntary carbon markets are already claimed to be sustainable on the basis of being FSC certified. The Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) scheme now accepts FSC certification as a guarantee that forestry carbon projects are environmentally acceptable. So whilst the UN has taken action to stop dodgy carbon credits from being certified by SGS, dodgy forest carbon projects from the same certification company could still be entering into voluntary carbon markets, thanks to the FSC.

The Times reports that "The legitimacy of the $100 billion (£60 billion) carbon-trading market has been called into question after the world's largest auditor of clean-energy projects was suspended by United Nations inspectors. SGS UK had its accreditation suspended last week after it was unable to prove its staff had properly vetted projects that were then approved for the carbon-trading scheme, or even that they were qualified to do so." The full story is available here.

This will sound familiar to FSC-Watchers, a number of whom have called for the removel of the FSC accreditation of the Johannesburg-based SGS forestry certification subsidiary, SGS-Qualifor, for failing to properly vet companies for FSC certification.

Some forestry carbon credits for the voluntary carbon markets are already claimed to be sustainable on the basis of being FSC certified. The Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) scheme now accepts FSC certification as a guarantee that forestry carbon projects are environmentally acceptable. So whilst the UN has taken action to stop dodgy carbon credits from being certified by SGS, dodgy forest carbon projects from the same certification company could still be entering into voluntary carbon markets, thanks to the FSC.