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 This should have meant that SEFAC's certificate was no longer valid.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?