http://www.fsc-watch.org/ http://www.fsc-watch.org/archives/2013/04/04/FSC_trademarks_and_c#c877 2013-05-20T14:19:20+02:00 http://www.fsc-watch.org/archives/2013/04/04/FSC_trademarks_and_c#c876 2013-05-19T12:19:03+02:00 http://www.fsc-watch.org/archives/2013/04/04/FSC_trademarks_and_c#c875 2013-04-08T06:16:43+02:00
One of the most "popular" pages on the site is this one:
http://hancockwatch.nfshost.com/docs/11oct.htm

Note that it also refers to that other forest certification scheme operating in Australia, the AFS. Hancock have joint certification (AFS & FSC) meaning that both are having the same impact on the ground.
]]> http://www.fsc-watch.org/archives/2013/04/04/FSC_trademarks_and_c#c874 2013-04-05T11:46:42+02:00
As for Gunns and 'independence', if you knew the first thing about the FSC you would know that the global membership of the organisation has repeatedly demanded that certificates should not be issued where there is no properly agreed and approved National FSC Standard. Of course there is no such standard in Australia because your entity has failed to come up with one. If as a national FSC organisation you had any integrity then you would stand up to the fraudsters at the Rainforest Alliance and tell them to p*ss off out of Australia and go and certify some bankrupt and non-compliant loggers elsewhere. ]]> http://www.fsc-watch.org/archives/2013/04/04/FSC_trademarks_and_c#c873 2013-04-05T11:34:17+02:00
I would like the opportunity to explain this.

The requirements regarding using the trademark for educational use (which was the original purpose the publication contacted me, and not for journalistic reasons at all) merely so that we can check, in educational publications that facts about FSC such as number of hectares certified, where and what sorts of forests carry certification etc are correct. It doesnt help anyone if these things arent corect and serves to actually help the person writing about FSC. Even when I spent a significant amount of time explaining exactly how many hectares were certified and which places in Asia Pacific, this article did not represent the facts. In australia there are 896 000 hectares that have achieved Forest Management Certification. This information can be verified on our publicly available international database.

This was the context under which I was originally contacted. There are no restrictions on journalists. Anyone only has to see media reports that are published across the world about FSC. We welcome stakeholder input and feedback, in whatever form, and most particularly want to improve our system all the time via feedback mechanisms.

However we do have rules about trademark use that are designed to protect the integrity of the system, where we do issue permission. There is no cost for educational uses. There is no 'big stick' with journalists.

In relation to Gunns, this is in the hands of the auditors for review upon re certification coming up. FSC Australia has, in the way that all good standards systems operate, separated policy from compliance decision making to try to ensure independence in decision making.. People can participate and express views on that in the very near future.

Kind Regards,

Natalie]]> http://www.fsc-watch.org/archives/2013/04/04/FSC_trademarks_and_c#c872 2013-04-04T17:15:47+02:00
For example, any FSC body that can defend the continued certification (for 'economic sustainability'?) of a company (Gunns) that is actually bankrupt and in receivership, deserves special awards for use of Double-Speak.
]]> http://www.fsc-watch.org/archives/2013/04/04/FSC_trademarks_and_c#c871 2013-04-04T17:00:27+02:00
I'd suggest they feel this is necessary because it's been abused before? And if that's true, maybe it is because it is worth doing (ie it's a meaningful standard).

Perhaps this requirement harms them too, given your comments at the end about the amount of timber certified vs PEFC? I wonder if PEFC has similar problems with people misusing the logo or making incorrect claims etc?]]> http://www.fsc-watch.org/archives/2013/02/22/FSC_commits__major_b#c870 2013-03-05T19:35:44+01:00
"The immediate cause is the removal of most vegetation. This is driven by a number of factors, alone or in combination, such as drought, climatic shifts, tillage for agriculture, overgrazing and deforestation for fuel or construction materials. Vegetation plays a major role in determining the biological composition of the soil. Studies have shown that, in many environments, the rate of erosion and runoff decreases exponentially with increased vegetation cover.[17] Unprotected, dry soil surfaces blow away with the wind or are washed away by flash floods, leaving infertile lower soil layers that bake in the sun and become an unproductive hardpan."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

I used to feel that the SFI(Sustainable Forestry Initiative) was the bogus green-washed choice as opposed to FSC certification. Now the sense of hopelessness is even more clear-cut in regards to the industry watchdogs. If we can't trust FSC, than who will keep these timber companies honest?

Fortunately, groups like EPIC and The Center for Biological Diversity are keeping tabs on the industry and the greenwashing committed by FSC and SFI. But they cannot do this without you!

Visit them at:
http://www.wildcalifornia.org/
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/

Thank you for your work Bobby!]]>