Topic
When it comes to buying nature-friendly wood, two stamps of approval vie, with vast forests at stake. Which will win out? Big timber firms back the one critics call greenwashing. A Tyee special report.
FSC seal of approval: tougher standards.
A contented-looking man stands in front of a posh house in a bathrobe, gripping a morning newspaper and coffee. The caption for this full-page New Yorker ad identifies him as "the new environmentalist."
"These days, a growing number of consumers want the good life, but not at the expense of the environment," reads the copy. "So when they shop for everything from newspapers to building materials, they look for SFI certified wood and paper products."
The year was 2007, and this ad was among the first shots fired in a high-stakes PR war that continues to play out across North America today. The combatants are the two largest rival forestry certification non profit organizations in the world: the industry-created Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), which was conceived by a coalition of North American environmental activists.
At stake, then and now, is a multi-billion dollar international market for eco-certified wood products, which rewards environmentally-responsible forestry companies with improved access to retail and business-to-business customers.
What both certification programs have in common is that their respective logos -- appearing on books and 2x4s and everything between -- carry a promise of "sustainability;" both indicate that eco-conscious buyers can relax and know they are buying a product that they can feel good about.
What the rivals do not share, is a common vision of what sustainability looks like on the forest floor, and whether the differences between certification standards matter at all.
"We don't believe that consumers are sophisticated enough to have learned at this point what FSC stands for versus what SFI stands for," says Kathy Abusow, President and CEO of SFI Inc. "Most of the large customers....are feeling good about recognizing and awarding that ten percent of the global forest base that is certified, rather than expending energy on trying to decide who is the A+ and A- student."
Battle for hearts, minds and markets
The current certification battle started ramping up in 1999, the year Home Depot announced it would give "preferential treatment" to FSC-certified wood -- a move motivated at least in part by pressure from the environmental groups that created the FSC.
Faced with losing access to the biggest North American markets, the SFI intensified promotional efforts, distancing itself from its parent trade group the American Forestry and Paper Association (AF&PA), even though as late as 2007, the newly "independent" charity was still receiving unspecified "contract services" from this trade group (as disclosed in its tax return).
During this same year, SFI hired Canadian forestry certification expert Abusow as President and CEO, and with her, the U.S. public relations firm of Porter Novelli, which was paid $1.8 in fiscal 2007 to rebrand and rebuild the SFI from the ground up.
"I am committed to growing SFI's recognition and importance among conservation groups, buyers, forest managers, industry, and policy makers," said Abusow of her plans for SFI at the time.
SFI's total 2007 revenue grew to over 5.5 million, from $624,890 the year earlier, and just $344,155 in 2002. With this funding -- of which $3.2 million came from membership dues from member forestry companies -- the SFI waged a new PR campaign in North America, including billboards, full-page consumer magazine and newspaper ads, and a growing presence at influential printing and building trade shows.
What's the difference? SFI vs. FSC
Compared here are the two dominant forestry certification bodies: the Forest Stewardship Council and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative.
Getting stamped
Companies are awarded two basic kinds of certificates by third-party auditors, who confirm that they meet the FSC- and SFI-created standards. Certificates are awarded for Forest Management and Chain of Custody -- the latter which theoretically ensures that all wood and fibre sources in a product are known.
How do the two certification bodies compare?
FSC: 112.85 million hectares certified world-wide (over 30 percent in North America)
SFI: 65 million hectares certified across North America (41 million ha in Canada alone)
FSC: 13,043 Chain of Custody certificates, in 81 countries
SFI: 527 Chain of Custody certificates, North America only.
FSC: Launched by environmentalists in 1993; democratically-governed, member-based.
SFI: Launched by U.S. forest industry trade group in early 1990s, now a registered charity.
FSC: A non-government org that accredits national working groups to develop regional standards (e.g., there are four FSC standards in Canada.)
SFI: A single standard (reviewed every five years) applied across all of North America
FSC: Third party independent auditors inspect to ensure companies meet FSC standards.
SFI: Third party independent auditors inspect to ensure companies meet FSI standards.
FSC: Performance-based standards dictate how biological diversity, species at risk, riparian protection, water quality, and forest health should be protected and enhanced. Required consultation with First Nations, labour, non-forestry interests such as trappers, outfitters, mushroom pickers, etc.
SFI: Procedure-based standard does not generally prescribe requirements for managing forests. Companies choose their level of performance in regards to environment, consultation of stakeholders; levels vary from very high to a baseline meeting existing government regulations.
FSC: "Controlled wood" standard dictates that wood products and fibre must not be genetically-modified, illegally harvested (including taken from disputed native land), from important species at risk habitat, or from forest lands converted into mono-culture tree plantations.
SFI: "Controlled wood" means that forestry products and fibre are not from "illegal" sources.
FSC: Strict chain of custody (COC) requirements: consumers can trace where their wood products come from using numbers printed on each FSC COC label.
SFI: Chain of custody requirements less rigorous.
FSC: Companies committed to buying FSC wood and paper products include: Home Depot, Ikea, Nike, The Body Shop, Costco, Dell Computers, Disney, Google.
SFI: Companies committed to buying SFI wood and paper products include: 3M, Tropicana, Rand McNally, Subway, Grand and Toy, Nestle.
-- C. P.
In 2008, forestry company Tembec Inc. was in the unique position of "upgrading" a large swath of mixed aspen and cottonwood near Chetwynd BC from SFI to FSC, shedding light on some of the differences between the competing standards.
"Generally speaking, if you follow the B.C. provincial regulations, you're pretty darn close to meeting SFI," says Doug Braybrook, Tembec's Fibre Procurement Superintendent for the Chetwynd area.
The company was required under FSC to conduct much broader consultations to create forestry management plans, including local First Nations, outfitters and trappers. Braybrook says the company had to identify areas of "High Conservation Value Forest," which were mapped with the input of local stakeholders; once identified, habitat for caribou, bull trout, rare birds and plants had to be managed to protect the wildlife.
More intact forest was required on the edges of streams, lakes and wetlands, and Tembec performed a mandatory " pre-industrial condition assessment" -- which considered what their forests looked like prior to industrial logging, and how it could be managed to more resemble that state.
"FSC is definitely the more onerous standard to get and maintain," says Chris Stagg, the Chief Forester for Tembec Western Canada, who was involved in the Chetwynd-area FSC process and today oversees nearly a million hectares of FSC-certified forests in East Kootenay. "It's the most expensive for sure, by a fairly wide margin." Stagg says this cost and effort does not translate directly into higher returns on Tembec's wood and pulp products -- but the benefit is still significant. "For getting access to the best customers, the Home Depots and Lowes for example, FSC certification really does make you first out the door," he says. "When times are tough and people are not calling others, they are still calling us."
PR blitz is working
SFI's latest ad campaign -- launched this year in Canada -- focuses not on its rival FSC, but on the 90 percent of world forests with no certification at all.
"We don't spend any of our effort trying to talk about FSC versus SFI," says Abusow. "We talk about what SFI does, why you can feel good being a part of it, and growing it."
This "better than nothing" approach is paying off: in April 2008, international juice-maker Tropicana Products Inc. announced that the paper board used to make its juice cartons had received certification to the SFI fibre-sourcing standard. During the same month, 3M committed to earning SFI's Chain-of-Custody certification for all Post-it Notes made and sold in the US.
SFI is currently waiting to hear this year whether it will be included in the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, which currently recognizes only FSC-certified building products.
On the consumer front, SFI scored a partial victory last November when RONA adopted an "inclusive approach" for certified wood procurement -- which means they will carry SFI-certified products, although FSC-certified wood will be given "preference" to "better meets Rona's requirements in terms of relationships with indigenous communities and the conservation of biodiversity."
SFI got the last word less than two months later, however, when they headhunted RONA's National Director of Forest Products, who now serves as their National Director, Market Access (Canada).
Enviros fighting against FSI
While SFI blurs the differences between certification programs, environmentalists are aggressively exposing the differences, painting the SFI, in the words of one campaigner, as "a phony green label on standard industry practices."
U.S.-based groups like the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) and the Sierra Club have banded together under the Alliance for Credible Forest Certification, highlighting destructive forestry practices on SFI-forested lands, such as high-elevation clear-cutting in Washington State's Chehalis River drainage in 2007.
They also point to a 2007 case involving the same company, where a federal court in Seattle imposed an injunction to stop logging in SFI-certified spotted owl habitat.
'Greenwash' and 'background noise'
"We consider SFI to be forest greenwash," says Jennifer Krill, Program Director at San Francisco's RAN, a founding member of the FSC. "The marketplace cannot trust the SFI to deliver the environmental and social standards that customers are demanding."
Krill says that SFI-labelled products can come from old growth forests, from huge clear cuts, and from tree plantations that were formerly ecologically-diverse forest -- and all the while, unwitting consumers and businesses buy the wood in an effort to be sustainable.
Kathy Abusow refers to the campaign of groups like RAN and its partners as "background noise," and objects to referring to them as environmental groups. "I would refer to them as campaigning groups, because environmental groups have scientists and big institutional structures, [like] the conservation groups we work with all the time."
But regardless of whether a real environmentalist is a battle-hardened campaigner or happy suburban yuppie portrayed in a New Yorker ad -- at least one conservation group on the SFI Board has moved to the FSC environmental chamber since 2007.
"We tried to improve things during that time, although we would have liked to see more improvement," says Fran Price, Director of Certification Programs for the US-based The Nature Conservancy, which sat on the SFI board between 2001 and 2007. "In terms of global players aligned with our vision, we're [now] using FSC as a conservation tool."
Related Tyee stories:
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
25
Login or register to post comments
frank2
3 years ago
Once again,industry wolves
Once again,industry wolves pose as charitable sheep, promoting their destructive activities as socially desirable. There oughta be a law!!
ME2
3 years ago
Greenwash a'plenty
If Pollon's portrayals are accurate, there is no doubt that FSC stands head and shoulders above FSI.
That granted, to then say that FSC promotes "sustainable forestry" is at best extremely optimistic, and is, in my opinion, just validating a another, though less obvious, form of greenwashing.
The simple fact is that neither environmental nor economic sustainability can be achieved within the short rotation periods industrial foresters are forced to employ in order to satisfy the timelines necessary for the return on investment demanded by the accountants.
To explain the reasons for this requires a few lengthy postings, so I'll instead illustrate the gist of them by noting that BC's Old Growth Coastal forests have had a minimum average age of 400 years with trees of 1,000 years or better being common. It is these trees which have sustained a very prosperous industy for the past 100 years.
Now they are very nearly gone, with the industy now busily helicopter hi-grading what is left of them.
Will the "Green-up", some of which is now big enough to cut, replace the Old Growth? Not a chance. The Americans, who are our best customers, don't want it, since they have more than enough of their own (which is what their lumber embargos have really been about)
And once the forestcos have come back to recover the "retention" timber the FSC'ers are so proud of, our "working forest" will have been reduced to a perpetual state of "greening up", just plantations with no room for the biodiversity necessary for true environmental sustainaility and/or forest health, just as we've seen with the Mountain Pine Beetle and the monocultural (another type of unnatural forest) Lodgepole pine forests in the Interior.
Oh well, no doubt our Glorius Leader will think our forest lands would be better used as ranchettes - But hey!... that's the American Way, isn't it?
AlgonquinPark
3 years ago
The CSA Standard is the Leader in Canada
Several things require a response in this article ...
1) any article on forest certification in Canada that ignores the Canadian Standard Association CSA Z809 Sustainable forest management standard is superficial
2) 146 million hectares of Canadian forest had been certified at the end of 2008 to three certification programmes: CSA Z809, the FSC and the SFI
3) the total Canadian certified forest area is broken down in the following manner: CSA Z809 55%, the FSC 18% and the SFI 26%
4) CSA Z809 was the world's first national sustainable forest management standard (1994) and created and funded with the support of industry, the CSA, the Canadian Forest Service and the federal Department of Industry. Its public consultation process and number of indicators exceed both the FSC and the SFI
5) Canada has 40% of the world's certified forest area - the largest area of third-party independently certified forests (CSA, FSC, SFI) in the world.
6) while Home Depot indicated a preference for FSC in 1999 its stock of FSC products remains in the low single digits (the same is true of RONA)
7) Canadian architects are not specifying FSC - less than 10 LEED certified projects in Canada have earned the FSC wood credit since 2004
8) anecdotal comments from two Tembec staff can be easily contradicted by other foresters
9) the Nature Conservancy (US) should not be confused with the Nature Conservancy Canada. Programmes that the two organizations support in their respective countries are not transferable.
Brutus
3 years ago
Can't see the forest for the trees
This is a classic case of can’t see the forest for the trees. While we dicker over which certification system is better, sustainable forest management is undermined around the world by illegal logging and unsustainable practices on the 90% of forests that aren’t certified. Face it: Canada has, bar none, the best forest management practices in the world. You may not like forestry, or may have a not-in-my-backyard mentality, but on a global scale, no one does it better. And newsflash – FSC certified wood products come from old growth and clearcuts as well. In fact, the largest clearcut in Canada is FSC certified – over ten thousand hectares of old growth boreal forest in Ontario. If you think FSC is the golden child with no detractors, check out fsc-watch.org. But this is all background noise as Abusow said. To address the real and present threat of climate change, we need to encourage the use of MORE wood from sustainably managed forests, not less. Let’s get back to basics people - wood is natural, renewable and is a far greener choice than steel – and environmentalists agree. So surprise surprise, Greenpeace created FSC and won’t support a competing brand. When we’re talking about the best 10% in the world, who cares?
NameWithNumbers
3 years ago
In addition to demanding
In addition to demanding stricter measures of foresters on the ground than SFI (or CSA, for that matter), FSC also has a unique governance model. Various sectors are represented, including Labour, Industry, First Nations, and Environment, with each having a role to play in the various processes of standards development or complaint reviews. The organization is not only a frontrunner in advancing eco-forestry generally, but of corporate accountability as well.
Chris Tollefson's book "Setting the Standard" gives a good look at the state of the forest certification movement and FSC, in particular, for anyone interested in the subject.
ME2
3 years ago
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
To be sure, the above posters are correct in their assertions that in a larger world where virtually NO environmental restrictions apply to logging old-growth forests, Canada, with its certification systems, is a world leader.
However, if the goal of protecting OG forests amounts to protecting and sustaining biodiversity, setting aside limited areas such as riparian zones and habitat for popular tweety-birds and poster-card mammals does not cut it.
The simple fact is that repeated large-scale disturance to a forest - as well as a jungle - renders the regeneration of biodiversity impossible, and so too with economic sustainability, since the lifespan of the most desired trees is measured in many centuries, NOT a few decades.
On our Coast it is possible to log and preserve sustainaility at the same time, but only IF the rotation period was lengthned to 250 years, with the small cleacuts (analogues of blowdown patches) widely spaced in place and time.
This would not fit the industrial model, which favours the labour-saving devices of mega-machinery and mass production, but does fit the model outlined by Gro Harlem Brundtland in her report Our Common Future prepared for the UN's World Commission On Environment And Development (1999). For a few months this report captured the world's attention, but was subsequently swept under the rug as the New World Order was being popularized.
The most important revelation I found in that report was the assertion that the economic well-being of a nation was NOT due to wealth flowing downward from a few Corporations, but rather flows UPWARD from the combined effort of thousands of working citizens and their various enterprises, which is particularly apparent in the Third World.
This appealed to me at the time as I felt - and still do - that the answer to our forestry problems lies in shucking the shackles of the TFLs and embracing the Community Forest. Out of the experiments of many such enterprises in which sustainaility and small-scale logging are the prime interests, could come workable designs for genuine sustainaility which encompass ALL goals, economic AND social.
Certainly most of us should be well aware by now that putting all our eggs in the Corporate basket and its economic model is foolhardy, short-term thinking.
Dynamo
3 years ago
News Reporting
Editor:
This Opinion-Editorial article seems to have been mistakenly posted under "News".
alive
3 years ago
fool me once....
Given an opportunity there will always be some entrepenour ready to create certification processes and logo's.
Lately it was the building inspectors that suddenly have certification, but no requirement of any training or skills.
We see it in labelling of consumer goods, where all kinds of logo's supposedly guarantees quality; when in fact it is just another marketing campaign!
My question is: do anyone believe in this crap? ----- who do they think they are fooling?
ME2
3 years ago
Sadly , 99 % of enviros quite honestly don't think it's crap
Yes alive, the enviros who promote FSC sincerely believe in that system. Their problem lies in the legacy of promoting the idea that ANY logging (excepting single-tree selection a la Wildwood) is bad, a necessary viewpoint in the days when the push was on to promote large-scale preservation which excluded logging.
My guess is that when the "War in the Woods" became counterproductive, that distaste for logging, and hence no desire to contemplate the possibility that sustainable logging can be achieved, led them to accept the advice of industrial foresters that something modelled along the lines of the Forest Practices Code is the best that can be achieved.
And so, logically enough, they have accepted the short rotation as an unavoidable companion to commercial logging. Unfortunately, genuine sustainability - by any definition - is unattainable with a short rotation.
And that, incidentally, is one of the places where the GBR agreement fails, despite "Adaptive Management" providing "Ecosystem-based Management" for logging.
If you are looking for blamees, alive, look to the Professional Forester who is breaking her / his sworn oath to promote ecosystem integrity when he / she fails to speak against the short rotation.
The other candidates were listed above by NameWithNumbers :
"Various sectors are represented, including Labour, Industry, First Nations, and Environment, with each having a role to play in the various processes of standards development or complaint reviews."
That pretty well covers the rest of us, I think, and so where the forestcos are motivated by profit, we're obviously motivated by JAWBS, JAWBS, JAWBS.
And guess what? Don't these two ALWAYS trump the environment? And can't we ALWAYS find some justification for doing so?
AlgonquinPark
3 years ago
FSC Governance is a Myth
A previous comment states that ... "FSC also has a unique governance model. Various sectors are represented, including Labour, Industry, First Nations, and Environment, with each having a role to play in the various processes of standards development or complaint reviews. The organization is not only a frontrunner in advancing eco-forestry generally, but of corporate accountability as well" ...
Sadly this is not the case. While many believe that the Bonn, Germany based international office is FSC headquarters; the parent is actually Forest Stewardship Council, Asociación Civil (FSC,A.C.) a Mexican corporation registered in 1996 and located in Oaxaca. FSC,A.C. owns all the FSC marques and the FSC web site; it is the sole shareholder of ASI-Accreditation Services International (ASI) and FSC Global Development. The employment contracts with senior FSC staff in Bonn are between them and FSC,A.C.
The board of directors of FSC,A.C. does not resemble that of the Bonn subsidiary. Permanent places exist for WWF (3 members), Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), 3 or 4 FSC national initiative representatives and staff. The "south" and "social" chamber each get one seat.
The FSC governance model is simply a myth perpetrated on a naive audience. It continues so that WWF, Greenpeace and the NRDC can avoid charges of conflict of interest, while they maintain the pretence of independent interlocutors. Occasionally, other groups like FERN, ProForest and Conservation International have been asked to do a turn on the board, but they too understand the purpose of the exercise is really just communications and control.
In this respect, FSC,A.C. and its subsidiaries FSC-Bonn, ASI and FSC Global Development resemble any other international holding company.
Morg
3 years ago
Still logging the last of the Old Growth Forest
FSC is the best of a bad bunch of standards.What it comes down to is that 80% of the worlds old-growth forest are gone and we keep logging them.The only wood we should be using is from second or third growth forest with very high environmental standards.Here in BC Gordon Campbell will log the last 25% of old-growth forest on Vancouver Island right now he is gutting valley by valley in the worlds only Inland Rainforest so we shouldnt be talking about which standard to use to log these rare forest we need to talk about ending this logging and moving to second and third growth forest instead.
ryder
3 years ago
Whatever happened to responsible reporting?
Before Christopher Pollon writes any more articles about forest certification, he’d better learn more about the topic so he has a fighting chance of representing it accurately.
Legitimate reporters work hard to be impartial. In its stylebook, Canadian Press recommends journalists stop regularly and ask: “Am I being as impartial, honest and fair as I can be?” It’s time Pollon took this advice.
Like Pollon, I’ve worked in the media and in public relations. Unlike Pollon, I understand the difference. One of the ethics guidelines for the Canadian Association of Journalists is not to allow biases to influence fair and accurate reporting.
Real journalists are supposed to lay out the facts so readers can form their own opinions. Real journalists do not look for facts or quotes to support preconceived views.
The Tyee is rightfully proud of much of its work. It should not be proud of this article.
David Beers
3 years ago
Response to Ryder
I choose not to let pass your anonymous attack on Christopher Pollon's professionalism as a journalist. You may differ with his findings, but you can't presume to know his character or fairness of mind. I know Chris to be a conscientious, fair-minded reporter. That's why I hired him to do this report -- and others to come in this series. This report more than meets our standards. It's based on Chris's factual, on the ground reporting and the sidebar clearly lays out the difference between the two approaches. I don't see in your post a single fact calling into question Pollon's own careful reporting.
Dynamo
3 years ago
Factual Reporting
Side-bar says
"SFI: Chain of custody requirements less rigorous."
Where are the carefully reported facts supporting that fair-minded statement?
AlgonquinPark
3 years ago
Response to Admin
May I point out six (6)of the most egregious errors in Mr. Pollon's article:
1) the author writes: "the current certification battle started ramping up in 1999" ... The battle (sic) began much earlier when CSA Z809 was launched in 1994
2) the author writes ... "FSC-certified wood will be given 'preference'... by RONA. Actually, RONA has made a commitment to purchase 25% of its dimensional wood from FSC sources. However, this represents just 10% of RONA's total wood purchases - leaving 90% for the CSA and the SFI.
3) the author writes that FSC has: “112.85 million hectares certified world-wide (over 30 percent in North America)” - in fact 40% of the area certified by FSC is in 66 countries where there is not yet an FSC approved standard. This should have been identified.
4) the author wrote: "Third party independent auditors inspect to ensure companies meet FSC standards". ASI-Accreditation Services International (ASI) approves FSC auditors. However, since ASI is owned by the FSC its auditors are not truly independent.
5) the author wrote: "Strict chain of custody (COC) requirements: consumers can trace where their wood products come from using numbers printed on each FSC COC label" .... But not on LEED certified projects where FSC gets a bit of a boost because USGBC has allowed the producer's CoC certificate to be used if the wholesaler/distributor can't or won't obtain its own.
6) I would also like to repeat that the author's decision to ignore CSA Z809 - the oldest national certification scheme in the world, the biggest and Canadian to boot - is totally incomprehensible.
ME2
3 years ago
Perhaps Pollon Will take the hint and do some research?
Contrary to your statement, David, however honest Pollon might be, his article does not suggest he's done the research necessary for the reader to feel certain his report is sufficient for taking home a trustworthy opinion re the efficacy of forest certification.
Re the charges levelled here by ryder re Pollon's impartiality, David, please note that in my first post on this thread, I took Pollon's evaluation at face value and more or less praised FSC. Due to contrary - and unrefuted - information posted here by others, I would not do so again. If not partial, Pollon was careless at best.
I've found AlgonquinPark's comments particularly unsettling, not only for the organisational structures he / she's revealed, but also for the questions left unanswered, such as WHO set up FSC, and WHY in MEXICO, of all places? If Greenpeace was one of the founders, and remains on its board, why is Greenpeace in Sweden attacking FSC, as reported on the site given by Brutus ( fsc-watch.org )? And how on earth could FSC certify the rape of Ontario's Boreal forest?
My guess is that pretty much all of our grant-chasing large organisations have found it "more effective" to accomodate Corporatism ( a la Tzeporah Berman ) rather than taking politically unpopular ethical stances.
Just as with our democracy, the environmental movememt will become increasingly irrelevant to us unless it returns to being accountable to the grass roots.
David Beers
3 years ago
Pollon researched his article
I'll make one more comment on this, and then simply ask everyone to read the rest of the series as it unfolds. The assignment for Chris was to compare SFI, the certification system that the US big timber companies were pouring millions into backing, with the system it was clearly trying to counter. That happens to be FSC, described thusly by the BC government:
"FSC is the program most widely recognized and endorsed by ENGO’s (environmental non-government organizations);
"Some established buyers groups are committing to eventually purchase only wood that is certified by FSC or programs endorsed by FSC;
"This is one of the only programs to date that has a label that can be used in the marketplace."
None of the above applies to CSA Z809 according to the BC Ministry of Forests. Read how the Ministry describes the various systems here.
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/het/certification/overview.htm
(And would it be too much to ask commenters to show at least as much good faith towards named journalists who lend their bylines to detailed stories assigned by the Tyee, as they do to anonymous commenters who have who knows what axes to grind?)
ME2
3 years ago
Ahhhh yes, political realities
David, perhaps Pollon has been unfairly criticised for hewing to the reportorial mandate you've assigned him to follow, namely :
"The assignment for Chris was to compare SFI....with.....FSC"
Which he did, and I agree with you that in that sense his "bias" was accurate and warranted.
You will note, however, that our criticisms became centered upon the efficacy of certification in general, although I now admit I became a bit more strident than was necessary.
However, I remain very concerned that certification as presently constituted - even the improved FSC variety - will continue to be seen as sufficient considering today's political realities.
You must realize that it was the effort to counter those very same political realities that gave birth to BC's modern environmental movement in the early 70's, (Riley Creek) after it became obvious that the forest industry had no interest in any improvements that interfere with profit-taking.
So I was surprised to see you refer to the endorsement by the Campbell gov't as legitimising the FSC. I am sure you would wonder what you were doing wrong if you saw a similar endorsement of the TYEE by the CanWest chain.
This issue has a tell-tale stink about it, and I hope Pollon exercises some caution with it.
AlgonquinPark
3 years ago
Let's All Take a Valium (and update our bookmarks)
The URL link that "Admin" provides is quite clearly dated "April 2002" (and I suggest was out of date even then).
The current BC government forest management URL is http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/het/certification/
I suggest we update our bookmarks and then start over. Aside from that it's the weekend ain't it?
A la prochain ....
Right to Bear
3 years ago
Communty Forest
A blogger stated the positive accounting of a Community Forest. In Bella Coola, despite the fact that there has been a lot of logging in this Valley, the organizers of a new Community Forest initiative have chosen to cut a previously unlogged swath for their CF. In this area CMT's have been marked by a FN's man, and then fallen to build roads and such. I understood there was as many as 40 CMT's cut down for this “Community Forest”.
Done well perhaps a Community Forest could play a roll in the future, but sadly, they are often not ethically approached by the few organizers involved.
-Bear
x4estworker
3 years ago
Boycott the Forest Stewardship Council
The Forest Stewardship Council is simply not a credible organization. All of the boycott campaigns, otherwise known as economic extortion campaigns, carried out by such organizations as the horribly misnamed ForestEthics have included as part of the deal having to certify wood products through the Forest Stewardship Council. In other words, the equivalent of a gun was held to the heads of these companies to avoid any sort of boycott campaign.
That is not what credible organizations do. Credible organizations attract business because they offer a product that people want to buy into, not a product that is only consumed because of attempted economic extortion.
The CSA (Canadian Standards Association) certification system is honest and aboveboard. The Forest Stewardship Council is closely associated with the most extreme environmental groups and should be shunned.
RMJeffery
3 years ago
Comparing the A and the A+ Student
In a province where forests are a major part of our collective identity, the more citizens that are aware of sustainable forest management (SFM) and marketplace tools like forest certification, the better off we all are. However, your article leads the readers to perceive conflict where none should exist.
While the article threads facts into the story, the overall picture is one of misguided negativity. As the CEO of the Coast Forest Products Association (CFPA),
I think the people of British Columbia have enough negativity on their hands right now with the biggest economic hit to the forest sector we’ve ever seen.
The article mentions the ad campaign SFI is running, which focuses on the fact that 90% of the world’s forests are uncertified. The ad promotes SFM, with a call to source products from certified forests and encourage responsible forest management. Calling SFI a “better than nothing” approach is shortsighted and is a slap in face to those who are on the ground doing right by our forests and our communities here in BC and on the coast.
CFPA’s members manufacture products from well-managed forests and compete with international producers that may be absent the legal forest management framework we have in BC, and may also not have independent certification. The fact that BC has the most certified area of any jurisdiction anywhere in the world is something we should be proud of. BC’s widespread adoption of independent certification sets the bar for the rest of the world, so I wholly agree with SFI’s approach – and the approach of many major forest product customers – of not wasting energy arguing over the A and A+ student.
With 90% of the world's forests remaining uncertified, the fact is that most of the class isn’t doing well or isn’t showing up at all, and that is a globally significant problem.
I believe in inclusive procurement policies – policies that don’t limit a company in their efforts to meet their sustainability goals. We promote all three of the major systems used in BC and Canada – CSA, FSC, and SFI. And we are not alone – companies and governments around the world take an inclusive approach. For example, the UK’s independent Central Point for Expertise on Timber (CPET) has deemed all three systems as providing a legal and sustainable assurance for forest products. This rigorous independent assessment doesn’t see a war over certified wood.
On a final note, your article talks about the all-to-common occurrence of greenwashing. Influencers and governments across North America are addressing this issue – and both SFI and FSC are positively referenced in their independent reports (Terrachoice Environmental Marketing, and Canada’s Competition Bureau, among others.)You speak of a “war over eco-certified wood.” Perhaps that war only exists in the minds of a few campaigning organizations and the certification system they exclusively endorse.
www.coastforest.org
doggone
3 years ago
As a 3rd generation BC builder
I am concerned more with the quality of the piece of wood in my hand than the ink stamped on it or the "eco-friendliness" of the supplier.
Logging and construction are not now and will not soon be "eco- friendly".
This particular debate (thanks to Thetyee, by the way) has nothing to do with boots on the ground.
Advertising, politics, and Public Relations do not keep weather out.
Wood does!
ME2
3 years ago
IF the goal is really "sustainability"
As bad as a logging slash looks, Doggone, it's appearance is no worse than after a fire, a blowdown event or a landslide. And just as after logging, the resulting "greenup" will bestow the eye-pleasing look of the naturalness of a regular forest.
But that young forest, with its closed canopy that pretty much excludes sunlight from the forest floor, has been described by biologists as a "biological desert". That condition will persist for 50-60 years, until natural canopy thinning begins to allow enough sunlight through it to allow the recolonisation of the old-growth (OG) biodivesity.
In a natural forest that recolonisation may take a few centuries until the OG balance is reached.
But in a plantation, where the only criteria is a marketable sise reached when the tree is still a juvenile, this means that recolonisation will be cut off and so the forest is constantly maintained in a juvenile state.
Such a forest is NOT sustainable, neither economically nor environentally, and will inevitably lose its complement of OG species with which it has evolved and which keep it healthy.
It is necessary, however, to state that in general those comments are not directly translatable to most of the forests in the Interior, where climatic and historical conditions (such as prior FN forest management by fire and huge contemporary wildfires) permit - if not demand - more intensive management, such as that developed by Herb Hammond with his Silva systems.
It is safe to say, however, that those who manage OG forests ANYWHERE on a short rotation, and then call that "environmentally sustainable", are deliberately practising deceptive greenwashing. Equally culpable are so-called environmental consultants who aid them in promoting that myth.
FSC Canada
3 years ago
FSC Governance most Transparent and Credible in World
*Response to ‘AlgonquinPark’ Comment*
Yes, FSC A.C. is a registered Mexican charitable organization and it owns the trademark rights. And no, there is no such thing as a clandestine board on which “permanent places exist for WWF (3 members), Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), 3 or 4 FSC national initiative representatives and staff.” That is a figment of the imagination of whoever is hiding behind the “AlgonquinPark” pseudonym. FSC is just what it appears to be, one of the most transparent, participatory and credible governance structures of any civil society organization anywhere.
Unlike industry-dominated certification systems, FSC Members are individuals and organizations belonging to one of three banners or Chambers – economic, environmental or social. Member diversity is as broad as society itself. Included are aboriginals, church groups, community forests, environmentalists, forest certification bodies, foresters, furniture makers, labour unions, logging companies, paper manufacturers and merchants, timber traders and many others.
The Members elect the International Board of Directors and vote at the triennial General Assembly, FSC’s highest decision-making body. Each Chamber has equal voting power and within each Chamber there are two sub-chambers, North and the South. In Canada, Aboriginal Peoples have their own Chamber.
FSC A.C. has three operating subsidiaries: FSC International Centre (FSC IC), FSC Global Development (FSC GD) and Accreditation Services International (ASI). Each has its own Executive Director. All are overseen by the one and only board that FSC has. That board is elected by the FSC Members from around the world and seats nine individuals, three from each Chamber, each elected for a three-year term. Any FSC Member can run for the Board. No seats are ‘reserved’ for anybody. Three seats come open for election each year. See www.fsc.org/bod.html.
A transparent, open, accountable and credible governance structure is part of why FSC is the most rigorous forest management and chain-of-custody certification system in the world. As with any democratically elected body, FSC may never satisfy everyone completely but it is far from what ‘AlgonquinPark’ represents. Instead, it may be the most successful example of civil society coming together voluntarily to create a system of self-governance and consensus among divergent interests. Civil society did this because the governments of the world did not and until someone comes up with something better, it is the best protection for forests, forest-dependent communities and forest workers that we have.