Forest Stewardship Council:
Green Seal or GreenWash?
An unfortunate fall from principled beginnings
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) was formed as a non-profit in 1993 to establish standards for environmentally and socially responsible forest management. The initial effort included scientific research and many national environmental organizations were happy to jump on board to form sound principles for sustainable logging operations. Sustainable logging is entirely possible, certainly needed, but as is painfully aware to watershed activists in the U.S. and elsewhere, is rarely practiced, particularly by large companies. The idea of offering a way to increase a company's market share by labeling its products "green" is a good one, for both consumers and industry, and one that has caught on like wildfire. But today in 2008, as with so many things, it ain't what it used to be. As with other innovative ideas that can increase marketability and profits, there are no shortages of opportunists who will exploit and corrupt the idea. The timber industry and FSC certification are no exception.
There are four fundamental reasons why†FSC certification is unreliable:
1. There is no public oversight. The certifiers issue a "summary document" for public consumption which provides no data to support their claim of sustainable logging.
2. Certifying groups compete with each other for business and are paid directly by the timber company.
3. The FSC has no enforcement teeth
4. The certification is based on promises and a plan to improve practices: to reduce herbicide use, phase out clearcutting, stop cutting of old growth, etc. Sometimes the commitment to reform is sincere; sometimes it is purely a marketing strategy. Green is in.
FSC supporters say that certification is a process and that immediate change by a company cannot reasonably be expected. Forest advocates, however, charge that certification is a way for companies with bad practices to avoid public scrutiny while reaping the benefits of positive public relations. At the least, the FSC system itself should adopt a tiered approach so that there are rewards for commitments to change, short of actual certification.
It is possible to use FSC certification in the right way that engenders a move to more sustainable practices that recognizes how damaged the natural systems the extractive industries like timber companies are operating in. There are some community-run forest operations in Canada that are FSC-certified, and that are logging sustainably--you can contact Forest Ethics for the names of these legitimate operations. But, as a rule, the FSC label is unreliable, as there is no guarantee that†FSC-certified products come from sustainably-managed forests.†The label†is basically based on the honor system, and labels are sold based on promises of reform, not actual sustainable practices, and there is absolutely no enforcement.
Case in point: Mendocino Redwood Company has had FSC certification since 2000.
Mendocino forest activists' experience with the FSC certification of Mendocino Redwood Company (the Gap Fishers' real estate investment) is that their label on those operations was and is completely unwarranted--based on empty†promises of reforms, not sustainable practices. Since the FSC has no teeth, has no history of retracting a label once it has been given (except once†in the case of the†most blatant and†egregious violations in Indonesia, when non-profit FSC members threatened to withdraw en masse†if the label was not retracted).
There are tough issues to grapple with. FSC is widely regarded as the "gold standard" for sustainable timber operations, and its founding principles are sound. There is nothing to replace the sustainability standard that operates with an understanding of forest ecosystems. Several years ago, the American Forest and Paper Association launched its "Sustainable Forestry Initiative" (SFI) which, while FSC is compromised, SFI did not need to be corrupted because it never had any meaning in terms of measuring the sustainability of commercial operations, but was simply an industry green seal given out like free coupon books at the grocery store.
In the meantime, any assessment of the value of FSC certification must be done only with full knowledge of the actual on-the-ground operation of the timber company holder of that certificate. For example, when FSC awarded the Fisher family Mendocino Redwood Co. their green seal of approval, they admitted that MR did not have the inventory data to justify their 40 million board ft. annual cut, and said that once the company compiled its inventory data, they expected the cutting level to be adjusted downwards. This means the certifiers themselves recognized that MR was logging at an unsustainable rate, but certified them anyway, based on their negotiations. The other strategy MR has been using is to change the way silvicultural practices are identified, calling methods that are tantamount to clearcuts "alternative prescription", so the records make it appear they are doing less clearcutting. Listen closely to what they are saying. They claim to be moving away from "traditional clearcutting".
MR was certified by Scientific Certification Systems (a for-profit company). The Sierra Club Canada published a blistering criticism of SCS for certifying J.D. Irving Ltd, liquidation loggers who methods are similar to the Fisher's Mendocino Redwood. See http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/media/fsc-cert-concerns-00-01-21.html
For in depth information, you can read "Trading In Credibility, The Myth And Reality Of The Forest Stewardship Council," a compendium of case studies, and an analysis of how and why an organization that started with the right intentions became so co-opted by corporate timber interests. Many environmental groups contributed to this study, which was compiled by Simon Counsell, the executive director of Rainforest Foundation, UK You can get more information about FSC and the certification of Mendocino Redwood Co. at www.gapsucks.org
Please support our education, organizing and media work for the forests with a donation if you can! Send a check payable to BACH/Ecology Center to the address below. Thanks for your support!
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters
2530 San Pablo Ave. Berkeley, California 94702 ² 510-548-3113 ² bach@HeadwatersPreserve.org
