FSC--Still To Be Trusted?

Please see the following link for a Massachusetts Forest Watch response to Mr. Brinkema and FSC. maforests.org/FSCResp.pdf

Mr. Corey Brinkema’s defense of massive clearcuts up to 50 acres on Massachusetts public lands, including spraying chemical herbicides from Monsanto is an indicator just how far the good idea of green certification has morphed into just another green-washing marketing tool. To see the logging, see: maforests.org All of it is FSC Green Washified logging on Massachusetts public lands. Mr. Brinkema, I sincerely believe if you cling to defending the horrid forest practices in Massachusetts, you are going to drag FSC down and even drag down the valid idea of certifying lands. FSC’s constant lowering of the bar to compete with the industry sponsored SFI sham is resulting in a race to the bottom. In any case, FSC allows clearcutting and spraying toxic chemical herbicides such as “Roundup”, so this is not “green” logging as imagined by concerned citizens paying more for their wood. Additionally, a letter by 23 National environmental groups has stated very eloquently that FSC is inappropriate for National forests and lands held for ecosystem values, which logically extends to State forests, especially in a State like Massachusetts that does not have any National forests. This letter can be viewed at: maforests.org/PubCert.pdf So many of the things you say in your letter in response to the Channel 5 report are just plain false, and demonstrate you are more willing to just ramp up the propaganda than admit mistakes and correct them. 1. “Compliance with a robust set of standards The Massachusetts story focused on isolated harvests that were of concern to a few local activists” Not true, this heavy logging is occurring all over the state, please see: maforests.org, and there has been strong resistance by so many folks, that the State has currently issued a “virtual” moratorium on State land logging to address these concerns. 2. “Norway spruce is a non-native tree and the DCR is removing them in order to restore a native and natural hardwoods forest. It does require cutting down all the trees in an area, but it is clearly an ecologically beneficial action – based on goals of restoration of native ecosystems.” The heavy logging is happening on all types of forest, native as well as the Norway spruce. Norway spruce is non-native, but it is not invasive, and up until recently when the price of spruce shot up, the State agencies were praising these stands as important evergreen wintering habitat especially with the decline of the native hemlocks. In any case there is no need to wipe them out. Apple, pear and plum trees are non-native, should we wipe them out too? Furthermore, if there were a good reason to remove them, which there isn’t, they could be removed selectively and finally, guess what is regenerating in these horrid clearcuts??? Norway Spruce! 3. “FSC certification requires all landowners, including the DCR, to comply with a set of rigorous environmental and social standards that are globally recognized as defining exemplary forestry”. Nope, DCR has not even complied with FSC standards, so FSC just keeps lowering the bar including ignoring state forestry laws. This has been well documented and relayed, but countless complaints with the FSC auditors have been flippantly dismissed or flatly ignored. 4. “Hazardous pesticides and the use of genetically modified trees are strictly prohibited, and natural forest conversion to plantations or non-forest uses is highly restricted. False, they state is using Roundup. 5. “This includes stakeholder consultation during the assessment phase, as well as a formal dispute resolution process for resolving concerns.” What FSC resolution process, nothing happening here in Massachusetts? 6. “In fact, Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) investigated the sites of concern raised by Massachusetts stakeholders in a substantive manner that conforms with FSC-mandated audit protocols. This investigation included site inspections of most of the sites in question” Really, which sites on the above website did you visit? 7. “Regarding use of Massachusetts taxpayer funds to pay for certification, and according to SCS, of the $2 million spent on forest certification since 2002, less than 8% has gone to cover SCS assessment and audit costs.” Please, most of the money was spent on preparing the state lands for timber sales, not for protecting forests. 8. “We also want to make it clear that FSC Certifying Bodies are paid for their work regardless of whether or not they issue a certificate to the landowner.” Come on, if you de-certify a client, you lose the client, thus you lose any future payments. 9. “The demand for forest resources continues to grow, and consequently so do destructive forestry practices, land conversion, and illegal logging. FSC was created to provide a tool to differentiate exemplary forestry from the status quo and to provide a market mechanism that rewards it.” In Massachusetts we have destructive forestry practices and illegal logging and FSC has given it their wholehearted blessing. 10. Our goal: to use the marketplace to promote environmentally responsible, socially just and economically viable forest management. I sincerely hope you will start doing so. Please keep your timber production program off our public lands. The last audit by FSC of our public lands stated: “Harvest levels on BOF and DFW lands are far too low to ensure that the long-term goals are met” Far to low for whom? For more information on the situation in Massachusetts, please see: maforests.org/Report.pdf take it easy Chris Matera, P.E.

Wow what propoganda FSC puts out. As a Masachusetts resident quite familiar with the forests and harvests that have taken place here, its horrifying to see an FSC official put forth such irresponsible misinformation. First, the Norway Spruce plantations. Yes, they were planted by the CCC in the 1930's, but although they arent "native" (very close however genetically), the are NOT invasive. We have a serious wooley adelgid bug issue here, (a NON NATIVE), and its wiping out a lot of hemlock forest. For the DCR to want to clearcut Norway Spruce because it is non native, instead of simply thinning it, is ridiculous. The Save Americas Forest act calls for those plantations to not be cut unless its an invasive species. In the meantime, these clearcuts are being done in view of rural forest roads, with trees being toppled into cemetaries, and remaining trees being subjected to blowdown due to the shallow roots. The future idea is to create a money making forest, not an aesthetically pleasing one. To say they even thought about aesthetics in these forests is just plain crazy, look at the pictures. clearcutma.blogspot.com In other areas, a clearcut was done right to the edge of a remote pristine beaver pond, on a steep slope, with NO BUFFER. This was brought to the auditors attention, and again "gee they are nonn native". Fact is, they were norway spruce and red pine mixed, and red pine IS native in Massachusetts. In this same forest, they clearcut right to the edge of a vernal pool as well. There are WIDESPREAD, not limited violations, as FSC is claiming. They closed an issue regarding ATV damage in parks, claiming it was all set. WRONG! These are public lands, not for the use of the timber production industry. They have had little concern for the aesthetics, even converted a popular picnicing area into a timber production area. Wonder why the citizens are upset? FSC clearly isnt suited for public lands.

We've just launched our small company on a platform of sustainability and ethical practice - part of which involves ensuring the woods we use are reclaimed or sustainably and locally sourced. FSC chain-of-custody seems to be the gold standard for this, but I also realize that no organization is above reproach. I'd be interested to hear what else people in trades are doing to assure responsibility in their suppliers?

Penny, As you note, a recent television report by Boston’s Channel 5 on Massachusetts state forest management has elicited some unfortunate questioning of the integrity of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). While we welcome constructive scrutiny of the FSC, indeed our system is much stronger for it, we believe that this television story contained a great deal of misinformation and was overall a distraction from achieving our common goal of forest stewardship. On behalf of FSC-US, I appreciate your interest in this subject and your trust in FSC, and I would like to offer some facts that were clearly left out of the story. Compliance with a robust set of standards The Massachusetts story focused on isolated harvests that were of concern to a few local activists and, further, did not mention the ecological rationale for these harvest practices. Specifically, the story centered on the clearcutting of Norway spruce plantations that were planted on Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Resources (DCR) lands in the 1930’s. Norway spruce is a non-native tree and the DCR is removing them in order to restore a native and natural hardwoods forest. It does require cutting down all the trees in an area, but it is clearly an ecologically beneficial action – based on goals of restoration of native ecosystems. FSC has strict clearcutting standards and guidelines, and a variety of factors guide a Certifying Body's (in this case Scientific Certification Systems) decision as to whether or not a management activity constitutes a non-conformance with the FSC standard. The requirements include having acceptable ecological rationale for the clearcut (e.g. to restore native species composition, minimize forest health problems), watershed considerations, aesthetic considerations and the impact to managing the property for a long-term sustained yield of timber. Certifying Bodies consider all of these factors in determining whether any harvest, including clearcut harvesting, violate aspects of the FSC standard. If the clearcuts are conducted without proper rationale, cause watershed damage, are too large for ecological impacts, or prevent a long-term sustained yield of timber, then the certification body will require corrective action, and/or can suspend or terminate a certificate for these grounds. FSC certification requires all landowners, including the DCR, to comply with a set of rigorous environmental and social standards that are globally recognized as defining exemplary forestry. The standards are comprised of 10 Principles, 56 Criteria, and over 100 Indicators that provide comprehensive, normative requirements covering all aspects of forest ecosystem management, including the protection of old growth, endangered species, water resources and critical habitat. Hazardous pesticides and the use of genetically modified trees are strictly prohibited, and natural forest conversion to plantations or non-forest uses is highly restricted. The standards, and the policies that govern their implementation, were developed through in-depth processes involving diverse and balanced representation of environmental, social and economic interests. FSC-US standards continue to represent the most progressive forest practices and those committed to forest conservation and restoration. Stakeholder participation and consultation FSC is additionally committed to transparency and inclusiveness throughout the certification process. This includes stakeholder consultation during the assessment phase, as well as a formal dispute resolution process for resolving concerns. While FSC cannot ensure that all stakeholders are always content with a certificate holder's land management practices, we can ensure that their concerns are addressed appropriately and will investigate to ensure a certificate holder is in compliance with standards. The Channel 5 report incorrectly portrayed negligence on the part of the Certifying Body in responding to stakeholder concerns. In fact, Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) investigated the sites of concern raised by Massachusetts stakeholders in a substantive manner that conforms with FSC-mandated audit protocols. This investigation included site inspections of most of the sites in question. SCS felt confident that the DCR lands in question were in conformance with the FSC standards, and that past and current Corrective Action Requests (CARs) have been or are on-target to be met. If and when stakeholders believe that an FSC-certified landowner is violating the standards, we encourage them to raise these issues directly with the Certifying Body (and FSC-US if necessary) in order to resolve them effectively and efficiently. FSC Certification improves forest resources and public values Regarding use of Massachusetts taxpayer funds to pay for certification, and according to SCS, of the $2 million spent on forest certification since 2002, less than 8% has gone to cover SCS assessment and audit costs. The other 92% was spent on adopting management practices to meet the rigor of the FSC: designing and implementing an ecological reserve system for permanently protecting 20% of the state forest system, preparing management plans, improving roads, repairing Off-Road Vehicle damage, and other items that SCS required of the DCR in order to achieve and maintain FSC certification. Massachusetts tax dollars have gone to ensuring long-term protection of forest resources and ecosystem services such as clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation and carbon storage. We also want to make it clear that FSC Certifying Bodies are paid for their work regardless of whether or not they issue a certificate to the landowner. To ensure there is no conflict of interest, all FSC Certifying Bodies are accredited third-party entities that are annually audited by both FSC and FSC’s accreditor, Accredited Services International (ASI) for ISO and ISEAL compliance. Meeting our wood and wood fiber needs, responsibly. The demand for forest resources continues to grow, and consequently so do destructive forestry practices, land conversion, and illegal logging. FSC was created to provide a tool to differentiate exemplary forestry from the status quo and to provide a market mechanism that rewards it. Our goal: to use the marketplace to promote environmentally responsible, socially just and economically viable forest management. We encourage all stakeholders – environmental and social activists, land managers and wood products manufacturers, and end-consumers – to work with us in advancing this goal. Best regards, Corey Brinkema President

I am the President of Tropical Forest Foundation, a conservation organization that works on the ground in tropical forests areas like Indonesia, Brazil and the Congo Basin, and trains foresters and local communities on how to sustainably manage and harvest their forests. Thought I would share a nugget of information that extends Penny’s post. Often times, local governments are not economically or morally invested in proper forest management and so the communities and foresters do not have the ability to pursue the certifications like FSC. Tropical Forest Foundation helps these governments, communities and foresters take the first step toward certification by focusing on hands on demonstration and on the ground training that would not otherwise be available. In light of the Lacey Act Amendment, that now requires proof of legality of all tropical woods being imported into the US, the demand for legal woods is growing – and fast. TFF provides verifications for both Reduced Impact Logging and Legal Chain of Custody to timber companies in tropical regions to help address this issue. Tropical Forest Foundation is playing a crucial role in helping increase the amount of tropical forests that are eligible for third-party certification and often goes unnoticed. Furniture designers and other product manufacturers will be affected by the tighter laws in place about importing tropical woods and TFF’s story is one that should be told. Please visit our online media kit at tff.icpresskit.com for more information about our work.