#neuro-marketing

#fsc_watch

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/062ac74bd-fb82c6/MnvHMT9maBGk/a8AwDQowoWP7LW8rBWGLNZTLSZXb1Stwu9Jidk7a.png

This site has been developed by a group of people, FSC supporters and members among them, who are very concerned about the constant and serious erosion of the FSC’s reliability and thus credibility. The group includes Simon Counsell, one of the Founder Members of the FSC; Hermann Edelmann, working for a long term FSC member organisation; and Chris Lang, who has looked critically at several FSC certifications in Thailand, Laos, Brazil, USA, New Zealand, South Africa and Uganda – finding serious problems in each case.

As with many other activists working on forests worldwide, we share the frustration that whilst the structural problems within the FSC system have been known for many years, the formal mechanisms of governance and control, including the elected Board, the General Assembly, and the Complaints Procedures have been highly ineffective in addressing these problems. The possibility of reforming – and thus ‘saving’ – the FSC through these mechanisms is, we feel, declining, as power within the FSC is increasingly captured by vested commercial interest.

We feel that unless drastic action is taken, the FSC is doomed to failure. Part of the problem, in our analysis, is that too few FSC members are aware of the many profound problems within the organisation. The FSC Secretariat continues to pour out ‘good news stories’ about its ‘successes’, without acknowledging, for example, the numerous complaints against certificates and certifiers, the cancellation of certificates that should never have been awarded in the first place, the calls for FSC to cease certifying where there is no local agreement to do so, the walk-outs of FSC members from national processes because of their disillusionment with the role of the economic chamber, etc. etc. etc.

There has been no honest evaluation of what is working and what is not what working in the FSC, and no open forum for discussing these issues. This website is an attempt to redress this imbalance. The site will also help people who are normally excluded from the FSC’s processes to express their views and concerns about the FSC’s activities.

Please share your thoughts or information. Feel free to comment on our postings or send us any information that you consider valuable for the site.

UPDATE (25 March 2010): A couple of people have requested that we explain why we are focussing on FSC rather than PEFC. Shortly after starting FSC-Watch we posted an article titled: FSC vs PEFC: Holy cows vs the Emperor’s new clothes. As this is somewhat buried in the archives, it’s reproduced in full here (if you want to discuss this, please click on the link to go to the original post):
FSC vs PEFC: Holy cows vs the Emperor’s new clothes

One of the reasons I am involved in this website is that I believe that many people are aware of serious problems with FSC, but don’t discuss them publicly because the alternative to FSC is even worse. The alternative, in this case is PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes) and all the other certification schemes (Cerflor, Certflor, the Australian Forestry Standard, the Malaysian Timber Certification Council and so on). One person has suggested that we should set up PEFC-Watch, in order “to be even-handed”.

The trouble with this argument is that PEFC et al have no credibility. No NGOs, people’s organisations or indigenous peoples’ organisations were involved in setting them up. Why bother spending our time monitoring something that amounts to little more than a rubber stamp? I can just see the headlines: “Rubber stamp PEFC scheme rubber stamps another controversial logging operation!” Shock, horror. The Emperor is stark bollock naked, and it’s not just some little boy pointing this out – it’s plain for all to see, isn’t it?

One way of countering all these other schemes would be to point out that FSC is better. But, if there are serious problems with FSC – which there are, and if we can see them, so can anyone else who cares to look – then the argument starts to look very shaky.

FSC standards aren’t bad (apart from Principle 10, which really isn’t much use to anyone except the pulp and paper industry). They say lots of things we’d probably want forest management standards to say. The trouble is that the standards are not being applied in practice. Sure, campaign against PEFC, but if FSC becomes a Holy Cow which is immune to criticism (not least because all the criticism takes place behind closed doors), then we can hardly present it as an alternative, can we?…”

By the way, anyone who thinks that PEFC and FSC are in opposition should read this interview with Heiko Liedeker (FSC’s Executive Director) and Ben Gunneberg (PEFC’s General Secretary). In particular this bit (I thought at first it must be a mix up between FSC and PEFC, or Liedeker and Gunneberg):

Question: As a follow-up question, Heiko Liedeker, from your perspective, is there room ultimately for programs like the Australian Forestry Standard, Certfor and others to operate under the FSC umbrella?

Heiko Liedeker: Absolutely. FSC was a scheme that was set-up to provide mutual recognition between national standard-setting initiatives. Every national initiative sets its standard. Some of them are called FSC working groups, some of them are called something else. In the UK they are called UKWAS. We’ve been in dialogue with Edwardo Morales at Certfor Chile. They are some of the FSC requirements listed for endorsement, we certainly entered into discussion. We’ve been in discussion with the Australian Forestry Standard and other standard-setting initiatives. What FSC does not do is, it has one global scheme for recognizing certification. So we do not, and that’s one of the many differences between FSC and PEFC, we do not require the development of a certification program as such. A standard-setting program is sufficient to participate in the network.

▻https://fsc-watch.com

Lasy i Obywatele

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/062ac74bd-fb82c6/IHzKm6GcLz06/tLPH4RmvVqic7SDS7uNsFlv2rOXvBRqPAsnfDcRv.png https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/062ac74bd-fb82c6/53V2OkLrkMfQ/IvQPS8t3cY9W74jfbDcpkmP0SOC1XlFAUXjiYCcy.png

#cartographie #visualisation #cartographie_participative #cartographie_radicale #contre-cartographie #Pologne

Complicit in destruction: new investigation reveals IKEA’s role in the decimation of Romania’s forests

https://bmf.ch/cache/images/D/DJI_0399_1000.JPG https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/c6a394f69-21cf85/UVjqnkmKWRII/yXOlgZtbfabWsACg0iho1LUZaK6o02Ez5gszOewf.png

IKEA claims to be people and planet positive, yet it is complicit in the degradation and destruction of Romania’s forests. A new report by Agent Green and Bruno Manser Fonds documents this destruction and presents clear requests to the furniture giant.

A new investigative report (▻https://www.bmf.ch/upload/Kampagnen/Ikea/AG_BMF_report_IKEA_web_EN.pdf) by Agent Green and Bruno Manser Fonds shows a consistent pattern of destructive logging in IKEA-linked forests in Romania, with massive consequences for nature and climate. The findings are based on an analysis of official documents and field investigations of nine forest areas in Romania. Seven of them are owned by the IKEA-related company Ingka Investments and two are public forests supplying factories that produce for IKEA. The analysis uncovers over 50 suspected law violations and bad forest management practices. Biodiversity rich forest areas cut to the ground, intensive commercial logging conducted in ecologically sensitive or even old-growth forests without environmental assessments, dozens of meters deep tractor roads cutting through the forest are just a few of the issues documented.

Most of the visited forests are fully or partially overlapping with EU protected areas. Some of these forests were strictly protected or under low-intensity logging before Ingka took over. Now they are all managed to maximize wood extraction, with no regard to forest habitats and their vital role for species. Only 1.04% of the total Ingka property in Romania are under a strict protection regime and 8.24% under partial protection. This is totally insufficient to meet EU goals. The EU biodiversity strategy requires the protection of a minimum of 30% of EU land area, from which 10% need to be strictly protected. One key goal is to strictly protect all remaining primary and old-growth forests in the EU.

At the press conference in Bucharest Gabriel Păun, President of Agent Green, stated: “IKEA/Ingka seem to manage their forests like agricultural crops. Letting trees grow old is not in their culture. Removing entire forests in a short period of time is a matter of urgency for IKEA, the tree hunter. The entity disregards both the written laws and the unwritten ways of nature. IKEA does not practice what they preach regardless of whether it is the European Union nature directives, Romanian national legislation, or the FSC forest certification standard. But as a company with revenues of billions of Euros and Romania’s largest private forest owner, IKEA / Ingka should be an example of best practice.”

Ines Gavrilut, Eastern Europe Campaigner at the Bruno Manser Fonds, added: “It is high time that IKEA started to apply its declared sustainability goals. IKEA could do so much good if it really wanted to set a good example as a forest owner, administrator, and large wood consumer in Romania and beyond. Needs could also be covered without resorting to destructive logging, without converting natural forests into plantations – but this requires tackling difficult issues such as the core of IKEA’s business model of “fast furniture”. Wood products should not be for fast consumption but should be made to last for decades.”

Agent Green and Bruno Manser Fonds urge IKEA and the Ingka Group to get a grip on their forest operations in Romania to better control logging companies, not to source wood from national or natural parks, to effectively increase protection and apply forestry close to nature in own forests, to ensure full traceability and transparency of the IKEA supply chain, and allow independent forest oversight by civil society and investigative journalists.

In August 2021, Agent Green published its first report documenting destruction in IKEA-linked forests in Romania. In May 2023, Agent Green and Bruno Manser Fonds sent an open letter of concern to the Ingka Group and IKEA Switzerland. BMF also started a petition demanding IKEA to stop deforestation in Romania’s protected forest areas and other high conservation value forests.

The ARTE documentary IKEA, the tree hunter brilliantly tells the story of the real cost of IKEA furniture, the uncontrolled exploitation of wood and human labour.

▻https://bmf.ch/en/news/neue-untersuchung-belegt-ikeas-beteiligung-an-der-waldzerstorung-in-rumanien-256

#rapport