Yes, its most important to criticise Greenpeace. When just about every other green NGO was campaigning to save the temperate rainforests of Aotearoa/New Zealand, GP was cooking up a deal with the logging company to give the Green Tick to its plantation forests of P radiata. We felt so betrayed by this action which was headed by GP officer Grant Rosoman, previously an anti-logging activist. Its such people who do huge damage to our cause while helping FSC and ancient forest loggers worldwide.
Pete

Every organisation, also maybe? in time Glen's when becoming to big, changes from ideologic thinking to economical practice.Lots of people are in fulltime employment.......So corruption is needed to stay in charge.We Want more)Funds, visible or not.

Greenpeace should either reply substantively or abandon support for certified logging of ancient rainforests. Obstinacy is not a substitute for argument.

A forest activist from Tasmania tells me NZer Grant Rosoman is "now head of Greenpeace FSC and apparently running riot in ancient forests worldwide!".
I bet he's on a monster salary, getting wined and dined by industry chiefs. Truly a fallen man.
P

As a lifelong resident of a major timber-producing region, I've seem the way it goes. While it may be theoretically possible to harvest a few trees without devastating the forest, logging companies can never resist the quick profit to be made by removing all of the largest trees; then the rest blow down in the first windstorm. Once timber companies get access to a forest, it never retains the characteristics of the old-growth forest.

Yet MORE evidence to show that FoE's current stance on FSC is simply not ethical, honest or in the interests of global forests, biodiversity & habitats.
We should be spear-headinga united NGO effort to force a reform of FSC.
Val

RESPONSE

Val,
Yes FSC needs reform, but there is a fundamental question first. Should primary/old-growth forests be industrially logged. If after careful examination the answer is no, then the rationale for FSC's existence largely evaporates. I think FSC would be best served by certifying plantations and secondary growth, but this is clearly not there plan for future growth. It is to certify "responsible" logging of the world's remaining wildlands, whatever that means.
Glen

Greenpeace, WWF, Rainforest Alliance, have become self perpetuating beuraucracies, more interested in their own self image, and payrolls. It's time to stop all logging of non plantation forests for whatever reason, and use whatever is left in plantations, for fibre. Sustainable logging of old growth values is not sustainable, and is logistically, and technically impossible.

Unfortunately Greenpeace ignores the overpopulation of most regions of the earth. The number of consumers is far beyond the limits of the carrying capacity of our ecosystems. When will Greenpeace find from ideology to the hard facts?

FSC was an effort, in parts successful, to save forests by using them in sustainable way.
Without any kind of profit much more forests would have been extinguished and alternatively changed into palmoilplantations, settlements or fields, in worst case into devastated area,- best to be on view in Indonesia/Kalimantan!
In ancient forests the logging of single trees means the first step. Sometimes control is possible and successful, sometimes corruption is mighthy.
As there was demand for wood or oil (from Europe, China ...), demand for new fields and houses (from locals), demand for money (from government) it was better to run forests with strict regulations as to loose them completely.
But now, I think, it´s time to work with FSC EXCLUDING ancient forests.
All NGO´s should work TOGETHER, find new solutions with consensus and not fight against each other!

We need to treasure the remaining primary areas of our earth and all that is in it. Our present knowledge and technology, though highly developed, are still limited, compared to nature. These primary areas has a lot to tell us, now and in the future.

Glen, good on you for barrelling Greenpeace. Their stance on climate change in Australia has been disappointing and frustrating. They seem not to fully understand the world's proximity to a two degrees temp rise and what the policy implications, particularly the need for effective short term targets, are. Their position has improved a bit over the last few months after a bit of behind the scenes pushing and shoving. Out of the major green groups in Australia only FOE and the Australian Greens (Party) seem to get it.
Greenpeace still need tackling over climate change.
regards,
Geoff Lazarus (Carbon Equity Group)

Greenpeace Response

Thanks for your email. Greenpeace is committed to protecting the world’s remaining ancient forests and the plants, animals and peoples that depend on them, and is opposed to the expansion of logging or industrial-scale operations in the world’s last remaining large intact ancient forests.

Greenpeace supports the FSC as the only credible global certification system for responsible forest management and labelling of forest products. From FSC's beginning in 1993 we have been working to strengthen FSC through monitoring certifications, investigations and complaints. FSC is an adaptive system that relies on constructive feedback and complaints in order to work - we feel that this is one of it's strengths- one not shared by any other existing forest certification scheme.

For the last few months we have been researching a number of FSC certifications with a view to providing information that will strengthen the system. The research is not yet completed and is not being suppressed (preliminary findings have been presented twice to large groups of environmental NGOs). When completed later in the year a report of the research will be released. We welcome your interest in the report and encourage you to give feedback to FSC on any FSC certifications you are concerned with. The FSC website can be visited at http://www.fsc.org

Uh-uh... don't like the corporate zombie tone of the Greenpeace response. Reeks of stonewalls and smokescreens. Very disturbing indeed. Have long suspected that Greenpeace was in danger of turning into Greenpiece. The anal attitude revealed by the syntax suggests that this has indeed happened to a once heroic organization. Middle-age spread, you might call it!

Here is the full text of a letter to The Independent (UK newspaper) on 23 June 2007. This is from the head of a trade association involved in timber importation and he admits that the current certification schemes are only 60% effective. So, if we believe that all the 60% is truly 'sustainable' logging this still means he accepts that 40% of trade in timber is doing damage.

"Timber trade that safeguards forests

Sir: Your Good Wood Guide (14 June) is correct that demanding wood from sustainable sources is one of the best ways we can, as consumers, encourage good, global forest management.
As a result of this demand, and the responsible purchasing policies of the UK timber trade, 60 per cent of wood imported to the UK is now certified as sustainable, and this figure will grow as other G8 governments follow the UK lead. Forest management in many countries is improving as a result of this consumer pressure.
Timber from the UK, for instance, is felled according to strict government guidelines for managing forests sustainably, with more than 80 per cent of the wood also being certified by the FSC.
There were inaccuracies (walnut from Africa?) and blind praise of one certification scheme (FSC) over its main rival the PEFC, in spite of the independent assessment by the British Government Central Point of Expertise in Timber. Both schemes have their particular strengths, but it is still better to buy certified wood than not.
Properly managed forests are infinitely renewable and provide a wide range of environmental services, and each tree felled stores carbon whilst its replacement absorbs carbon dioxide as it grows. If consumers were prepared to pay the full price for all these services there would be a lot more managed forests in the world.
JOHN WHITE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE, TIMBER TRADE FEDERATION, LONDON WC1 STUART GOODALL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR POLICY AND RESEARCH, CONFEDERATION OF FOREST INDUSTRIES, EDINBURGH

Je suis absolument contre toutes sortes de déforestations, elles sont la cause indiscutable du réchauffement de la planète, sans elles personne ne survivra, protégeons dès maintenant toutes les forêts du monde entier, pour Nous, pour tous ces animaux qui y vivent, elles sont leur seul refuge, Halte à la DEFORESTATION, c'est un CRIME STOP STOP !!!!!

Thanks Glen for highlighting the actions of Greenpeace in endorsing FSC. There are clearly major issues with the way the 'certification' process is conducted (at least there are issues for people who think that the process was intended to result in a net benefit for the community and the environment).
I agree with Geoff Lazarus that Greenpeace still needs tackling over climate change.

I'm a bit divided on this one...

While I too wish we could completely end all logging of what little forest has actually survived until today undisturbed I think it's important to remember to compare FSC to the alternative: Rampant destruction with no regulations or care for tomorrow whatsoever. Which is how we've been running things for the last couple hundred years..
I am sure that the net effect of FSC/Greenpeace/WWF on the planet is still good.

On the other hand - someone has to keep an eye also on the good guys.. ;-)

While it is always important to critically review all sides of every issue, I would tend to take a wait and see attitude until the research Greenpeace is conducting is conluded. That being said, there are certainly not immune to regular pressure especially if they continue to drag their feet on releasing this info.

Yes Greenpeace and WWF have evolved into large bureaucracies but they aren't the only environmental organizations around and IMHO they do far more good than damage.

As for the FSC, I still believe that it is a step in the right direction.

Dear Glen,

I've been interested in your work for some considerable time. I applaud you for remaining steadfast in the face of criticism from those who constantly miss the point.

I can understand how difficult it must be for you at times when dealing with certain mainstream environmentalists who are in denial over so-called sustainable logging of ancient forests.

Even when supplied with the ecological facts, many refuse to believe in the fallibility of Greenpeace, the WWF and the Forest Stewardship Council. Indeed, whenever I've criticised such organisations for their promotion of commercial logging of ancient forests, I'm apt to be labelled a 'yoghurt weaver' (or similar), which I understand means 'self-righteous hippy'.

Despite such hostility, I remain inspired by the informative articles and campaigns to be found on Rainforest Portal. So I pledge to support your work in as many ways that I'm able.

Kind regards

Howard De Morgan (UK)

Very good article. I've found your blog via Google and I'm really glad about the information you provide in your posts. Btw your sites layout is really messed up on the Chrome browser. Would be cool if you could fix that. Anyhow keep up the great work!