Here is Grant Rosoman of Greenpeace's, the chair of FSC international's board, puny and pathetic response to the protest. Hey Grant, we are not attacking you, we are attacking the faulty notion that ancient forests can and should be logged. Typical response from a policy bereft of defensibility -- attack the messenger rather than reply substantively to the debate. This is the best Greenpeace can do by way of defending their abetting of the first time logging of the world's last primary and old growth forests? Wantok, sapos yu laik raun long PNG lukautim baksait bilong yu, nogut masalai bagarapim giaman bilong yu.
g.b.
***********

Dear all,

I don't mind Pete Lusk, Glen Barry and others attacking FSC and having a different view of it, but for those who don't know me I will respond here to the lies and personal attacks behind my back.

On the recent spam mailing from Glen Barry (Ecological Internet) below, I append a Greenpeace responsive statement FYI. This is the last of a series of spams and Glen Barry seems to have nothing better to do. I wonder if he/Ecologicial internet has actually every done anything practical and constructive to protect rainforests anywhere?

Contrary to Lusk's story, the key reason Timberlands didn't get FSC before August 2001 (they were trying from 1997) was because Greenpeace and other NGOs strongly opposed it while they were still logging native forest, to the point where their certificate was issued conditional on end of the Buller overcut logging. FSC was used as leverage to bring the native forest logging to an early end. Also I worked for several years on the campaign that ended the logging in Okarito/Ianthe forest.

I have been a forest activist and campaigner for 20 years firstly in Aotearoa/NZ on tropical timber imports and native logging, and over the last 12 years on the ground with communities fighting Malaysian loggers in Solomon Is, PNG and more recently Papua (Indonesia). This has had its moments, sadly with the murder of the community activist Martin Apa in Solomon Is in 1995 and other death threats, through to the elation of kicking out Malaysian logger Samling from West Province PNG and holding the logging out from around 1 million ha of tropical forest wilderness.

As well as my role in the Pacific/Asia, I am on the international board of FSC as an organisational representative of Greenpeace. I am not there in a personal capacity - Greenpeace can replace me any time as their representative. I remain on the board until November in line with GPs commitment to keep FSC as the most credible global forest/plantation management and CoC certification scheme.

regards
grant

Hi Pete, Dear all,

There are certainly some problems with FSC in NZ, not least of which is the forest industry behaviour in refusing to wait for the NZ national standards and the assessment consultants rushing off to do assessments despite the conservation community saying we could only participate in the development of national standards, not in a whole lot of ad hoc certifications. Grant Rosomon has not been and is not one of these problems.

I've been involved with the discussions about FSC in New Zealand for a very long time, and with considerable misgivings, but also seeing the FSC as having the potential for good, IF its standards are kept with integrity. I feel compelled to say that your account is inaccurate and grossly unfair to Grant Rosomon and to Greenpeace.

Grant for Greenpeace has been one of the few NZ ENGO reps who has tried to have input into these vast numbers of proposed certifications, in order to stem the really unsuitable ones, to intervene and block some and get conditions put on others. Most of us have been unable to do that as those who make the money from these certifications have pushed ahead despite our protests.

I know Grant has intervened on several occasions to block certifications or to get conditions applied. He did this most of all with respect to Timberlands - and he has done this in consultation with the rest of us. Grant is dead right when he says he went to great lengths to hold Timberlands to account over old growth logging and to stall any certification until that was stopped.

Most of the NZ ENGOs have been trying to get tough controls on plantation forestry and have refused to discuss certification of old growth forests in the NZ national standards, despite periodic onslaughts from a variety of industry native forest logging quarters and the Ecologics and others who pressure us to give in. Grant has been staunch in holding the line and has held it for Greenpeace along with ECO, Forest and Bird, Greenpeace, FMC and others. Latterly, after serious earlier lapses when they supported Timberland's logging of old growth forests, WWFNZ, for whom I have been no apologist, has also held the line and have refused to go soggy, as in the past they used to. All credit to them for reforming on that.

Pete, you must know that friendly fire is one of the most debilitating things that we who campaign for the environment have to deal with. I reckon you should be a bit more careful with your scatter-gun and seemingly rather casual slandering of good and dedicated campaigners. Grant has been in the forests protection effort for ages, has integrity, has withstood a hell of a lot of flak from the foresters, Ecologic and others and has done heaps of hard work. Don't be so unfair to him.

Perhaps you could have checked with some of the rest of us to find out what he has been doing before you fire off insulting and denigrating broadsides and spread around stuff that is somewhat uninformed?

Come on Pete, be fair.

Cath Wallace
ECO NZ

Response to all,
I have yet to hear any rebuttal to my thesis that remaining ancient forests (primary and old growth) must be maintained to address climate change and achieve global ecological sustainability. It is so hard for people to accept that the age of industrially harvesting ancient forests is over and they get all worked up without responding to this ecological reality. See http://www.fsc-watch.org/ for the specifics on a string of half a dozen horrific certifications. This is not the best that can be done. Greenpeace and WWF have stonewalled these grassroots concerns for years and they do not engage now because they know they would lose the debate. To write this protest off as spam is irresponsible, does Greenpeace's protests on the high seas make them pirates? As long as Greenpeace and WWF are aiding and abetting the first time logging of primary and old growth forests they are legitimate targets for protest. Eventually ancient forest logging will end, the only question is how much will be left when it does. Not much if FSC and pals have their way.
Regards,
Dr. Glen Barry

Thanks for the response. Yes, maintaining ancient forests is critical for the achieving ecological sustainability and addressing climate change. I agree entirely with you in this goal.

My question is about how we get there. What is your plan for getting there?

RESPONSE: Firstly, get the environmental community out of the business of supporting commercial logging in ancient forests. This greenwashing inhibits it even being on the agenda. And then building upon the groundswell of awareness re: climate change to setup a system to compensate countries and local peoples for avoided deforestation. These plans are in the work and are undermined by the false suggestion that FSC logging of primary and old growth forests is somehow "sustainable". And more aggressive direct action to maintain the biosphere cannot be discarded out of hand. We know of course first time logging of such ancient forests changes them forever -- including their carbon cycling and species. If not now when?
Dr. Glen Barry

In response to FSC logging in old growth forests. Listen just because all the NGOs of the day want to stop logging in tropical forests, as you very well know your illegal loggers aka read mafia and gangsters are not going to just move over and say oh sorry guys didn't really know that we were doing such damage we will just put our arms and machinery down and stop cutting this lovely forest. If stopping cutting in tropical forests is ever going to happen, it won't be tommorrow and it is very unlikely in the next 50 years or if ever. FSC is the most pragmatic approach we have globally to rationalising the use of these places. Remember those of you on this site who critise FSC that you obviosly have enough money to use a computer and I take it from that eat, get medicine when your sick, as well. I have worked in many of these tropical forests and come across the people who actually live there and they do lack money to purchase medicine for their kids, wives etc. They are not your indeginous people, they are rural poor plonked in forests areas by their governments, read limited life choices. These are usually the people who end up being abused working, for illegal loggers, but what can they do when they need a bit of cash? work is the answer? they are not worrying about the future of the planet, all they can think about is my kid going to survive next week. Even if we convince all of the west not to use tropical species anymore, when do you think China and the middle east will open its ears. Do you think that people will stop eating beef tommorrow so the need for soya will just disapper, poof! with the magic mafia faries. What indeed is Brazil supposed to do when it wants to build its own houses, bridges etc import timber from european plantations, please! FSC is the only rartional framework that we have globally at this moment in history that can put a value on a standing forest. Yes there will be logging in there, but that is a alot better than it being burnt and planted with oil palm. And at the same time, this phase in history and the FSC is a learning process, you know sustainable forest management as we know at the moment only came into being 400 years ago in germany. The tropics at best have had 50 years experience in this, so yes their will be mistakes made, so by all means keep your professional eyes on FSC and deforestation globally everyones contribution is needed to the debate. But debating without action on the ground does nothing to impact the reality of the situation. So if you don't like FSC go try being friends with the Russian or Chinese mafia in these forests and see how you get on, I guess they will give you as much value as they do to community memebers or rural poor that get in their way, the price of a bullet.

Dear Folks,

Just wanted to thank you for the FSC report. We at GreenLine have been suspicious of their certification programs for quite some time.

FSC is showing up on all kinds of virgin paper. It is really just greenwashing.

We are going to do something on this in our next newsletter.

Keep up the great work,
Stephen E. Baker, Pres.
GreenLine Paper Company, Inc.
631 S. Pine Street
York, PA 17403

We MUST stop to destroy WHAT MAKES US ALL LIVE! We HAVE run out of time. We need to protect every piece of nature and every animal we have NOT YET DESTROYED. We should wake up to the consciousness of true human(e) beings!

www.ecologyfund.com is a site that offers daily buttons to click to preserve rainforests. They save 500ft^2 of forest for signing up (quick and easy), and up to an additional 2000ft^2 for e-mailing up to 20 friends to sign up. All this is funded by add revenue so buying adds is a great way to demonstrate a business's environmental stewardship.

Also, the search engine www.everyclick.com (ask.com search technology) donates about two cents to a charity of one's choice for every search enetered. One of the chosen charities is Rainforest Concern, whose mandate is: "Rainforest Concern was established in 1993 to purchase and protect threatened tropical rainforest rich in bio-diversity".

BAHAHAHHAHHA. I am a pessimist. History shows that "human civilization" are reactive rather than proactive. I strongly agree that "Ancient" forests are critical in maintaining ecological integrity. However, the reality is that the human population continues to explode and will go through a bottleneck in the near future. Only then will people take a more proactive approach in conserving and preserving our natural resources.

FROM: Richard Z. Donovan, Chief of Forestry Rainforest Alliance

RE: Results and preliminary conclusions from SmartWood investigation into complaints against Forestal Venao S.R.L.

DATE: September 27, 2007

Background: Forestal Venao S.R.L. is a Peruvian company that currently implements forest management and harvesting activities on indigenous lands in Peru (Yurua District, Atalaya Province, Department of Ucayali) through participation agreements with communities that have ownership over these forests. In April 2006 Forestal Venao contacted SmartWood Program of Rainforest Alliance indicating their interest in initiating a process to achieve FSC forest certification The FSC certification process was implemented in two phases, a pre-assessment (July 2006) and a main assessment (September 2006). Based on the final results of this process, in April 2007 SmartWood issued a group FSC forest management-certificate to Forestal Venao S.R.L. as a Group Manager in charge of managing the forests of two native communities (Sawawo Hito 40 and Nueva Shahuaya). A public summary of the assessment of Forestal Venao SRL can be found on SmartWood’s website (link: http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/forestry/smartwood/public_documents_country.cfm?country=45)

In July 2007 SmartWood received complaints alleging:
1) That Forestal Venao S.R.L. and one of the native communities (Nueva Shahuaya) carried out illegal logging in Brazilian territory;
2) That Forestal Venao constructed an illegal road between Puerto Italia and the communal territory of Yurua;
3) That Forestal Venao is carrying out illegal logging in the upper watershed or headwaters of the Yurua River, inside the Murunahua Territorial Reserve; and,
4) That Forestal Venao forest operations in communal territory in the Yurua area, are causing damage to the natural resources and environment, of the native communities that live on the Brazilian side of the border

Following our FSC-approved internal complaints procedures, SmartWood organized and carried out an audit of Forestal Venao which included field verification and consultation with a wide range of stakeholders during the week of August 24, preceded by also gathering information from investigations conducted by Brazilian and Peruvian private and public agencies. New information from stakeholders has been welcomed throughout the process, and used for further investigation of these issues.

The following sections outlines SmartWood’s verification and information gathering activities as well as preliminary results and conclusions based on the information obtained and processed up to now in relation to specific complaints.

SmartWood verification activities and methods
Consultation with official governmental entities responsible for forest regulation and control, and other authorities: Instituto Brasilero de Medio Ambiente (IBAMA), Federal Police of Brazil, Brazilian Military Police of the Interior, Brazilian Forest Services Office, Peruvian National Institute of Natural Resources - INRENA, Peruvian Transport Office, Municipal Authorities of the Yurua and Tahuanía districts, Peru. Note: information gathering on the Brazilian side was conducted by IMAFLORA, SmartWood’s certification partner for Brazil.

Consultation of communities and local indigenous leaders: leaders of indigenous communities at the Brazilian border, national and regional indigenous organizations in Peru, community leaders of the Yurua area.

Revision of documented information: (reports of independent investigators, technical documentation related to the evaluated forest operations, complaint documents presented to SmartWood, past certification audit reports and other information related to the forest operations of Forestal Venao and the native communities).

Field Inspections: inspection of forest areas where Forestal Venao is currently executing forest harvesting operations (logging, road construction, extraction of logs, etc) including inspection and gathering of geographical coordinates along the entire northern border of the Forestal Venao Annual Harvest Area – PCA where reported roads and/or forest roads start, inspection of entire length of road that connects Puerto Italia and the Yurua communities, inspection of forest roads built by Forest Venao in all the work areas. Due to access difficulties and recommendations made to us by the Brazilian government agency IBAMA, no field inspection has been carried out on the Brazilian side. SmartWood and IMAFLORA consider this inspection of fundamental importance to the investigation of this complaint and it will be executed as soon as possible, i.e. during the month of October.

Complaint Issues and findings

1) Forestal Venao and one of the native communities with whom they work (Nueva Shahuaya), have carried out illegal logging in Brazilian territory.

Findings: The Forest Intendancy INRENA (Lima office) executed verification inspections in relation to this claim in situ. In its report, INRENA concludes that the Forestal Venao forest activities have been implemented within the authorized area (the annual harvest area-PCA) and that the interventions (opening of roads, logging, etc.) were carried out up to a distance of between 150 and 200 meters from the Brazilian border.

SmartWood received a letter signed by the Director of Environmental Protection of IBAMA including an attached field inspection report, which ratifies the previously denounced facts (indicating that Forestal Venao had carried out illegal logging in Brazilian territory). This report referenced specific geographic coordinates amongst them a harvest area (and log landing) allegedly in Brazil. The IBAMA report also indicates that the Forestal Venao PCA is located inside Peruvian territory, but stating that roads have been observed (opened with machinery), starting in Peruvian territory and going into Brazilian territory. Pictures of these roads were included but no geographical coordinates were provided for the specific sites where these interventions were supposedly carried out by Forestal Venao in Brazilian territory.

The SmartWood audit team carried out a field inspection, traversing the entire northern limit of the harvested area (PCA) of the Nueva Shahuaya community. The IBAMA referenced coordinates were located using three GPS and cross referenced by physical Brazil/Peru border markers/monuments. Findings indicate that the forest operations have been carried out inside the INRENA authorized PCA and that they did not affect Brazilian territory. Note: SmartWood auditors also identified evidence on the Peruvian side of the border, within the PCA, of apparent recent presence of the Brazilian army (e.g. plastic food bags, camping articles).

Brazilian authorities, indigenous leaders and independent investigators consulted during this process continue to associate Forestal Venao with illegal logging and cross border activities and reference to Forestal Venao in various official and unofficial documents regarding the frontier, illegal logging and affectation of indigenous territories. However, concrete evidence has not been presented that definitively links Forestal Venao with these illegal activities.

2) Forestal Venao has constructed an illegal road which unites Puerto Italia (established village on the Ucayali river) with the communal territory of Yurua. This road was constructed without an environmental impact study.

Findings: Based on consultation in Peru with a range of stakeholder, the SmartWood audit team determined that the road in question was constructed and used by an oil company in the 1980’s (between 1982 and 1988). The oil company abandoned the exploration of oil, leaving a road of 92 km (from Puerto Italia towards the northeast), and from there a track of a bit more than 30 km towards the north leading to an area known as Pantanal in the Alto Tamaya.

Various local residents of Puerto Italia and the authorities of the Municipality of Tahuania affirm that the road was in disuse from 1989 to 1990, after which a forest company entered (they don't refer to Forest Venao) which carried out forest extraction during 4 years (1990 to 1995). Later in 2002, under the system of forest concessions granted in the framework of new and current forest law, several forest companies entered to the area, among them Forest Venao. During this time, Forest Venao participated in the reopening or repair of this pre-existing 92 km road.

In an interview with the Sub Dirección de Caminos of the Dirección Regional de Transportes y Comunicaciones (decentralized Office of the Ministry of Transport and Communications) it was confirmed that the road in question is currently not officially recognized/registered. The responsibility for this step of “regularization” is held by the local governments, in this case the Municipality of Tahuanía.

During the August audit, SmartWood audit team travelled the entire length of the road (now currently about 160 km). The last portion of the road, approximately 60 km, crosses community territory and was constructed and maintained by Forest Venao in coordination with the native communities involved in forest management and harvesting. This portion of the road is regulated by INRENA under Peruvian forest law. INRENA authorities affirm that native communities can construct roads inside their territories and forest management units allowing them to transport their wood to processing centers. In this case, all the communities who work with Forest Venao and involved in road construction, have a INRENA-approved General Forest Management Plan (PGMFs).

3) Forestal Venao is carrying out illegal logging in the upper watershed or headwaters of the Yurua River, inside the Murunahua Territorial Reserve.

Findings: Based on information gathered by the SmartWood audit team logging activities in the Murunahua Territorial Reserve cannot be attributed to Forest Venao, but rather to other logging companies that work in the area (local people in the communities identify three of them). All the interviewed people agree these logging companies are promoting illegal logging in communities close to the Murunahua reserve. They also indicate that Forestal Venao doesn't work nor maintains relationship with the communities settled down in the upper basin of the Yurua River (Dulce Gloria, San Pablo and others).

Auditors carried out inspections on forest roads constructed by Forestal Venao, but no indications were found that the company has transported wood from areas or sources other than those authorized by the INRENA (i.e. communities situated along the Yurua River (Nueva Victoria, Santa Rosa and El Dorado) with whom Forestal Venao currently works.

4) The claim that Forestal Venao forest operations in communal territory in the Yurua area, are causing serious damage to the natural resources and environment of the native communities that live on the Brazilian side of the border.

Findings: Interviews with indigenous leaders on the Brazilian side establish that the Ashaninka da Tierra Indígena Kampa de Río Amonia tribes view negatively the activities of Forestal Venao. Indigenous leaders assert that their territories and resources are being negatively affected. However due to access difficulties, as mentioned above, SmartWood has not yet been able to undertake field inspections to allow that these communities show evidence of these impacts in the field.

On the Peruvian side, SmartWood has verified that all operations (planning and construction of roads, bridges, installation of patios, etc.), are supervised by technically qualified personnel and follow established technical norms.

Forestal Venao’s implemented management system includes specific environmental measures, water courses protection, suspension of harvesting during rainy periods, identification and protection of special sites and/or of high importance for wildlife fauna. These measures are being carried out in the field.

It can also be noted that there are two communities where forest harvest operations are being carried out near to the Brazilian border (i.e. Nueva Shahuaya – certified, and Santa Rosa - in process of evaluation). In both these cases, however, the harvest areas do not include permanent water courses that flow to Brazilian territory.

Smartwood audit found no indications that Forestal Venao personnel have been involved in hunting of wildlife. Forestal Venano has formally (through internal regulation and norms of conduct) prohibited this activity for all their personnel. At community level, hunting regulations have also been approved that regulate the activity for all its members.

Summary of Preliminary Conclusions
Complaint issue 1: The information gathered by the SmartWood audit team in Peru indicate that Forestal Venao forest operations have been carried out inside the INRENA authorized PCA and within Peruvian territory. Field inspection on the Brazilian side are still pending to verify IBAMA evidence and claims that Forestal Venao and the community Nueva Shahuaya have carried out interventions (tree felling and opening of roads) in Brazilian territory. SmartWood with the support of IMAFLORA will carry out a field inspection on the Brazilian side within the coming weeks.

Complaint issue 2: It is clear that the road in question (a track of 90 km.) was built by an oil company, and not by Forestal Venao. This road has been used by a group of forest companies, including Forestal Venao, which operated or are operating in the area.

The final 60 km track (between the Base Camp of Forestal Venao and the community Nueva Victoria), is in compliance with forest law, authorized and controlled by INRENA. This case involves community territories with INRENA approved forest management plans, complying with standards for construction and maintenance and impact assessment and environmental monitoring.

Complaint issue 3: There is no indication of any links between Forest Venao and illegal logging practices in the upper watershed or headwaters of the Yurua River, inside the Murunahua Territorial Reserve.

Complaint issue 4: Environmental impacts of Forestal Venao harvesting activities on indigenous communities have not yet been verified. Inspections of Forestal Venao harvest areas on the Peruvian side have not identified evidence of negative cross-border environmental impacts. . Before final conclusion can be made, it is of utmost importance to complete a field inspection on the Brazilian side in order to verify the impacts documented in the complaint through communications with native communities and other stakeholder and to gather evidence in the field. However, coordination with IBAMA is crucial in this regard.

Next steps
SmartWood will schedule and implement direct consultation with affected Brazilian indigenous communities and field inspections in order to corroborate and to confirm the claims by IBAMA and leaders of indigenous communities regarding territorial invasion and effects that negative environmental impacts have been generated as a consequence of activities carried out by Forestal Venao.

SmartWood is organizing and coordinating with authorities and leaders of indigenous communities on the Brazilian side to carry out a field inspection and to listen to the Brazilian indigenous communities. This inspection is expected to take place during the month of October 2007.

Once this fieldwork is completed SmartWood will issue the results and final conclusions of the complaint investigation. The release of this public report is planned for November 2007. Public summaries of all audits will continue to be posted on www.smartwood.org.

Final Comment
Throughout this complain process, SmartWood has taken advantage of any and all evidence provided by stakeholders and affected parties. The value of the information in the Venao case has been limited to some extent because: a) precise geographic information is either missing or contradictory (e.g. GPS data points not available or in locations that contradict the claims of the allegations), b) numerous of the allegations are based on events a number of years ago and are not recent, c) allegations are based on limited information (e.g. the complete picture on roads development was not provided), and d) information is based on rumors. A lesson learned from SmartWood is that in cross-border situations (which have been rare in the past) we must place careful attention on cross-border evaluation during FSC forest certifications. This is not specifically addressed in the FSC system requirements. However, even in this case (i.e. Forestal Venao), it is important to note that public claims and allegations are just that – claims and allegations – and for a fair and rigorous certification process, the FSC system must have a consistent system for exploring both national and international cross-border allegations and coming to conclusions based without definitive or clear evidence. So far in this process we have not uncovered definitive or substantive evidence supporting the allegations. Thus the Venao SRL FSC certification remains intact. However, should new evidence surface to support the allegations, SmartWood reserves the right, as per FSC system requirements, to take further actions related to certification, and we continue to seek information that will affect this case.