Here's the response I received from Seventh Generation (seventhgeneration@maileu.custhelp.com)

"Response" (links follow)
"Sustainable materials in packaging

Animal Testing

Products manufacturing

Sustainability"

On the other hand, here's a nicer reply I received from info@gleegum.com:

"Thank you so much for your time and concern!
We did donate some Mini Glee Gum samples for the RAN event, and we are quite interested in and disturbed by the information you have shared here. I have forwarded it straight to our company president, who will look into these matters as soon as she can.
We really appreciate your letting us know!
Thanks,
Molly

Verve, Inc. ~ 305 Dudley St. ~ Providence, RI 02907
p: 401-351-6415 ~ f: 401-272-1204

All Natural Glee Gum & Make Your Own Candy Kits
www.gleegum.com"

A petition Western wilderness committee has been working on here in B.C.
showing how little old growth is left always shocks and embarrasses people into wanting what little is left ,protected before it is mindlessly destroyed for short term personal gain.
http://www.wcwcvictoria.org/vipetition/

This is a very current issue in Tasmania, where rainforests are being cut down to be woodchipped, and replaced with plantations. I am shocked to learn that FOE have taken this long to decide that this destruction is not sustainable, but I am glad they have pulled out and wish RAN would also.

But its right, when FSC fall down, what i really hope, what come after?
gerriet

A massive global protest campaign to end ancient forest logging and the use of coal as the ecologically sufficient policies necessary to achieve global ecological sustainability (and human survival).
Dr. Glen Barry

Wrote to FSC to find out what they are implementing to upgrade the fiasco
which is of their own making.

Nigel

Dear Ms. Bashen,

Thank you for emailing me to express your your concern about protecting ancient forests. As someone who has worked actively with RAN for the past 20 years to protect forests around the world I am well versed with their policies but your email did prompt me to reach out to the RAN board, RAN's executive director Michael Brune and RAN's founder Randy Hayes to let them know of your email to me and your concern.

Know that Glen Barry and Ecological Internet have misguided you as to RAN's work and the reality is that Ecological Internet would be doing more good it they had requested you to contact the logging companies and governments that are responsible for the industrial logging of the world’s ancient forests.

Ecological Internet's claim that RAN supports ancient forest logging because it is a member of the Forest Stewardship Council is misleading. RAN has constantly worked to fight ancient forest logging and strengthen forestry practices around the world including those certified by the FSC. RAN also leads the fight to prevent industry-sponsored certification standards, alternatives to the FSC that are much worse. I support Rainforest Action Network’s campaigns on forests and clean energy including their efforts to improve the FSC. Your emails take away precious resources that RAN needs to mount those campaigns, and they also take time and effort away from Ecological Internet’s valuable work on forests and climate. Please, urge Dr. Barry to redirect your attention from RAN and other NGOs, and return your focus to the decision makers that are destroying the world’s forests.

Know that RAN hopes that in the future they can again work with Glen Barry and Ecological Internet.
Below, for your information is the truth of the matter directly from RAN:

Thanks for your concern for our environment and our forests.

Most Sincerely,

Annie Uzdavinis

> Recently one of our old NGO allies, Ecological Internet, the parent organization of Rainforest Portal, has directly contacted a number of our supporters and allies. Our organizations have a strategic difference of opinion, and Ecological Internet has recently decided to divert the attention of the environmental movement away from protecting forests and towards attacking RAN and other NGOs. This note is to offer our side of the issue and request your patience with any inconvenience caused by Ecological Internet’s internet campaign. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns.
>
> Does RAN support ancient forest logging?
>
> - No, RAN absolutely does not support logging ancient forests. Our Old Growth Campaign works to protect ancient forests and defend the rights of their inhabitants.
> Did RAN cut a deal with the Ontario provincial government?
> - No, RAN did not negotiate with the Ontario government. We wrote a letter and issued a press release welcoming a recent commitment by the Province to protect 56 million acres of Ontario’s northern boreal forest, about half of the unallocated land base, and an area half of the size of the State of California, while urging conservation-based planning and respect for Indigenous rights. There was no deal with RAN in the Provincial Premier’s commitment.
>
> - Herein lies a strategic difference between RAN and Ecological Internet – the glass is both half full and half empty. RAN believes that we should celebrate the protection of 56 million acres and the increase in rights of consent for the boreal forests Indigenous peoples. And at the same time, we encourage all of our supporters to join Ecological Internet, RAN and others to hold the government of Ontario accountable to this commitment, and to campaign for further wilderness protection in Ontario and beyond.
> Does RAN support the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)?
> - Yes, RAN recognizes FSC as the strongest independent environmental certification available for wood and paper products. At the same time, RAN has significant concerns about the FSC. In particular, we’ve been working to expose how new rules adopted by the program that we feel are lowering the bar on human rights and environmental protections.
> - RAN was a founding member of the FSC. As such, we have the position to appeal, and when we encounter questionable certifications in the areas we work, we have lodged appeals, and they have succeeded. Most recently, our Japan office successfully convinced the FSC to remove ancient forest pulp from FSC certified papers in Japan. RAN agrees with Ecological Internet’s concerns over FSC certification of ancient forest logging. Our strategic disagreement with Ecological Internet is whether and how the FSC can be improved – RAN has had success influencing the FSC from the inside, Ecological Internet is asking us renounce the FSC altogether.
>
> - In the larger context of forest certification, it is also important to note that the logging industry is fighting to replace the FSC with its own weaker certification system, known as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, that would exclude groups like RAN that seek to protect endangered and ancient forests. RAN is a member of the Alliance for Credible Forest Certification calling market attention to these industry sponsored certification schemes. Without the FSC, we are concerned that these industry-based systems would quickly take over the marketplace.
> A record of RAN’s previous responses to criticism from Ecological Internet is available on the organizations’ website. At the time, we were hoping to agree on next steps, and the dialogue was broken off by Ecological Internet with a declaration that we were not operating in good faith. We believe that we can find common ground with allies, even when we disagree. Since our founding over 23 years ago, RAN has had strategic differences with a number of allies and organizations; the key is using each others’ strengths and weaknesses effectively, taking advantage of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ campaign strategies, and airing our differences privately but working to present a common agenda publicly in the face of overwhelming corporate power and a mounting crisis for our forests and climate.

Glen,

I have to say, you have a serious priority issue and your invasion of my time and communication channel is bothersome.

I understand that you have a vendetta against RAN but you went about it in the wrong way. Would you be happy if I had 100+ people I know send you messages all day long (and all the other people that are supporting your cause) telling you that I think your email action strategy of illegally SPAMMING companies and organizations is completely irresponsible and unprofessional. I can tell you that based on RAN’s response to your SPAM I actually feel more aligned with them than I did before.

We live in a broken society with broken systems. Things aren’t working well and what we need to is come together in peaceful ways and figure out solutions around the table. RAN is trying to do that. You are breaking us apart. Think about it.

And please stop bothering us. if it doesn’t stop soon I will report your organization to an appropriate regulatory agency.

Eric

Dear Annie, I do not know which organisation you represent but many thanks for your reply to my email generated by Ecological Internet.

I do not join these campaigns lightly and have debated the pros and cons on my blog http://arkitrek.com/environmentalism-schism/

My reason for taking action is summed up in the closing paragraph of that blog post – “I worry that the Grand Daddies of environmentalism might be focusing too closely on their damage limitation campaigns – such as reducing the impact of logging – that they are loosing sight of the fundamental principles upon which their organisations were founded – such as the prevention of logging.”

Sustainable certification schemes such as FSC and RSPO are useful to a point but there is a danger that they are shifting the goalposts. Suddenly the best we can do is no longer rainforest conservation but ‘certified sustainable’ logging or ‘certified sustainable’ clearing of rainforest for monoculture timber and biofuel feedstock plantations.

I do not see these emails as wasting resources but rather provoking debate that will help environmentalists get their act together. In a similar scenario WWF has recently reversed its contentious climate change strategy to embrace REDD. This is good news for conservation policy.

I understand the need to engage and work from ‘the inside’ but environmentalists must hold true to their core values otherwise we will find ourselves not at the table, but under it begging for scraps.

Yours truly,

Ian Hall

Thank you Ian for providing such a reasoned personalized response to Annie. You are precisely right that this is meant to spur discussions that the "Grand Daddies" do not want to have.
Regards,
Dr. Glen Barry

Sir,

I have received a couple hundreds emails from your constituents voicing their concerns about RAN. While I can appreciate their questioning of an organization motives and efficiency a single contact would have alerted me just as well. In fact I would have valued more a contact coming directly from you that the same letter repeated ad nauseam. If you want to show your own organizational capacity to get a number of people to act as you tell them because of your own concerns it’s good. If you want to pass a message it’s not. I am certainly one of ecology’s early defenders and have participated in enough debates over the past 30 years to know the difficulty of the right action in front of corporate power. Is it better to find a compromise or do we have to fight until death if we cannot accept any improvement that does not seem adequate?

This is on ongoing and eternal question that you are welcome to ask yourselves together with RAN.

My sponsoring them is an act of support of any organization doing its best within the constraints of the particular situation. I am not here to judge and not equipped to do so. I am neither interested in being inundated by emails as if my action is equal to supporting Exxon Mobil! It seems that your capacity to be a nuisance would be better directed in other directions. We are a small family company promoting organic agriculture and practicing it ourselves for 35 years, probably before you were born, therefore I find it rather exaggerated to be the aim of an email campaign like that one. What do you expect? To annoy me so much that I quit supporting RAN? While I certainly will ask pointed questions (and they have sent their reply below) to RAN, I will not withdraw my support particularly as this looks more like a blackmail campaign than a reasonable discussion between people essentially working to save the planet, however they imagine they can do that. This does not entice me to yield under pressure as it feels exactly like tactics the bad guys could use. Sorry that you resort to such measures!

Naturally I have put filters in place to get rid of these annoying emails but frankly I have better things to do with my time and you with yours.

Here is RAN answer to your question. Please talk to them if you have a disagreement and keep it between yourselves. I wonder how you would react if I had the capacity to paralyze your own server and cause you significant loss of time. Are we going back to the days of tit for tat? I must say that you make it look tempting!

Best regards

Dr Michel Ginoulhac, M.D.
Wine Selection
The Organic Wine Company

Hello Annie; Glen Barry is not the type of person that one might describe as "misguided". In reality, he understands the situation from the scientific point of view, and leaves out the financial gain aspect out of the equation. If there is a disagreement, I am sure Glen will join you in a comparison of viewpoints.
I for one, would like to see that debate. I live in Oregon. Where the pretty trees are close to the freeways where the visitors drive by. Move in a mile or two and see clear cutting that to this day causes numerous deaths due to flooding when we have moderate rainfall. We have lost the salmon and native species due to the destruction of our forests and subsequently our rivers and streams. Many cities in Oregon justified killing the forests around them and pay the price. Alas, there are finite ancient forests. They must be totally protected. It might just be that our survival depends on it.
Compromises are something that we can no longer afford. Compromises with the very foundation of our planet just do not make sense.

thanks Brian

Mr. Bauer,

My most sincere apologies for the mistake in gender.
I have been personally responding to hundreds of emails I have been receiving since this afternoon.

Personally I agree that no one person or organization is 100% beyond reproach as we are all human.
However, for the past 20 years I have found the Rainforest Action Network to be one of the most effective, upfront and active environmental organizations...and this is based on the fact that I have worked on many issues with many organizations for many years.

Also, please know that I have no interest in threatening you but I am concerned that Mr. Barry and Ecological Internet targeted me and people like me who are individuals who have volunteered our time and resources to a very effective event and organization. I certainly appreciate that Mr. Barry may want to make a point, however this campaign has re-energized me to work harder on RANs behalf and to look more closely to ensure that I am not being a "sheep" in the campaigns that I support.

If you have any issues about RAN policy issues I encourage you to email Michael Brune who is RAN's executive director or any of RAN's board of directors.
I have cc'd Michael Brune on this email and he (and everyone at RAN) is quite engaged and responsive. While your email went out to a number of supporters of the RAN Revel benefit, I am someone who is hoping to attend the benefit and has supplied an item for the silent auction at that event. The great news about RAN is the fact that after receiving the first email from this campaign I called and emailed RAN to ask my own questions about recent campaigns. They responded immediately at they have worked hard today to let you and others know the truth.

Again, my apologies about calling you Ms. Please email Mr. Barry, Mr. Brune or RAN about this if you want to create change. If you'd like to join me at REVEL I'd be pleased to have you seated with me and would be happy to introduce you to many long-time RAN supporters and board members.

Most sincerely,

Annie Uzdavinis

Dear Sir,

I am interested in this tactic you have chosen to use against an organization that would be your ally in the struggle for forest protection. I would like to know your overall strategy. Could you please clarify what your "big picture" is here? What is the end result you were hoping to accomplish from this 'action alert', and do you feel that you have accomplished this goal?
I have done direct action with Rainforest Action Network for many years, and I only chose to take part in actions that I feel are well thought out and effective. This applies to action both on a grassroots level and with NGO's. There are many complexities in the field of direct action, and we are always learning and growing as activists.
There will always be conflict within movements for change, and I hope that this conflict will serve to keep us all on message and on target. I simply question the effectiveness of the use of this tactic at this time. I hope you will do the same.
From a place of Love and Hope for the Future,
-Lynn Stone

I used to think FSC labels meant a product was safe to buy. Fortunately when we needed new floors, we bypassed FSC entirely and bought bamboo hardwood from a small American supplier who shipped only hardened but not old-growth bamboo from Vietnam. FSC, you disappoint me!

Annie,

I'm not a sheep. I've stood in front of bull dozers and lock down to
feller bunchers. I was a paralegal on the wrongful death case of the
Estate of David Chain verses Pacific Lumber Company. I spent two months
dogging Home Depot with Forest Action Network in 1999 prior to working on
David's case along with the Stafford Landslide case in Humboldt County. Am
I currently residing in an ancient forest, no, I'm on sabbatical from 20
years of working on ancient forest issues and digging my way out of debt
from being a non paid ancient forest activist all those years. When
Friends of the Earth can't support FSC, than I thought it was worth taking
action on Ecological Internet.

In fact, I hung a banner with the RAN logo as a campus group in the early
ninties at Mitsubishi dealership which was used by RAN in some videos on
the Mitsubishi campaign RAN organized in the ninties. I stood out in the
below zero weather at the Chicago auto show dogging Mitsubishi in the
early ninties. I'm aware of things RAN has done over the years and
generally am supportive of RAN and their campaigns/issues they target.

Do you still think I'm a sheep? Have you read "Earth For Sale" by Brian
Tokar? Cloak of Green by Riane Eissler?

I'll admit to not being current on all certification issues, but I did see
that FOE no longer supports the position of FSC. Again, that was enough to
say to RAN, what's going on? Why are you supporting this? Is this green
washing between industry and ngo's? Should RAN sit down and spend some
time evaluating their support of FSC? I remember speaking with a former
RAN employee who was frsutrated when RAN took their position in the early
2000's. Years blurr together, but I distinctly remember lengthy
conversation with a former RAN employee who walked away partly because of
RAN's position on FSC.

Not that RAN is the same as Greenpeace, but what Greenpeace did in the
Great Bear Rainforest was despicable. Being someone who supports smaller
groups before they implode and chase the almighty fundraising dollar, I
felt criticizing and asking RAN to reevaluate its support of FSC is
righteous and worthy to ask.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Steve

Hi Annie,

sorry if this email 'got you' inappropriately.

Generally speaking though Glen does good and even if the email to you was inappropriate, the argument that Glen is putting forward is something I stand for too. Sorry you disagree, but I won't pretend to be in a position where I can discuss it with you - if the FSC feels maligned, it should put forward a new case. I have read their existing defence of Glen's (and others') points, and find them wanting.

Best regards and apologies,

Adam Hardy

There must be no more logging of old-growth forests. It's as simple as that. RAN is wrong in their support for FSC. Recycling paper is what's needed, not factory tree farms.

This is just terrible, please stop

Hi Annie,
Glen seems to have some quite good points that you disregard!
Yours,
Jan Diek van Mansvelt

Dear Dr. Glen Barry,

Thank you for your report on RAN and selling out! What can we do? The biggest problem facing the planet is growth and development out of control. As long as population continues to explode demand for natural resources will as well.

I have made the personal commitment to family planning. I have no children, and plan on one child and adoption,

What else can we do? We need to inform the public that eating meat uses forty times the fossil fuel (as well as many times the water and land) as does soybeans, Restaurant menues are meat, meat, meat, every meal, three meals a day.

Keep up the good work, I look forward to hearing from your organization,

Daniel Barker

Dear Dr Barry,

I posted this research on the RAN website at the link below on
the-biggest-environmental-victory-you%E2%80%99ve-never-heard-about. It is
relevant to your arguments.

A NASA-funded study has discovered an important indicator of rain forest
vulnerability to clear-cutting in Brazil. This five-year study is the first to
quantify the relationship between selective logging, where loggers extract
individual trees from the rain forest, and complete deforestation, or clear-cutting.

A team of scientists found that 16% of rain forests, which had been selectively
logged, were completely clear-cut within one year and 32% of logged areas were
completely cleared within four years. Virtually all of this double damage occurs
within 15 miles (25 km) miles of major roads. Practically no selective logging
takes place at distances greater than 15 miles from the roads.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/brazil_logging.html

Hope it helps.

Chris Goodman

Hi Annie,

Thank you for your feedback and concerns with what is being discussed.

Although I agree that protests should be aimed at businesses and governments who are directly responsible for destruction, supporting a certification that seems to encourage destruction and simultaneously greenwash people is pretty-much just the same thing as far as i'm concerned. Since you (the FSC) are telling people to keep buying (consuming) without fear that it is causing destruction. But the FSC does support destruction. The fact that FoE pulled out of the FSC was enough for me and Dr Barry provides further convincing arguments.

I understand how difficult it can be to defend the environment when you are trying to please everybody. As far as I'm concerned the time to please everybody was 20, 10 or perhaps even 5 years ago when we had breathing space. Businesses and governments have exploited the natural resources so fervently that we are now in a position where everything needs to change - no more destruction can be permitted. In that RAN should also withdraw their membership from the FSC and make known to everyone the reason why.

Goodluck (to us all).

Regards,

Brooke

RAN Gets Grumpy as Concerns Regarding Their Ancient Forest
Greenwashing Crash the Party

Point by point rebuttal of RAN's response to our global Earth
Action Network's protest targeting their support for FSC's
ancient forest destruction

By Dr. Glen Barry, Ecological Internet
September 27, 2008

Please continue taking action to stop RAN and FSC's Ancient
Forest Destruction at:
http://www.rainforestportal.org/issues/2008/09/alert_as_rainforest_action_net.asp

**Points beginning with > are RAN's comments to our protest
which targeted their corporate sponsors for their Revel awards
ceremony and fund-raiser. Ecological Internet's response is in
capitals.

> Recently one of our old NGO allies, Ecological Internet, the
parent organization of Rainforest Portal, has directly
contacted a number of our supporters and allies. Our
organizations have a strategic difference of opinion, and
Ecological Internet has recently decided to divert the
attention of the environmental movement away from protecting
forests and towards attacking RAN and other NGOs. This note is
to offer our side of the issue and request your patience with
any inconvenience caused by Ecological Internet’s internet
campaign. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or
concerns.

ECOLOGICAL INTERNET CARRIES OUT A WIDE ARRAY OF PROTESTS
REGARDING CLIMATE AND FORESTS -- ALL BASED UPON THE LATEST
ECOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND WHAT IS KNOWN REGARDING REQUIREMENTS
FOR GLOBAL ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY. WHEN EI HAS TWO STAFF
PERSONS, AND RAN NEARLY TWO DOZEN, WE HARDLY FEEL THAT SEVERAL
HUNDRED EMAILS CONSTITUTING A PROTEST SHOULD HAVE AGGRIEVED
RAN QUITE SO DEEPLY. THIS IS THE 3RD PROTEST TARGETING RAN IN
THE PAST YEAR, AND WE HAVE YET TO RECEIVE A DETAILED RESPONSE
TO THE CORE CONCERNS REGARDING FSC. YOU WILL FIND NOTHING IN
THEIR MOST RECENT RESPONSE WHICH DEFENDS THEIR NOTION THAT
CUTTING ANCIENT FORESTS WITH FSC CERTIFICATION SOMEHOW
PROTECTS THEM. ONLY THE SUGGESTION THEY HAVE BEEN VICTIMIZED
AND SUBTLE VILLIFICATION OF THE MESSENGER. A FULL LIST OF OUR
RECENT CAMPAIGNS, THE ONLY ONE WHICH TARGETS NGOS BEING THIS
FSC CAMPAIGN, CAN BE FOUND AT:
http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/alerts/

TO SUGGEST THAT ECOLOGICAL INTERNET DOES NOT TARGET
GOVERNMENTS AND COMPANIES IS RIDICULOUS. NOTE, THAT WHILE
ECOLOGICAL INTERNET PROVIDES THE WEB SITE AND TEMPLATE, TO
DATE 1118 PEOPLE FROM 52 COUNTRIES HAVE PARTICIPATED. THESE
PARTICIPANTS ARE REAL PEOPLE WITH REAL CONCERNS, AND SHOULD
NOT BE SO EASILY DISMISSED.

> Does RAN support ancient forest logging?

> - No, RAN absolutely does not support logging ancient
forests. Our Old Growth Campaign works to protect ancient
forests and defend the rights of their inhabitants.

HMM… RAN IS A MEMBER AND VOCAL SUPPORTER OF FSC WHICH HAS
CERTIFIED AS ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE THE FIRST TIME LOGGING
OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF HECTARES OF PRIMARY FORESTS --
MOSTLY RAINFORESTS. BY DEFINITION, ONCE LOGGED PRIMARY FORESTS
ARE DESTROYED. THEY WILL NEVER AGAIN HAVE FULLY INTACT
FUNCTION, STRUCTURE OR COMPOSITION -- IN EFFECT THEY ARE TO
BECOME TREE PLANTATIONS. AT LEAST 60% OF FSC TIMBER COMES FROM
SUCH FIRST TIME LOGGING OF ANCIENT FORESTS. UNTIL RECENTLY,
RAN INACCURATELY CHARACTERIZED FSC AS BEING "SUSTAINABLE" ON
THEIR WEB SITE, ILLUSTRATING THEIR LACK OF ECOLOGICAL KNOW-
HOW. RAN MOST DEFINITELY SUPPORTS LOGGING OF ANCIENT FORESTS,
BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT FSC WHICH PROVIDES THE "CERTIFICATE"
SAYING IT IS OKAY, AND VALIDATES A HUGE INDUSTRY THAT CUTS
ANCIENT FORESTS TO MAKE YOUR YARD FURNITURE. THEIR DENIAL IS
SIMPLY NOT TRUE. RAN, HOW DOES FSC PROTECT ANCIENT FORESTS? IT
DOESN'T, IT GREENWASHES THEIR LOGGING.

> Did RAN cut a deal with the Ontario provincial government?

> - No, RAN did not negotiate with the Ontario government. We
wrote a letter and issued a press release welcoming a recent
commitment by the Province to protect 56 million acres of
Ontario’s northern boreal forest, about half of the
unallocated land base, and an area half of the size of the
State of California, while urging conservation-based planning
and respect for Indigenous rights. There was no deal with RAN
in the Provincial Premier’s commitment.

NEVER IN THE ALERT OR ELSEWHERE IS THERE ANY STATEMENT RAN
"CUT A DEAL" OR NEGOTIATED WITH THE ONTARIO PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT (THEY DID IN CANADA'S GREAT BEAR WILDERNESS
THOUGH). THE POINT IS RAN CONTINUALLY PROVIDES ENVIRONMENTAL
POLITICAL COVER BY PUBLICLY SUPPORTING FOREST DEALS THAT
PROMISE LIMITED, UNSPECIFIED PROTECTIONS DOWN THE ROAD WHILE
CONTINUING THE DESTRUCTION TODAY. THE DEAL IN QUESTION SAID
THERE MIGHT BE SOME PROTECTIONS IN 15 YEARS TIME IN HALF OF
ONTARIO'S FORESTS, IF THE OTHER HALF WAS GIVEN OVER TO
INDUSTRIAL DESTRUCTION RIGHT NOW. ON RAN'S BLOG AT:

http://understory.ran.org/2008/07/29/the-biggest-environmental-victory-you%E2%80%99ve-never-heard-about/

RAN'S EXCUTIVE DIRECTOR TOOK CREDIT FOR THE DEAL, CALLING IT
"The Biggest Environmental Victory You’ve Never Heard About".
THIS IS MORE OF RAN'S HAND-WAVING TO DISCREDIT ECOLOGICAL
INTERNET RATHER THAN SUBSTANTIVELY RESPONDING TO WHY THEY
SUPPORT FSC, AND HOW THIS SUPPORT FOR ANCIENT FOREST LOGGING
COULD POSSIBLY PROTECTS FORESTS.

> - Herein lies a strategic difference between RAN and
Ecological Internet – the glass is both half full and half
empty. RAN believes that we should celebrate the protection of
56 million acres and the increase in rights of consent for the
boreal forests Indigenous peoples. And at the same time, we
encourage all of our supporters to join Ecological Internet,
RAN and others to hold the government of Ontario accountable
to this commitment, and to campaign for further wilderness
protection in Ontario and beyond.

A CAREFUL READ OF THE ECOLOGICAL SCIENCE INDICATES THAT
HUMANITY HAS ALREADY OVERSHOT THE AMOUNT OF INTACT NATURAL
ECOSYSTEMS THAT CAN BE LOST AND STILL MAINTAIN A HABITABLE
EARTH. THE GLASS IS NEITHER HALF FULL OR EMPTY, IT IS BROKEN.
CAMPAIGNING FOR ANYTHING LESS THAT WHAT IS NECESSARY -- FULL
PROTECTION FOR THE EARTH'S REMAINING RELATIVELY NATURAL
HABITATS -- IS INADEQUATE AND DANGEROUS GREENWASH. IT MAKES US
FEEL GOOD, BRINGS IN THE FUNDS, TINKERS AROUND THE EDGE OF THE
PROBLEM WITHOUT INSISTING ANYONE GIVE UP ANCIENT FOREST
TIMBERS, BUT IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN BEING. RAN CARRIES
OUT RIGOROUS CAMPAIGNS TO END THE USE OF COAL, BIOFUELS AND
OIL SAND FUELS -- YET DOES NOT SUPPORT ENDING ANCIENT FOREST
LOGGING. AFTER A YEAR OF PROTEST, PAGES OF EMAILS AND HOURS OF
DISCUSSIONS, THEY HAVE NEVER PROVIDED ANY SUBSTANTIVE,
DETAILED JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR SUPPORT FOR FSC, AND HOW THIS
CONTRIBUTES TO PROTECTING THE WORLD'S FORESTS AND ECOLOGICAL
SUSTAINABILITY.

> Does RAN support the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)?

> - Yes, RAN recognizes FSC as the strongest independent
environmental certification available for wood and paper
products. At the same time, RAN has significant concerns about
the FSC. In particular, we’ve been working to expose how new
rules adopted by the program that we feel are lowering the bar
on human rights and environmental protections.

> - RAN was a founding member of the FSC. As such, we have the
position to appeal, and when we encounter questionable
certifications in the areas we work, we have lodged appeals,
and they have succeeded. Most recently, our Japan office
successfully convinced the FSC to remove ancient forest pulp
from FSC certified papers in Japan. RAN agrees with Ecological
Internet’s concerns over FSC certification of ancient forest
logging. Our strategic disagreement with Ecological Internet
is whether and how the FSC can be improved – RAN has had
success influencing the FSC from the inside, Ecological
Internet is asking us renounce the FSC altogether.

ENVIRONMENTALISTS AROUND THE WORLD ARE FLEEING FSC IN DROVES
FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE AND IN THE ALERT. FRIENDS OF THE
EARTH -- ANOTHER FSC FOUNDING MEMBER -- HAS WITHDRAWN, AND
MANY EUROPEAN GROUPS ARE CONSIDERING DOING SO. FSC EXISTS ON
THE PREMISE THAT CENTURIES OLD TREES IN MILLIONS OF YEAR OLD
ECOSYTEMS CAN AND SHOULD BE LOGGED. THE BARBARIC PRACTICE OF
CUTTING DOWN THE ECOSYSTEMS THAT MAKES THE EARTH HABITABLE --
LIKE SLAVERY BEFORE IT -- IS SIMPLY INDEFENSIBLE. THERE IS NO
WAY TO REFORM LOGGING OF PRICELESS PRIMEVAL ECOSYSTEMS. FSC'S
VERY PREMISE THAT PRIMARY FORESTS SHOULD BE CUT DOWN TO MAKE
CONSUMER GOODS IS INDEFENSIBLE AND EVIL. STOPPING ONE BAD
CERTIFICATION ON ONE OCCASION DOES NOT OBVIATE THE DAMAGE DONE
BY FALSELY GIVING COMFORT TO CONSUMERS THAT THEIR OLD GROWTH
PRODUCT HELPED THE ENVIRONMENT, WHEN IN FACT IT EXACERBATED
THE GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CRISES.

> - In the larger context of forest certification, it is also
important to note that the logging industry is fighting to
replace the FSC with its own weaker certification system,
known as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, that would
exclude groups like RAN that seek to protect endangered and
ancient forests. RAN is a member of the Alliance for Credible
Forest Certification calling market attention to these
industry sponsored certification schemes. Without the FSC, we
are concerned that these industry-based systems would quickly
take over the marketplace.

THUS THE NEED FOR THE MOVEMENT TO UNITE BEHIND A SIMPLE
MESSAGE: "END ANCIENT FOREST LOGGING". HOW CAN YOU EXPECT
CONSUMERS TO KNOW WHICH OF A HALF DOZEN CERTIFICATION SCHEMES
IS BETTER? FOREST WATCH AT http://www.fsc-watch.org/ SHOWS FSC
IS BUSINESS AS USUAL INDUSTRIAL FORESTRY THAT ROUTINELY
VIOLATES ITS OWN PRINCIPLES AND TRAMPLES ON INDIGENOUS RIGHTS
AND GLOBAL ECOSYSTEMS. FSC HAS SHOWN ITSELF TO BE
IRREDEEMABLE, NO ONE INCLUDING RAN HAS PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE
TO THE CONTRARY, AND AT SOME POINT YOU EITHER DEFEND YOUR
POLICIES AGAINST CRITICISM IN A PUBLIC DEBATE OR YOU ADMIT
YOU ARE WRONG AND TRY SOMETHING ELSE. RAN CA.NNOT CONTINUE
FAILING TO SUBSTANTIVELY RESPOND TO CRITICISM OF THEIR FSC
MEMBERSHIP AND SUPPORT

> A record of RAN’s previous responses to criticism from
Ecological Internet is available on the organizations’
website. At the time, we were hoping to agree on next steps,
and the dialogue was broken off by Ecological Internet with a
declaration that we were not operating in good faith. We
believe that we can find common ground with allies, even when
we disagree. Since our founding over 23 years ago, RAN has had
strategic differences with a number of allies and
organizations; the key is using each others’ strengths and
weaknesses effectively, taking advantage of ‘inside’ and
‘outside’ campaign strategies, and airing our differences
privately but working to present a common agenda publicly in
the face of overwhelming corporate power and a mounting crisis
for our forests and climate.

RAN'S OLD-GROWTH CAMPAIGN SUPPORT FOR FSC THREATENS THE
ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY OF THE EARTH. DURING OUR FIRST ROUND
OF DISCUSSIONS, EVERY SORT OF DIVERSIONARY AND PUBLIC
RELATIONS TACTIC WAS USED IN ORDER TO AVOID ANSWERING A SIMPLE
QUESTION: "HOW DOES LOGGING A CENTURIES OLD TREE IN A MILLION
YEAR OLD ECOSYSTEM, OVER HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF HECTARES OF
PRIMARY FORESTS, PROTECT THEM?" RAN REFUSED TO ANSWER
DIRECTLY, AND FINALLY ISSUED A ONE SENTENCE ANSWER THROUGH
THEIR WEB MASTER WHICH READ:

FSC “is a vastly superior alternative to standard industrial
logging. In forests that would otherwise be logged without
third party oversight, FSC promotes practices that preserve
ecosystem functions (like habitat and water quality) and
safeguards the most ecologically valuable areas.”

THAT IS IT. AFTER TWO DIFFERENT PROTESTS DIRECTED AT RAN,
COUNTLESS DISCUSSIONS, THAT IS THE ENTIRETY OF RAN'S
SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSES TO OUR CRITIQUE OF THEIR SUPPORT FOR
FSC. AND FSC-WATCH IMMEDIATELY NOTED THAT SUCH SAFEGUARDS DO
NOT IN FACT EXIST. AT THAT TIME WE MADE CLEAR TO RAN THIS
ANWWER IS INSUFFICIENT, THE REASONS WHY, AND THAT WE INTENDED
TO INTENSIFY THE CAMPAIGN:

http://www.rainforestportal.org/issues/2008/04/rainforest_action_network_defe.asp

SINCE THAT TIME RAN HAS CHOSEN TO IGNORE AND DENIGRATE OUR
CONCERNS. THEY HAVE BARRED MYSELF FROM POSTING TO THEIR WEB
SITE, AND CENSORED COMMENTS OF OTHERS QUESTIONING THEIR FSC
SUPPORT. RAN WAS FULLY INFORMED THAT THEY WERE A TARGET OF A
DIRECT ACTION PROTEST, AND CHOSE TO IGNORE IT LEADING TO THE
CURRENT EMAIL CAMPAIGN. THE FULL TRANSCRIPT OF ECOLOGICAL
INTERNET'S EARLIER CAMPAIGN DISCUSSION WITH RAN CAN BE FOUND
AT:

http://www.rainforestportal.org/issues/2007/11/the_transcript_ran_dodges_rega.asp

IN CLOSING, RAN HAS SHOWN THEMSELVES TO BE COMPLETELY
UNPREPARED AND UNABLE TO DEFEND THEIR FSC SUPPORT. AFTER 20
YEARS OF FAILURE, THEY OFFER NO ASSURANCES THAT FSC CAN BE
REFORMED, OR ANY DEFENSE OF THEIR KEY PREMISE THAT FSC LOGGING
PROTECTS ANCIENT FORESTS. UNTIL THEY MEANINGFULLY AND
SUBSTANTIVELY RESPOND TO THE CONCERNS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE
AROUND THE EARTH, IT IS ENTIRELY FAIR FOR THEM TO BE SUBJECTED
TO PROTESTS THAT USE THE TACTICS THEY PIONEERED. AND
BUSINESSES THAT SUPPORT RAN'S GREENWASH OF FIRST TIME LOGGING
OF MILLIONS OF HECTARES OF PRIMARY FORESTS, WITH A WEAK AND
MEANINGLESS FSC INDULGENCE, ARE FAIR GAME TOO.

I HAVE SPENT MY ENTIRE ADULT LIFE STUDYING THE ISSUE OF GLOBAL
CHANGE AND THREATS TO THE GLOBAL ECOSYSTEM. I HAVE EARNED A
MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN CONSERVATION BIOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT, AND PHD IN LAND RESOURCES DEALING WITH THESE
MATTERS. I CAN SAY WITH CONFIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO CHANCE OF
PLANETARY SURVIVAL IF THE MYTH THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO LOG
ANCIENT FORESTS WITHOUT CRITICALLY DIMINISHING GLOBAL
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS IS NOT RIGOROUSLY DISCREDITED, STRONGLY
TARGETING WHOMEVER MAY BE SAYING SO.

I AM WILLING TO DEBATE RAN AT ANY TIME AS LONG AS THEY PAY FOR
ME TO GET THERE AS I AM BROKE. ECOLOGICAL INTERNET WILL NOT BE
SILENCED BECAUSE IT IS IMPOLITE TO QUESTION THE DOMINANT
PARADIGM THAT THREATENS OUR SHARED SURVIVAL.

DR. GLEN BARRY
September 27, 2008

Much more on the Rainforest Portal at:
http://www.rainforestportal.org/shared/search/welcome.aspx?searchtext=RAN%20ancient%20forests

Dear Mr. Berry,

We’ve requested the Rain Forest Action Network remove our donation from their gift bag designated for their upcoming October fundraiser, as well as our name from their Web site, effective immediately.

In return, will you kindly cease and desist the e-mail campaign being conducted by yourself and your members.

Thank you.

*Sip by Sip Rather Than Gulp by Gulp,*

Marideth N. Post

Minister of Enlightenment

The REPUBLIC of TEA

Dear. Ms. Post,
Thank you very much for your ability to reflect upon the issues and understand the importance of the matter for the world's ancient forests, climate and ecological sustainability. Of course, immediately I have removed you from the protest list, and assure you there will be no further protest action taken, or adverse publicity for your company. You truly are the minister of enlightenment.
Warm regards,
Dr. Glen Barry

There is no need to log ancient forests. Once logged ancient forest is gone forever. It ceses to be ancient forest. The prime reason for logging ancient forest is that it comes for free (gratis). It costs more to cultivate new forests.

Dr. Barry & RAN,

(Sam, please pass this on to the relevant RAN official.)

I would be happy to pay for Dr. Barry's travel to the site of RAN's choosing for you to debate with each other on RAN's support for FSC and the industrial logging of old growth forests that FSC greenwashes.

Perhaps we could include some of the affected indigenous communities in this discussion for them to report back on the devastation which FSC certified industrial logging operations in their communities/forests has wrought. Although I'm happy to initially have Dr. Barry and one other person take on the pro-zero cut position and RAN and perhaps Forest Ethics (another supporter of industrial logging in old growth forests) take on the pro-FSC position.

I'm sure we can determine a mutually acceptable structure for allowing the debate to take place in a structurally fair manner.

Perhaps the venue could be here in New York City at Cooper Union.

I believe that such a debate would be important and a video tape of it should be made to educate environmentalists about this critical issue.

Robert

From Dr. Barry's email below:

I HAVE SPENT MY ENTIRE ADULT LIFE STUDYING THE ISSUE OF GLOBAL
CHANGE AND THREATS TO THE GLOBAL ECOSYSTEM. I HAVE EARNED A
MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN CONSERVATION BIOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT, AND PHD IN LAND RESOURCES DEALING WITH THESE
MATTERS. I CAN SAY WITH CONFIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO CHANCE OF
PLANETARY SURVIVAL IF THE MYTH THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO LOG
ANCIENT FORESTS WITHOUT CRITICALLY DIMINISHING GLOBAL
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS IS NOT RIGOROUSLY DISCREDITED, STRONGLY
TARGETING WHOMEVER MAY BE DOING SO.

This is excellent work by Dr. Glenn Barry. I know that sam, you have connections with RAN through your work with their (very strong) anti-coal campaign. The greenwash by RAN of old-growth forest destruction must stop.

Please pass on the email below and sam and others who may have professional or personal contacts with RAN, please ask them for an accounting of their support for industrial logging of these forests.

I support zero cut of old growth primeval forests and will expose to all I know who fund NGOs the support for continued logging by RAN.

Robert Jereski

FSC standards for large industrial forests have become synonymous with corporate marketing, smoke & mirrors and industrial greedwash. Friends of the Earth is a prominent environmental organization that is finally demonstrating some real forest ethics by reconsidering its support for FSC. Like a oil tanker, FSC can be turned-around but not until it loses momentum for greenwashing forest exploitation. Right now almost 100% of FSC's credibility comes from small forest operations practicing ecoforestry and low impact reforestation. Unfortunately, almost 100% of FSC certified forest products come from the conversion of natural and original forests to industrial plantations many of which are being reforested with non-native and genetically modified species.

If the road to hell is paved with good intentions then FSC was a benign social forestry backroad whose vision of success was twisted to become a freeway for corporate greedwash. Years ago many of us in the ecoforestry movement invested a lot of effort in FSC and we were replaced by foundation funded engo representatives who built FSC into a market force regardless of the principles and values that had to be dropped to put some ghoulish green lipstick on its industrial forestry targets. Small FSC operators are experiencing huge costs but getting no premium on their forest stewardship investments while global industrial forestry is winning big time in the greenwash sweepstakes thanks to their collaborators at FakeEnvironmentalism.

Essentially, FSC is being positioned to appear green in the marketplace even though the certified engines of forest resilience and biodiversity are being quickly liquidated in favour of simplified plantations for rapid rotation and diminishing returns. I applaud Friends of the Earth for removing the green coloured glasses and beginning to see this wonderful idea for what it has become rather than for what it might have been. It is wonderful that Glen Barry and Ecological Internet were able to trigger this about-face.

FSC was a very good idea when it intended to make it possible for forest centred stewardship to survive and compete in the marketplace for forest products. It became a bad idea when it turned against small operators and real environmentalists to greedwash and greenwash the products of industrial forest exploitation.

Thanks to Harald for posting this link.

Cheers, Michael Major\\

response to Annie Uzdavinis re RAN/FSC certification

Dear Annie Uzdavinis,

Thank you for your response and your warning about not becoming a “sheep”, which neatly summarises the problem with your/RAN’s stance, since as you are no doubt fully aware the FSC certification which you endorse exists to reassure the “sheep” consumer that the products they wish to purchase have been fully and ethically checked as clean and they should feel no need to conduct any further research of their own to confirm this, nor any need to question their own consumerist impulses and whether they actually need this product in the first place. For this very reason, it is vital if such certification schemes are to have any value at all that their standards are as rigorous as they present themselves to be and that they are continually updated and tightened in the light of the latest scientific findings.

My email was not intended as an attack on you as a campaigner, nor on any of the sponsors and “eco-businesses” to which it was also sent, but as a protest to raise questions, to hopefully provoke some thoughtful responses. So far, you are the only one who has actually addressed any of the precise points I raised so I really do thank you for taking that trouble. I did not send it to divert energies away from the serious business of defending the planet but to help ensure those energies directed effectively and honestly.

I do understand that in any campaign of importance differences of opinion and approach frequently arise, that these differences can sometimes be difficult or even impossible to resolve and that they can sometimes prove divisive and destructive of the very campaigns they arise in. I am not out to fuel to the current dispute between RAN and Dr Glen Barry/ Ecological Internet. Far from it, I would urge that RAN re-open their dialogue with Dr Barry and others raising these concerns in the hope that some broad agreements can be reached in future to re-establish a functional level of unity and cooperation to protect ancient forest habitat and the planet.

I would also urge that RAN and campaigners like yourself strive put aside any personal defensiveness against such critical questioning, from time-served or “expert” sources or from relative new-comers like myself, for the sake of the democratic accountability and inclusiveness of the environmental movement as a whole. Celebrate the fact that this particular glass is half-full: I have taken the time to do all this and whilst my homework is an ongoing project (which will probably take my full life to never quite complete), I will endeavour to become better and better informed as I watch how this and related debates unfold. However, I fear Dr Barry may be right that when it comes to the question of how much ancient forest can be sustainably logged the glass is broken: we have already destroyed too much and this loss is irreplaceable.

I reiterate my concern that RAN and its supporters should re-consider their endorsement of any logging of ancient forest and affirm a commitment to reviewing and revising their policies and approaches in the light of new research and evidence strictly on ethical and scientific grounds, refusing to be swayed by short-term commercial interests or pressures that may be brought to bear.

With continuing grave concern,
Stephanie Prior

Dr. Glen Barry is right and you are wrong. You are reformists of capitalism and capitalism world-wide is the problem. Smarten up and be honest. Cutting ANY old growth forest is destructive.

Trevor Goodger-Hill

Hello.

I want to tell you that I am with you in this fight about the FSC, and in the
whole war to save the world: you are one of the very few people on earth who understand deeply the whole crisis, and who speaks a true ecological truth.

Thanks a lot and be strong,
Daniel

Ms. Uzdavinis,

There is no need for me to print EI's rebuttals to your greenwashing propaganda here. In my advocacy for true animal rights through the abolition of ALL animal exploitation, I know capitulation when I see it. Your "work" with FSC is as fruitless as Peta's "work" with Kentucky Fried Chicken in Canada, for example. KFC continues to heap abusive treatment and horrific UNnatural existence on billions of chickens just as FSC continues to maneuver toward ever greater forest AND ANIMAL HABITAT destruction.

Until you get your moral conscience back, save me the rhetoric.

Jeff Allen

Dear Glen
the point is that once ancient forests are logged they are no longer ancient forests.
There is no avoiding reducing ancient forests without a compete stop stop onthe logging.

There should be enough plantation forests to supply wood. It is the cost of growing a new plantation which makes it more economical to chop down ancient forests on which no agricultural work gas been done.

Chopping down a bit less does not stop the destruction of ancient forest.
regards
aubrey

Wow, an ecological campaign that really tries to achieve what is necessary to save the Earth and all of us. How refreshing.

Here is the beginning of negotiations with RAN through their Campaigns Coordinator, Jennifer Krill. We will keep you updated here and in subsequent threads, asthese deliberations will be fully transparent.
Regards,
Dr. Glen Barry
**********

Jennifer,

My apologies -- my cell phone died and as I am traveling I had no other option to call you back. Here is the general outline of my proposal.

Ecological Internet's campaign demands that RAN embrace a long-term goal of ending ancient forest destruction including through industrial first-time logging, and disassociate yourself fully from FSC as long as they continue to greenwash such logging. We have made detailed ecological and policy arguments to you through 3 email protests, several email exchanges, and phone conversations. I will not repeat these here. I urge you to reflect upon the myriad of arguments made there, and particularly upon the emerging science regarding the importance of old-growth forests in averting abrupt climate change.

While we strongly believe that all NGOs supporting FSC, including RAN, should immediately disavow the organization given the depth of the global ecological crises, I was willing to suggest another route. As an interim step to temporarily discontinue the campaign, we would accept the following:

1.) A public announcement that RAN shares Ecological Internet's concern with the extent to which FSC has grown dependent upon old growth logging to meet current and expected demand, by the weakness of its certification shown by the recent string of questionable certification, and that RAN fully embraces the goal of ending first-time industrial ancient forest logging as a priority for your old-growth campaign. However, you have chosen to retain your FSC membership for now to pursue these goals from within, as you review RAN's support for FSC.

2.) This announcement to include 6 month review of RAN's support for FSC including:

* your fundamental assumption that ancient forest logging with FSC certification is forest protection
* whether FSC's current slate of questionable certificates indicates the organization is irredeemable
* how a campaign goal of ending ancient forest logging may prove more easy to communicate, and lay the framework for its achievement as global ecological conditions continue to worsen

3.) To inform this review, using your membership in FSC to demand accurate data regarding the % of FSC timbers derived from primary (never human managed) and old-growth (older than 100 years) forests; future market plans in this regard; and determination of changes in principles and criteria that could reduce this dependence immediately and eventually to zero

4.) Based on this research RAN would be prepared to demand that FSC commit to reducing its dependence on primary and old-growth forest logging over a 3-5 year period to zero

5.) If FSC refuses to commit to doing so, RAN would resign its membership, no later than six months from the date of our agreement. My offer to help you with these activities was genuine but obviously there are too many hard feeling.

Frankly, I am disappointed at the level of defensiveness and bitterness evident in our conversation. I sense your feelings are probably very much like Home Depot or Mitsubishi felt with your campaigns targeting their environmentally challenged policies. You were fully forewarned that RAN was the target of an ongoing campaign that would escalate.

RAN has been greenwashing continued ancient forest logging certified by FSC, that by all measures have failed miserably. I was most disappointed to hear you state you would not work to end ancient forest logging because it is not likely to succeed. By that measure, do you really expect to easily stop Alberta's oil sands or the use of coal? It is way past time to campaign exclusively for the ecologically sufficient measures necessary to maintain the Earth's life and climate, and let the chips fall where they may. Why do you see this for other issues but not ancient forest logging? FSC has failed, you need to deal with it, and decide what to do next. This compromise allows you time to see whether FSC is indeed able to change and stop okaying ancient forest destruction or not.

Prior to Revel we intend to take further campaign actions against your corporate sponsors, so it is in your interest to think fully but quickly about your options.

Regards,
Glen

Dear Mr. phd,

You are a low life asshole spammer and may you rot in hell.

Robert Rex
robert.rex@deerfieldranch.com
Winemaker and Managing Member
Deerfield Ranch Winery LLC

thanks for your work, Dr. Barry. You've raised important - critical - issues. I am thrilled at the principled positions which some of the former sponsors of RAN have taken against supporting RAN until they stop greenwashing industrial logging of ancient forests.

And i'm appalled at the defensiveness and spin with which RAN and its supporters are responding to the points raised by environmentalists!

I wonder who RAN is, what their funders are, why they haven't taken a position against industrial logging AT THIS LATE DATE!, and how tied they might be to loggers and retailers of 'forest products'.

Keep up the good work.

Everything is at stake!

Jennifer,
Following up on my email of yesterday. The source of the 60% figure is Ecological Internet's assessment of FSC's "Global FSC certificates: type and distribution" information. Here is one FSC document showing information regarding forest type of their timber sources:

http://www.fsc.org/fileadmin/web-data/public/document_center/powerpoints_graphs/facts_figures/08-04-01_Global_FSC_certificates_-_type_and_distribution_-_FINAL.pdf

As for the simple methodology of our assessment, you will note forests are classified as natural, semi-natural and plantations. There is no explicit breakdown by primary/old-growth. As mentioned, the 60% figure is arrived at by going country to country and making assumptions about the likely sourcing of natural forests. For example, rainforest countries which have little history of repeat management of a given forest for multiple harvests, their certified natural forests would be mostly primary. Similar cases can be made for Russia and Canada where large amounts of primary forests are being logged. These are area figures, and the fact that tropical rainforests have higher timber volumes would further skew the % of timber coming from ancient forests.

There use to be a document on the site which I cannot find now which had country by country certification split into natural and plantation. This allowed for easy removal of plantation, and assignment of the natural forests to primary logging based upon common knowledge of the type of logging occurring in that country. This can still be seen in this information as well, though the plantations are not stripped out of the country totals, as plantations are a relatively small 8% of total certification area.

Ecological Internet stands by our 60% estimate of the amount of FSC timber coming from primary and ancient forests. This is admittedly a back of envelope assessment, but it is the best that can be done given the way FSC releases their data, and limited resources making visiting each certification unfeasible. If you know of any more definitive source of data we would be very pleased to see. FSC for years has gotten a pass on their certification of ancient forest logging, and their data and statistics on certification reflect an effort to hide the dependency upon such logging. I would think that NGOs that are members of FSC would have tried long ago to access more detailed information. The earlier copy we used for our initial estimation can be found at:

http://www.fsc.org/fileadmin/web-data/public/document_center/powerpoints_graphs/facts_figures/08-04-01_Global_FSC_certificates_-_type_and_distribution_-_FINAL.pdf

Regarding our estimate that hundreds of millions of hectares are at risk from FSC -- this references both current certification and planned growth. Given FSC has already certified just over 100 million hectares, our 60% figure would imply 60 million hectares of primary and old-growth forests have been destroyed already. FSC widely espouses their plans for rapid growth, explicitly stating they intend to certify 200 million more hectares in the next several years. Given market trends and the state of global forests these new certificates are going to have to increasingly rely even more upon primary forests -- there just are not enough selectively managed forests to meet the market demand (this is a critical point to ponder). If FSC is allowed to continue its expansion, just under 200 million hectares will have been destroyed.

I just received more information on the protest and understand that when Michael said RAN both supports FSC but does not support ancient forest logging, the audience laughed. This is why -- people get it, you can't be for FSC and against ancient forest logging. So instead of trying to deconstruct and discredit our analysis, perhaps you can take it for what it is -- the effort of a small grassroots NGO to get the best approximation possible of FSC figures which should be public, and are purposefully opague to hide the extent to which FSC depends upon ancient forest logging. We would welcome better data, which is why we have asked you to approach FSC. If in fact the figure ends up being 45% or some other figure, it will be small comfort that instead of 180 million hectares, "only" 135 million hectares of old growth was greeenwashed by RAN and others. My intuition is that it is in fact much higher.

I hope this helps. It was nice talking to you yesterday.
Dr. Glen Barry

Dr. Barry,
I believe that this is an important and interesting discussion regarding 'primary' forest logging, forest certification in general and environmental activism. While I will not argue about the specifics of the current tropical FSC certification plans (as I am not very familiar with these), I will point out the fact that FSC certification program is the most robust and internationally accepted of the forest certification schemes with a specific set of requirements needed for certification, which was originally created as applicable in any forested biome.

It appears that your goal is to do away with it, and move onto something else, which is not specified. It does appear that your PhD
is in environmental activism, and as such is not grounded in specific (or any) knowledge of forest ecology, or tropical forest ecology, and is primarily based on emotional responses from the constituency.

Based on this, I ask you, how do you define primary forests or old-growth forests if you argue that they are different? What are the detrimental and positive impacts of logging an old-growth forest to forest growth and biodiversity? What are your solutions to FSC's certification of primary growth rainforest (presumably tropical, since it is not clearly specified) logging?

I ask that you answer these questions, or at the very least point me to a link where you provide rational, rather than emotionally charged, visceral responses. I ask you that because while I have my own opinion on the matter, I feel that discussions promote knowledge and understanding of each other, and allow for cooperation.
Thank you,
Artem