Re: GBlist: Home Depot, Certified Lumber, etc.

["chalice" <chalice@wco.com>]

Alex and Greenbuilders,

I don't think you need to worry about the trend to buy certified wood--it's
growing and continues to grow. What we need to worry about is watchdogging
the certification process--something the Public is not allowed to do at this
point.

*I* am not doing the damage. Truth is truth. Facts are facts. If the FSC
doesn't want people to question their credibility, they shouldn't allow the
cutting of old growth, they shouldn't allow cutting in stream zones. They
should make the process public. They shouldn't have non-certified corporate
timber connections--they should choose ALL their CORPORATE connections very
carefully.

*Because* the situation is SO desperate for our forests world-wide, at this
point, we should be MORE discriminating about the solutions we embrace, not
LESS.

Re the Gap Fishers and certification: Due to the FSC-NRDC-Fisher connection,
many people believe that the reason why the FSC certifying groups did not
certify the Fishers is because of the HUGE PUBLIC OUTCRY that ensued at the
suggestion (SO HUGE that the certifying groups felt compelled to hold two
large invitation-only meetings with the local community and larger
environmental community, which was unprecedented), and the threat it posed
to discredit certification if they had. The certifiers also felt compelled
to issue a public statement (vague and obsequious--but unquestionably a
denial) afterwards, also unprecedented. What the certifying groups told the
Fishers (we found this out about eight months later in a private meeting
with the Fishers' chief forester) was that they did not have the inventory
data to support their 40 million boardfeet annual cut, which is true.

Cheers,

Mary Bull
Save the Redwoods - Boycott the Gap Campaign, San Francisco



-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Wilson <alex@buildinggreen.com>
To: chalice <chalice@wco.com>; Greenbuilding <greenbuilding@crest.org>
Date: Monday, May 29, 2000 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: GBlist: Home Depot, Certified Lumber, etc.


>Mary,
>Don't you see the damage you are doing to the chances for fundamentally
>changing forest practices in North America? By seeking to discredit or
>destroy the Forest Stewardship Council's certification efforts you are
>providing a tremendous boost to the timber industry that controls the vast
>majority of timber output in North America. The next year will probably
>determine whether the industry has to give in to consumer demand for more
>responsibly produced wood products and accept FSC certification or whether
>they can succeed in convincing consumers that their Sustainable Forestry
>Initiative (SFI) is enough. If there isn't strong support for FSC
>certification, it will probably remain on the fringe and fail to bring
>about widespread change in the industry. It may disappear altogether. You
>are playing right into the hands of the timber industry. Don't you see
>that? The next time you are out enjoying those forests that you profess to
>enjoy and respect so much, I think you should confront the quite possible
>outcome of your efforts to discredit third-part forest certification.
>
>In your message you pointed out that the Fishers failed to gain FSC
>certification, but you go on to blame FSC and the organizations certifying
>forests to FSC standards anyway. Your own example discredits your argument.
>What gives? FSC-based forest certification is far better than conventional
>practice. Yes, there are opportunities for improving it down-the-road, but
>the loss of this voluntary program--through which consumers can voice their
>demand for well-managed forests via their purchasing decisions--would be a
>tremendous loss to those of us that have been working for years to improve
>forest management.
>
>Alex Wilson
>Environmental Building News
>
>At 7:30 AM -0700 5/29/00, chalice wrote:
>>Greetings, Greenbuilders,
>>
>>Consumers should be wary of certified lumber and the certification process
>>for a number of critical reasons:
>>
>>1.) The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is the umbrella group that
defines
>>certification guidelines for many certifying groups world-wide. The FSC
>>guidelines allow the cutting of old growth and cutting in stream zones.
>>Environmentalists across the board find this UNACCEPTABLE for the COAST
>>REDWOOD FOREST, where COHO SALMON, which rely on shaded streams (they
>>require cold, clear water), and MARBLED MURRELETS and NORTHERN SPOTTED
OWLS,
>>which require dense old growth forests for habitat, are on the BRINK OF
>>EXTINCTION.
>>
>>Certified timber companies, such as BIG CREEK TIMBER out of Santa Cruz,
who
>>sit on the FSC Advisory Committee, have successfully blocked the FSC from
>>creating regional guidelines for the coast redwood forest that would ban
>>old-growth redwood logging (less than 3% left!) and logging in stream
zones.
>>
>>2.) Certification is private--the Public is shut-out. This makes it
>>vulnerable to corruption.
>>
>>Our environmental laws have failed to protect our public trust resources,
>>but at least these laws require that the public have access to
information.
>>In California, CEQA--the California Environmental Quality
Act--incorporates
>>public scrutiny as a critical check in the process. Unfortunately, at this
>>dark hour in history, instead of upholding the public trust, the
Government
>>is allowing corporate interests to usurp it and blatantly destroy our
>>resources and trample our rights--while they treat us, the public, with
>>utmost contempt. The solution, however, is not to privatize a public
>>process, and keep all documents secret (as the FSC does).  The solution is
>>to reclaim our government.
>>
>>3.) Corporate interests--including non-certified timber
interests--influence
>>the decisions of the FSC. For example, the Natural Resources Defense
Council
>>(NRDC), notorious for pandering to corporate interests (check out
Non-profit
>>Watch), and on whose Board Bob Fisher (The Gap Fishers own a liquidation
>>logging company in Mendocino County) sits, helped to form the FSC. For
this
>>reason, I find them suspect.
>>
>>4.) Certifying groups are often for-profit. This makes them vulnerable to
>>corruption. But whether non-profit or for-profit, they have a vested
>>interest in certifying timber companies--their existence depends on
it--and
>>have admitted that in order to promote certification they often loosen
their
>>already loose guidelines--for example, they allow applicants to be
certified
>>if they meet 5 out of the 10 criteria on a wink and a promise that they'll
>>try to meet the others in the future.
>>
>>Two certifying groups--Scientific Certification Systems and
>>ISF/Smartwood--denied the Gap Fishers' logging company, Mendocino Redwood
>>Company, certification last year. Since then, the Fishers have formally
>>abandoned the Sustained Yield process and have continued to overlog their
>>holdings, to damage the watersheds with clearcutting and the application
of
>>herbicides, to destroy wildlife habitat by taking the very last of the old
>>growth, mature second growth, and late-seral forest, and to promote
>>even-aged management (tree farms instead of forest). The Fishers will try
>>again to get certified; if they succeed after destroying our forests and
>>watersheds in Mendocino and Sonoma counties--and they probably will for
the
>>reasons listed above--the credibility of certification will be destroyed
for
>>many of us.
>>
>>
>>Mary Bull
>>Save the Redwoods/Boycott the Gap Campaign
>>252 Frederick Street, San Francisco, CA 94117
>>chalice@wco.com 415-731-7924 www.gapsucks.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>______________________________________________________________________
>>This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by CREST <www.crest.org>
>>BuildingGreen <www.buildinggreen.com> and Oikos <www.oikos.com>
>>For  instructions send  e-mail to  greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
>>______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>Environmental Building News
>122 Birge Street, Suite 30
>Brattleboro, VT  05301
>802/257-7300 ext. 106
>802/257-7304 (fax)
>http://www.buildinggreen.com
>(NOTE NEW WEBSITE AND E-MAIL ADDRESS)
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by CREST <www.crest.org>
>BuildingGreen <www.buildinggreen.com> and Oikos <www.oikos.com>
>For  instructions send  e-mail to  greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
>______________________________________________________________________
>

______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by CREST <www.crest.org>
BuildingGreen <www.buildinggreen.com> and Oikos <www.oikos.com>
For  instructions send  e-mail to  greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
______________________________________________________________________