*Graphic explained below …
Pterodactyles, Triceratops and Steak!
Less than a month before SCS Global visits Tasmania to review the credentials of Forestry Tasmania for Forestry Stewardship Certification credentials, FT displays the entirety of their Jurassic character in one fell swoop!
They have managed to upset the quiet community of Lapoinya in NW Tasmania with a draconian approach to the potential to clear fell a 68 Hectare 60 year old regrowth forest with lack of consultation, limited environmental review of the area, and time frames designed to intimidate.
On 1 October FT presented a draft Forestry Practices Plan that was more pro forma than proactive, showed little thought to what may be within the coupe, and no respect or regard to neighbours and the community. What a surprise as that is exactly what they have been doing for decades.
The community banded together to create the Forests of Lapoinya Action Group (FLAG) who sought expert advice from environmentalists, economists and others. As a result on 21 October they responded to the FT Murchison District Officer with detailed concerns and comments – see attached correspondence.
The inputs included commentary on the presence of endangered flora and fauna including Eucalyptus Brookeriana, Caladenia Pusilla, Tasmanian Devil, Spotted Quoll and the Freshwater Lobster amongst many others.
Discussion with FLAG on 27 November also revealed the presence of platypus in the coupe and rock shelters in adjacent areas and substantive issues with water catchment and drainage.
As of 20 November FT had failed to respond to these important inputs. It is also of note that Wynard/Waratah councillors have been invited to the proposed coup site – they have not responded as of 22 November.
In the meantime, FT issued a notice to indicate logging activities (access road preparation etc ) would commence in January 2015. So much for collaborative consultation!
On 21 November FLAG received some detailed comments from FT (via snail mail not email) and a revised FPP which endeavoured to address some of the more pertinent comments raised in the 21 October letter.
They are clearly do not address the more relevant issues and hold forth with the usual FT slippery dip claims of:-
• Lots of reserves adjacent to coup to account for the Freshwater Lobster issue (a bit like Kenyan poachers saying well there were 100 elephants, so what if we kill 10 of them)!
• Will set up 0.6 hectare wildlife refuge area in the coup (location not identified) Note this represents less than 1% of the coup area and will achieve NOTHING!
• Have not identified any dens of Devils and Quolls are within the coup (but have not looked either). I am sure President Xi and China will be happy to acknowledge and support the destruction of FTD free devil habitat.
• Caladenia pusilla (Little Fingers orchid – a threatened species) not found on the coup, but limited environmental survey taken (unlike the one done for FLAG) with FT using their Natural Values Atlas not on the ground survey
• No substantive commentary on the management of water issues with a number of streams – see coupe map above – and the consequential silting and impacts on farmers downstream and the Flowerdale River.
• Economic sustainability of the coupe clear fell, trucking, contract sales of FT’s estimate of 8% sawlog, 33% peeler and the rest chip was not addressed in any fashion but likely to result in a substantial loss to FT and us the taxpayers!
And the doozy to end all the absolutely typical:-
• Will conduct an archaeological survey after road construction is complete, by FT of course, not for example by a TALSC representative. Given the name Lapoinya is aboriginal for “Tree fern” and the area was occupied by the Tommegineer before settlement, one would suggest such a survey should have been conducted prior to the FPP issue!
Perhaps the best example of the general approach to community consultation across the broad by FT was contained in the Country Hour coverage of the issue on 21 November when the Murchison District Officer, in addition to some of the points raised above, made this astonishing comment:-
These are my words, full details in http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-21/tas-country-hour-friday-21-november-2014/5909440
“Lots of people like steak, and most want the best steak, but probably do not wish to see how it is produced. Forestry is a bit like that if we are to get the high quality product that people want”!
What an arrogant and insensitive remark but typical of the FT ethos.
If it’s such a high quality product then why doesn’t FT start charging a commensurate price?
Or is that because they have to sell peelers to Ta Ann at non-commercial value to allow Ta Ann to have losses offshore and avoid tax in Australia on their $26 million subsidy?
The fact that it doesn’t means FT runs an unsustainable operation which relies on taxpayers to subsidize the full costs of FT employees thus allowing it to continue to wreak havoc.
John Lawrence, well known to TT readers, was also interviewed, and suggested the exercise was unlikely to be economically viable given current market conditions and pricing.
John wrote:
FT: Will it make a profit?
“Will it make a profit?”
“Indeed it will….“was the unequivocal reply.
FT’s District Forester was in no doubt when answering an ABC reporter’s question about the proposed clear felling of a 68 hectare coupe of 60 year old native forest regrowth at Lapoinya in North West Tasmania. The full ABC report can be found HERE.
After a few years of losing $20 for each tonne of timber chopped down and sold has FT found a way to make a profit?
Letters to relevant FT, Ministers and MP’s will be sent early in the week of 1 December suggesting this coupe not be logged and instead be annexed to the existing reserve to the east.
The headline – Pterodactyles, Triceratops and Steak! – is thus pretty self-evident and exemplifies why FSC Accreditation is essentially not feasible!
Chiloglottis Triceratops: Three horned bird orchid found on coup
Rare Beef on skewer, a la FT
Caldenia Pusilla, Little Fingers Threatened on coup
Download:
Conservation Significance of Lapoinya Forest Coupe FDO53A for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services:
FLAG_ENVIRO.docx
Barbara_and_Stewart_Hoyt_Letter.docx
*Graphic Explained:
COUP FO53DA
Legend Description
Pursuant to the map attached in the post the following annotations apply, viz:-
• The coup represents the grey area within the bold red line perimeter boundary
• Maynes Rd , the black line with red stars, is an existing road on the northern boundary that will need upgrading to FT logging truck standards
• This will also require the formation of a new bridge
• A 1.6km Logging Road will need to be created along the Broxhams Track on the south to meet FT logging standards
• Two snig tracks will be created (dotted red line) that will require two new bridges
• The green sector represents high gradient wet sclerophyll forest that will unlikely be logged (but will nonetheless be impacted by clear felling on all boundaries)
• The blue sector represents the Class 3 and Class 4 stream side reserves and demonstrates the extent thereof , literally dominating the coup interiorThe map confirms the environmental sensitivity of the coup particularly as it relates to the fresh water lobster habitat and silt drainage to the Flowerdale River and adjacent farmland.
It also delineates the substantive infrastructure construction needs of FT in terms of logging track construction, bridge development and landing pads (5) which will clearly create a significant financial impact.Note also the reference to two existing landslips and two waterfalls. I believe FLAG has found another waterfall not denoted on the FT map.
Clearly an area that should not be disturbed by logging operations!
John Powell has had a many-years’ battle with Forestry Tasmania … Detailed here is his experience …
• Ted Mead: Forestry Tas Disingenuous About FSC Considering that Forestry Tas cannot rely on the Liberal Party being in governance in the future, then the question beckons why is this dysfunctional GBE proposing the same misguided practices of logging high conservation areas if they wish to obtain Forest Stewardship Certification?
• Bryan Green: Liberal lies on forestry subsidies exposed The Liberal Government has been caught red handed lying about public subsidies to Forestry Tasmania. It has been revealed the Government is deceitfully planning to transfer $30 million in equity from energy company TasNetworks to prop up Forestry Tasmania. The revelation in Government Business Enterprise hearings makes a lie of the Government’s much publicised promise to withdraw public funding to Forestry Tasmania. Labor Leader Bryan Green said the Liberal Government had acted deceitfully. “This is a blatant broken election promise,” Mr Green said.
• Jenny Weber, Campaign Manager, The Bob Brown Foundation: Tomorrow a significant field trip to Tasmania’s southern forests will occur when Markets For Change, Tasmanian Conservation Trust and The Bob Brown Foundation accompany the auditors assessing Forestry Tasmania’s application for Forest Stewardship Certification to see the reality of forest management. Spokespeople of the above groups will conduct a Press Conference at 11am in Hobart before departure on the field trip. Who: Peter McGlone, Director of Tasmanian Conservation Trust, Peg Putt, CEO Markets For Change, Jenny Weber Campaign Manager The Bob Brown Foundation, Ed Hill Field Assessment Consultant to the three eNGOs.
• Kim Booth: TasNetworks Props up Forestry Tasmania with $30 million … “This government has deliberately kept Tasmanians in the dark over plans to keep pouring public subsidies into failing businesses such as Forestry Tasmania,” Greens Leader Kim Booth MP said today. “We have asked numerous questions over months in Parliament asking where the money to keep propping up Forestry Tasmania was going to come from which the Liberals refused to answer. Now we find that, as predicted, money is going to be dragged out of one GBE into propping up another.” …
• Peter Gutwein: Forestry Tasmania Letter of Understanding To support the company through this process, the Government has provided Forestry Tasmania with a letter of understanding outlining an equity transfer from Tasmanian Networks to Forestry Tasmania in 2015-16 which will be used to restructure the company’s debt to ensure the business is in a position to action recommendations from the review that the Government may agree to implement if required.
WRAP …
• ABC: Tasmania’s power users to supply $30m to Forestry Tasmania Tasmanian power users will next year be subsidising the cash-strapped Forestry Tasmania to the tune of $30 million. TasNetworks’ chief executive Dan Norton told a parliamentary estimates hearing the company would provide up to $30 million to Forestry Tasmania in the next financial year. The news came as a last-minute bombshell at the hearing.
• Examiner: Government ‘lying’ on forestry subsidies
• AEU Tasmanian Branch President Terry Polglase: This money would employ 300 teachers fulltime for a year and makes farcical the Government’s claims that it has no choice but to sack teachers and cut education programs.
Pete Godfrey
December 2, 2014 at 09:46
Forestry Tasmania’s three year plan state that they are hoping to get
400 cubic metres of Cat 1 and 3 sawlogs
200 cubic metres of Cat 2 sawlogs
2500 cubic metres of Peeler logs
4400 tonnes of Pulp Logs.
So we can see that this is a pulp and peeler driven operation.
What happened to the 90 year rotation for sawlogs?
Forestry Tas have put out tenders for Cat1 and 3 sawlogs at the moment because they have an oversupply.
They have told contractors to bury 16000 tonnes of Cat 1 and 3 sawlogs on the landings or in the bush, are the First grade sawlogs from this unprofitable coupe also going to be buried.
Just how many thousand tonnes of sawlogs have been buried in Tasmania. Does anyone remember the halycon days of woodchipping where we were continually told that forestry in Tasmania was sawlog driven.
Robin Charles Halton
December 2, 2014 at 11:10
In my humble opinion, 60 year old regrowth is still too young to generate sufficient quantities of high grade sawlog to justify harvesting.
Sounds like it is a grab for peeler logs instead of allowing the stand to grow on.
It sounds if FLAG are simply not interested in timber volumes otherwise they would quote those figures as per the Forest Harvest Plan.
At the end of the day the coupe would be within RFA agreed Wood production zoned land better to wait about another 30 years it would be possible to harvest a sectioned areas to gain much higher volumes for valuable select timber production.
At some stage logging will occur, better appreciation of long term management objectives would dictate waiting for satisfactory maturity of the timber.
FLAG need to point this out to FT and “protest” on this basis.
The problem is environmental groups are anti native forest timber production, that is their failure in many of their “misadventures” which actually lacks support for forestry activity
William Boeder
December 2, 2014 at 11:20
Thank you John Powell for this providing this forum with an example of all that is lacking in the way of forest management in this State.
For example a tick-box set of papers that will of course have all the major contravening of good policy ‘tick boxes’ either ticked-off as to suggest that there are no contraventions of the Forests practices plan.
This tick-box method of assessing proposed logging in individual areas is a worthless set of paper sheets that are ticked-of as to claim: no problem top be found here, or no references noted to prevent any reason that this partial regrowth of only 60 years is in direct conflict with the 90 year regrowth stipulation being comprehensively thrown aside despite the fact that it requires another 30 years growth has to be attained before any logging of any kind can be commenced in a forest regrowth area.
Of course this ruling set into place by Forestry Tasmania themselves doesn’t make a dicky bird of difference when it comes down to this GBE’s intention to breach or completely ignore its own mandatory standards.
It will be beyond doubt that this incomplete regrowth area will have a major proportion of its harvested logs being delivered to the Ta Ann veneer mills …
So with absolutely no regulatory constraints to protect or to be able to seek a defence to these types of Forestry Tasmania breaches, albeit breaches of its own Codes of Conduct add to that all the other associated breaches of its FPA, what hope is there any form of proposed preservation of partly grown Special Species Timbers they will go under the blade of its machinery, for later dozing up into heaps for future burn-offs, of those specific logs and or Special Species as referred to in the above.
Clearly this is another reason as to why this logging GBE should have all of its authorities withdrawn and or cancelled and they (Forestry Tasmania) be declared insolvent, they no longer having any hopes of a profitable future beckoning in its immediate futures.
I would suggest that the logging proposed in this area, will still be logged in this area that would be better described as a pending criminal activity scene of conflict portending magnitude.
Claire Gilmour
December 2, 2014 at 11:38
It’s like déjà vu, isn’t it Forestry Tasmania! Lol
Nothing has changed in a decade. Still a law unto themselves; still trying to intimidate people; still a state wide wrecking ball is Forestry Tasmania.
FT’s ‘Good neighbor charter’, is a complete mockery. The pretense of assessing ‘all’ values, is a lie.
So the community and the Giant Freshwater Lobster have to move on do they … how very very interesting FT. I’m sure that’s a perquisite for getting international certification.
Forestry Tasmania is a cruel joke on the whole state.
When they say they have a buffer on streams, it can mean, the machinery is not allowed to enter the stream, but they can still pull trees out of some streams with the log grabs, wrecking the water way in the process. They clearfell first, then tape off the buffer zones.
They have had years and years of practice at destroying native habitat, they know exactly what they are doing. They are seemingly currently focusing on destroying the best.
Let’s remember when they aerial sow, back to so-called native, they don’t regenerate all species of flora, just they’re preferred euc tree, it’s like underhandedly creating a plantation.
The good people of FLAG, are justified with their concerns. Your area will be devastated. You will be smoked out. FT will risk your lives and properties with the fire risk. If they lie to you and say you will be safer because of their operations, just mention the Montumana fire in 2013 and my name. I’ve met Craig Butt.
May I suggest you need to get a politician involved, get them to visit the site. Any adjacent property owners need to threaten legal action. Get as much media exposure as you can.
Wish you the very best of luck. It’s akin to dealing with the mafia.
http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/or-experience-of-a-land-grab/
http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/here-come-the-bulldozers/
William Boeder
December 2, 2014 at 11:54
Robin Charles Halton, I can quite safely suggest that if Forestry Tasmania were to be hurled on to the scrap 8-10 years ago and then there were qualified foresters installed to manage our Forests, but not for corporate Scorpions to be allowed anywhere near our forested products (Peter Brenner/Frank Strie) then there would not be say 90% of those that are the current active protesters against logging in this State.
john hayward
December 2, 2014 at 20:38
The problems here are similar to those presented by a similarly entrenched extra-legal organisation in Sicily.
No point arguing economics until you have the government and legal ordnance required to remove the problem.
John Hayward
phill Parsons
December 3, 2014 at 09:31
FSC nor FT is already a failed process. Short time frame for consultation with groups that have campaigned om forestry for up to 4 decades makes this more like a bought and paid for rubber stamp than a real process.
Sue DeNim
December 3, 2014 at 15:27
I fear 7 is right and I dearly wish the headline were true. I think its more than possible and I expect to see the certification bestowed with all the pomp and ceremony and back-slapping appropriate to this deluded but highly dangerous and deceitful juggernaut that is FT.
Lets be clear, FSC is not a badge of environmental good practice approval, it is purely another means invented by industry for industry to get money flowing to the insiders and away from the outsiders. How do you become an insider? Well like most things you pay your money, talk the talk, walk the walk, and have marginally better looking practices than the worst offenders. The fact that there is only marginal differences between the insiders and outsiders in no way confirms that timber harvesting practices are in any way sustainable.
Its almost like the assumption that because you wear a suit and better shoes than others and gain access to a swanky club, that you are somehow better and less trouble making than the ones rejected.
Wake up Australia!!
Mike Adams
December 3, 2014 at 21:53
In the middle of October I read with interest the SCS Interim Standard for Natural and Plantation Management Certification in Australia. As a consequence of finding unintelligible acronyms and jargon I E-mailed SCS, (forestryinfo@scscertified. com). I quickly received a reply sorting out some of the problems e.g. SLIMF = Small or Low Intensity Managed Forests.
After the TasTimes publication of John Maddock’s piece, ‘The Story of Phoenix Timbers’ on October 23rd, I forwarded it to my correspondent with the accompanying E-mail.
‘I’m forwarding this piece from Tasmanian Times as an indication of the mistrust widely felt in Tasmania over F.T.’s logging practices.
With the very considerable financial support given to F.T. by government, past, present and future, there’s also cynicism about any official statement regarding F.T.’s future ‘promises to be good’.
You’ll probably be aware of this, but please recognise that cynicism will extend to the audit performed by your company: the appearance of weasel words such as ‘strive for’, ‘ strive to’, ‘endeavours’, ‘should minimise’ in your SCS Interim Standard don’t help.
With best wishes, Mike Adams’
Although disclaiming any role in the assessment my correspondent forwarded my E-mail plus the TT article to a person whom he thought would be interested.
‘Dear Mike,
Thank you for the article and words of caution. I have forwarded it on to the audit team for consideration. If you would like to provide any additional comments directly regarding Forestry Tasmania, please contact Hugh Stewart ([email protected]), who is the auditor dedicated to social outreach on this project.’
Although this is far from a factual submission on one or more particular aspects of the SCS audit, which other are covering and to which I have little to add, it may help SCS with background matters.
Frank Strie
December 3, 2014 at 22:37
RE #8 Sue DeNim,
May I suggest:”Lets be clear, FSC is not a badge of environmental good practice approval, it is purely ‘a voluntary stated commitment through a formal relationship agreement process’ between the responsible forest owner/forest managers, with the local community, neighbours and employees, the processors/customers of forest products, the socially concerned, and anyone environmentally concerned.
The reality is that Australia is “Johnny come lately” when it comes to the active and ongoing FSC process.
Many people find it too boring, too intense, too committed to be engaged in such a process because all they know is either mistrust, protest against, or “get away with it” / bad practice.
Yes, FSC is about people, it is about ethics, it is about quality and it is about reliability in a relationship amongst people.
Nothing more – nothing less.
Cheers Frank
One of the original 6 founding directors of ‘Responsible Forest Management Australia Limited trading as FSC Australia’.
PS: People make it and people can break it – such is the reality.
Trust in Tasmania?
Who can and who will trust that others are fair dinkum?
Claire Gilmour
December 4, 2014 at 00:32
Another government letter of comfort for the FT mafia … woohoo the lib/labs always seem to have their cronies lining up to be on such a comfort board of directors.
How much suckholing, selling your soul and the people and state out does that take? Obviously they have to take all mirrors down so they can’ look themselves in the eye. Because they couldn’t possibly look anyone, with even an ounce of decency, in the eye.
In the meantime … Why is it that the Greens and co are always so focused on the southern forests? … the southern forests protected from logging and the Tarkine protected from mining …?
Where are you as a group helping to protect the individuals and communities who are constantly and consistently being negatively threatened and affected?
By now you lot should have a data base of all who are and are going to be clearfelled and burnt out. You should be there for them. For who else politically will?
I wish I was a politician because I’d raise my hand, stand side by side with the people who have the most to lose.
But what are you focused on instead, as a so called Australian “Green†group, for Christmas?
Apparently lambasting anything pink and barbie doll! Fairdinkum, if you hadn’t lost me before you’ve lost me now … as one who really knows about abuse! I think the Greens are threatened by the rise of independents, which I originally colour coded as the pink and black … and Jacquie followed …
Call it/me Pink – it is the name of humanity, call me barbie – ‘cos I’ll keep on throwing ‘em … being near on barbequed by government/political inadequacy.
The libs/labs/greens can doll everything up all they like … except reality. And reality is the proof in the pudding of being truly there for people – being truly representative rather than just political party power hungry.
jack lumber
December 4, 2014 at 12:34
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning
to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later
in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;
and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress
while producing confusion and demoralization.” attributed to Petronius Arbiter circa 600AD .
I think this should be handed to each and all of the good people and there are many in the organisation
mike seabrook
December 4, 2014 at 13:52
why not be done with it
merge forestry tas with tas rail and the abt railway at queenstown
and then liquidate it as one entity, and free up money to be spent on tassie roads
the polly appointed directors of these should be blackballed and treated as pariahs
so much unending looting of tassie taxpayers who are wondering where will it all end and why they pay taxes to be handed out to pollies cronies and carpet-baggers.
note tas rail wants to merge with tas ports and piggy back on to tas ports cost plus plus monopoly charging entity.
Factfinder
December 4, 2014 at 18:27
“You are, we are the Forest Stewardship Council”
“We recognise that if the forests are to work for us, we must work for them too, and twice as hard”
Have you ever been asked what it is FSC does? Most people know that it means the product you are purchasing comes from a responsibly managed forest, but what does that actually entail?
610 views 1 week ago
Published on Nov 27, 2014
Do you love forests? Do you want to live a sustainable life and help secure our planet’s future? Watch this short video and find out who we are, what we do, and why we do it.
You are, we are, the Forest Stewardship Council
https://www.youtube.com/user/FSCInternational
———————————————-
FSC + 20: Too much demand, too little supply: Managing security of supply in a competitive world
171 views – Published on Sep 9, 2014
As more and more of the world’s rural people move to cities and demand for consumer goods grows at unprecedented levels, the need for forest products increases dramatically.
It is widely accepted that the demand for wood and wood fibre throughout the world is accelerating as emerging economies grow and middle classes expand all over the world.
The need to combat climate change stimulates the use of biomass for energy, and new uses of wood fibre appear – ranging from textiles and plastics to construction materials.
In the next 20 years, the supply from managed forest and plantations – whether certified or not – will fall far short of demand, putting forest resources under ever-increasing pressure.
Even the best certification systems will struggle to keep producing credible, meaningful and trusted assurances to competing purchasers of a scarce resource.
FSC, however, is more than just a certification system; it is also a family of diverse organizations that care about the future of the world’s forests. This round table will promote discussion of the challenges facing the world’s forests, and how commercial, social, environmental and government entities might respond, both through certification and through leadership in general.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIysw-QETIM
Factfinder
December 4, 2014 at 20:47
“Peace deal hurdle ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)”
201 views Published on Jul 24, 2013
FSC Australia
FSC’s role was featured on a documentary centring on the Tasmanian Forest Agreement.
Senator Christine Milne’s comments are in some places inaccurate, but the substance of her remarks are helpful in setting the scene appropriately. We are seeking to meet with her in order to work through some of these things.
If an organisation seeks FSC Forest Management certification and fails, they are told by an independent Certification Body what needs to change in the way the forest is managed to comply. FSC Australia does not audit or award the certificate. This create a conflict of interest. Rather an independent set of Certification Bodies assess compliance with the standard on an arms length basis. The organisation then has 12 months to ‘close out’ these corrective actions in order to obtain certification. If the organisation does not close out the corrective actions within this time frame, the process begins anew.
So it’s true, there is work involved to obtain FSC Forest Management Certification, and this is where FSC drives change in the way forests are managed. There are no particular silvicultural practices that are outlawed by FSC, rather they have to suit the forest type and must show that by using that method they are maintaining or enhancing High Conservation Values.
We are not aware of constant processes that take longer than a couple of years from start to finish, however, this will depend on how compliant with FSC’s Forest Management Standards the organisation has been before embarking on the process.
… If you take a look at the SCS standard for example, you will see that it is detailed and in order to comply, organisations will truly need to ensure they are managing their forests responsibly from a social, environmental and economic perspective.
Controlled Wood, whether it be for Forest Managers under 30-010 or companies procuring wood products under 40-005 is NOT a form of FSC Certification. Forest Managers though use it as a step towards full certification. It is simply a tool to exclude products from unacceptable sources from being mixed with FSC Certified products, and has a very limited market. Please see our fact sheet on Controlled Wood for more detail here http://au.fsc.org/controlled-wood.207.htm. …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpvTe_S-nsI
Factfinder
December 4, 2014 at 20:50
“Peace deal hurdle ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)”
201 views Published on Jul 24, 2013
FSC Australia
FSC’s role was featured on a documentary centring on the Tasmanian Forest Agreement.
Senator Christine Milne’s comments are in some places inaccurate, but the substance of her remarks are helpful in setting the scene appropriately. We are seeking to meet with her in order to work through some of these things.
If an organisation seeks FSC Forest Management certification and fails, they are told by an independent Certification Body what needs to change in the way the forest is managed to comply. FSC Australia does not audit or award the certificate. This create a conflict of interest. Rather an independent set of Certification Bodies assess compliance with the standard on an arms length basis. The organisation then has 12 months to ‘close out’ these corrective actions in order to obtain certification. If the organisation does not close out the corrective actions within this time frame, the process begins anew.
So it’s true, there is work involved to obtain FSC Forest Management Certification, and this is where FSC drives change in the way forests are managed. There are no particular silvicultural practices that are outlawed by FSC, rather they have to suit the forest type and must show that by using that method they are maintaining or enhancing High Conservation Values.
We are not aware of constant processes that take longer than a couple of years from start to finish, however, this will depend on how compliant with FSC’s Forest Management Standards the organisation has been before embarking on the process.
… If you take a look at the SCS standard for example, you will see that it is detailed and in order to comply, organisations will truly need to ensure they are managing their forests responsibly from a social, environmental and economic perspective.
Controlled Wood, whether it be for Forest Managers under 30-010 or companies procuring wood products under 40-005 is NOT a form of FSC Certification. Forest Managers though use it as a step towards full certification. It is simply a tool to exclude products from unacceptable sources from being mixed with FSC Certified products, and has a very limited market. Please see our fact sheet on Controlled Wood for more detail …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpvTe_S-nsI