Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Economy

FSC International’s puerile, spurious excuse …

*Pic: Tarkine Forest from Sumac Lookout …

Dear FSC International and Others (as per list in our attached letter)

Please find attached our representation, objection and complaint opposing Australian Forest Managers FSC Highly Hazardous Pesticides Derogations 2015, re-presented and reiterated to ensure there can be no doubt about our disdain for the FSC process and the propositions including those of FSC International which derailed the so called national process in Australia.

Specifically we reject the abrogation of FSC derogations by way of some puerile spurious excuse provided by FSC International in December 2015.

They are merely abrogations.

Why would we tolerate such malfeasance? Let me be abundantly clear: We do not.

Please also note the extracts attached from the FSC Australia website which show an appalling ad hoc change to the consultation process, which is obviously completely in breach of FSC principles.

It was erroneously suggested the process was somehow enhanced by way of second comment opportunity. We utterly reject that assertion. By way of ensuring an absence of doubt we consider such claims are fallacious and useless.

TEA makes special reference to the poison 1080. If in the unfortunate event Tasmanian forestry companies are suffering from some aspiration to use 1080, let me assure them that there would never be a social license.

Never, ever!

Regardless of any application of laws it would never gain acceptance and is considered an obnoxious, ignorant, cruel management tool. It has the potential to harm FSC immensely – and so it should.

Please also note we consider the processes of FSC to be fundamentally deficient and compromised. The inane claims that some of the injustices we referred to in our enclosed December 2015 submission would be rectified have not been met. And we are not surprised, nor are we accepting.

FSC is a travesty of justice and despite some lack of consumer understanding over the malfeasance embodied therein we are confident that fundamentally it is a system designed purely to spin against the consumer and the stakeholder.

Accordingly we have devoted almost no additional effort to this process.

TEA has no respect for it whatsoever and wish to make it abundantly clear we consider that forestry companies will not be served by such unjust drivel.

Ultimately the consumer will become aware of the social and environmental travesty and atrocious abrogation which is an embodiment of FSC. We will assist that development of this informed awareness. I hope you can understand our position would seem an eminently reasonable one in the circumstances.

I seek an acknowledgement of our representation, which is available for publication.

Sincerely,

Andrew Ricketts
Convenor

Download …

TEA_to_FSC_FINAL_chemical_derogation_applications_15-11-2015.pdf

FSC_Newsroom_1-12-2015.doc

FSC_Newsroom_13-1-2016.doc

Mongabay: Is eco-certification the solution to forest destruction?

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
15 Comments

15 Comments

  1. Karl Stevens

    January 29, 2016 at 11:48 pm

    Jack lumber 13. I’m worried about you. That last comment was verging on unintelligible in my opinion.
    What were you trying say? That a lie becomes the truth if you utter it enough times?

  2. pat synge

    January 29, 2016 at 9:52 pm

  3. Jack lumber

    January 29, 2016 at 6:43 pm

    Re 12 …. If you tell alive enough times people believe it .
    Please provide evidence where the 3 chamber system of FSC has been subverted . Anyone can seek to join , and the chamber they end up in is decided by FSC .

    As 11 refereed to now that FSC is being gained , the only answer must be ” corruption ” etc etc ”

    Please provide evidence of any corruption etcetc . I do note that Australia has recently dropped in the world bank ratings in transparency but not to the quantum that would suggest FSC has been impacted

    What is happening in Malaysia is not acceptable re palm oil and a PM with a big bank balance but stop linking it to forest management in Tasmania . If you don’t like CF , fine , please nominate somewhere else the volume can be harvested ..

    Please stop looking for mysteries and conspiracies . A target was set and organisations and people have adapted to met them . NOW that some ENGO and individuals are unhappy they have to find someone or something to blame .

  4. pat synge

    January 27, 2016 at 8:39 am

    You are absolutely right, Trevor (#11), “things change”.

    FSC itself has been changing over the years as it has gradually been taken over by the forestry industry.

    As I say above “infiltrate and subvert”: the best way to neutralise a threat.

  5. Trevor Cowell

    January 26, 2016 at 10:46 pm

    Once upon a time FSC was the god of absolute authority that FT had to please in order to be acceptable- and objectors to FT believed that acceptance by FSC would never occur.
    When it looked dangerously like it may-and for some operators FSC has been gained- then the tactic
    ‘shift the goal posts’ is adopted.
    “The more things change” eh

  6. Andrew Ricketts

    January 25, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    Jack (post #5): Don’t see any point, either in sitting on the fence or in jumping over it.

    Had little to do with the Mother Cummings thing just post RFA signing, wasn’t it? Health reasons Jack.

    Always up for a good cup of tea however but only with those with whom I can trust.

    Am also always up for using my real name. What about you?

    I think you missed something Jack. Have been nonplussed about the sham of FSC for a long time. Ask Tim. What about you?

    Look at what was said by TEA over Tas Forest Agreement.

  7. Karl Stevens

    January 25, 2016 at 8:34 am

    Jack lumber 7. What happened to your claim of being a kiwi?
    It appears you had a fair bit to do with bringing Ta Ann to Tasmania as well.

  8. john hayward

    January 25, 2016 at 12:14 am

    FSC puts on one of the best parodies of organisational governance this side of the FPT’s hearings.

    An application to FSC is assessed only on a logger’s claimed future plans, ignoring the most notorious records of corruption and environmental damage. They are then given voting rights under various multiple guises in the FSC’s three chambers.

    Self regulation on an FT scale. Great farce. Don’t miss it.

    John Hayward

  9. Jack lumber

    January 24, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    Re 6 Karl oh I’m now Tasmanian … What happened to your claim of being Victorian

    The only b grade to show is bob brown getting arrested …..sad.
    This saga has shown the greens to be nothing but opportunists and following a recipe …. Just like you ….. All claims no substance
    Where is west Webber , putt , whish Wilson , Dinale …. Silent

  10. Karl Stevens

    January 24, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    Jack lumber claims to be a ‘scientist’ but is unable to refute an allegation without resorting to B-Grade TV.
    jack you are the biggest asset the conservation movement has ever had online.
    You have spilled so many secrets about the IFA that I hope the they always retain their ‘non-official Tasmanian media liaison rep’.
    Keep the ‘own goals’ coming.

  11. Jack lumber

    January 24, 2016 at 4:17 pm

    Dear Andrew
    Did you save yourself a stamp and jump over the fence to the Eco lodge for a cup of tea , when raising these same points with Sean cadman , who could then pass on to brother Tim .

    I recall you where brothers in arm during the jackies marsh and mother Cummings protest .

    What happened ….. ?

    As to mr Stevens ” research ” , I think it’s a promo for the X files which are launched tonight .

    Sad to see dr bob brown break the law . Serious . He is no longer role model . I disagreed with his op ions but admired his capacity to go lead . No he is just a misguided , media tart.
    Hmmmm when will Peter Cundall appear ?

  12. Alison Bleaney

    January 24, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    To add to # 1
    Who policies and enforces FSC standards? Actually this is a major problem with certification and ongoing certification.
    Who determines if the actual FSC policies reflect the intent of FSC- the intent that promotes the “environmental friendly” timber certification? Another major problem….
    See
    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/is-the-fox-guarding-the-forestry-chook-house/
    And why is Tas Gvt doing the limbo (prostrating themselves) to allow FSC certification of FT ? Forico, SFM and iFarm are scrambling to make the most out of the lax Tas Gvt regulations- just look at Tas Gvt aerial spraying of pesticides regulations- while on the FSC bandwagon.
    What a shemozzle! But it’s at a cost to us all and that includes our ecosystems.
    Does the average punter know what a farce FSC certification is? Perhaps the answer is ‘ not yet’.

  13. Phil Lohrey

    January 24, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    Well said Karl. Appreciate your research. Makes a mockery of responsible certification and community process.

  14. pat synge

    January 24, 2016 at 10:47 am

    Infiltrate and subvert.
    A long used and very effective tactic.

  15. Karl Stevens

    January 24, 2016 at 10:17 am

    I can present the actual method the logging industry uses to subvert the FSC process.

    FSC has 3 chambers, Economic, Environmental and Social. All have equal voting rights. The Economic chamber uses pro-logging groups to stack the Social Chamber. This sways any vote in favour of the logging industry.

    3 bodies in the Social Chamber that are actually Industry players are the CFMEU (using the name ‘Forestworks’) Timber Communities of Australia and the Institute of Foresters Australia.
    These 3 groups would consistently vote on any industry-supported proposal or policy within FSC-AU.

    That why FSC-AU decisions favour the logging industry with a consumer friendly veneer of accountability. Has FSC-AU has been corrupted by the logging industry? Absolutely.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top