DAPNET Forums Archive › Forums › Sustainable Living and Land use › Sustainable Forestry › Burlington residents demand end to timber industry greenwash
- This topic has 4 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by Ethan Tapper.
- AuthorPosts
- September 14, 2011 at 7:34 pm #43049Scott GParticipantSeptember 15, 2011 at 10:34 am #69212Ethan TapperParticipant
I have to tell you that I can see both sides from here… It may be idealistic, but in the time I’ve spent with the SFI people I’ve been convinced that they’re not bad people. Same as the rest of us they’re trying to promote sustainable use of forests. Now, that means something different to them than it does to the rest of us, but with something as variable as forest health I think we all have our differences of opinion, and some of us are just plain wrong.
I think that the way the opposition group, Forest Ethics is approaching this, is all kinds of wrong too, though. They don’t want to improve the certification, they want to destroy it. They don’t want to make it real, they want it to lose credibilty completely. A lot of their points I believe and know to be true, however I don’t know when in the history of the world negativity of this nature has ever fought negativity of the SFI nature and produced something positive. And right now I feel like the stakes are too high for this kind of dispute. We lose forestland every day.
I don’t care who SFI is, who their funding comes from, as long as they are a means to promote practices I feel good about with regards to forest management. Right now and in the past they haven’t done a very good job of it in a lot of ways, but I think if we talk to groups like this instead of yelling at them we can get something done… Or at least find out what they’re really made of.
I’m interested to hear from those of you who have interacted with SFI and FSC, their audits, their certified jobs and lands. What have you seen?
September 15, 2011 at 12:34 pm #69209Carl RussellModeratorI have a client who owns 1500 acres in central VT. They logged with horses, and ran a small Kubota with a winch and a JD 4×4 with a forwarder on bio-diesel. They owned their own sawmill and dry-kiln, and had a long-term track record for ecological forest management.
At one point they decided to get SFC certified. It was very costly, and the audit process was onerous. They quickly became disenchanted with the whole process because they could easily see that other certified LO’s were getting away with practices that fell short of the advertised “Sustainable Forestry”.
The problem as I see it is that SFI and FSC need large LO, and they need the cooperation of large enterprises for the effort to have critical mass to gain market share. Due to this there is clearly an effort to look the other way, or to bend over backwards to allow continued enrollment by companies like Irving Oil, whose practices have been documented as being on the verge of destructive.
There is a huge problem in this country related to the input the forest industry has in the way that forestry is practiced. I think that sometimes it is very difficult for us to swallow extreme views, especially when they are expressed through protest. Agreed, protest rarely feels like it is a two-way conversation, but in the face of the industrial corporate image projection and market control, it seems like it is allowable in this instance.
I personally have no patience for large corporations attempt at greenwashing. I also think it is well advertised I have a much different personal approach to forestry, so I am not going to come to the defense of SFI nor FSC.
Carl
September 15, 2011 at 4:56 pm #69211BaystatetomParticipantI don’t know anything about the VT questions but I do know that in Massachusetts we started a program where landowners enrolled in Chapter 61 (our current use use tax program) could become green certified. I did a few of the first plans done in the state and was quite proud of it at the time. Now a few years later I am less then impressed. Nothing happens differently in the field on those FSC properties then any other. The certification adds another layer of bureaucratic BS and takes up a bunch of time and energy. Farther more I have yet to sell a timber lot for more money because it was green certified. I think it is a feel good thing for those who can afford to feel good. If a client asks for it I’ll write the plan and sign them up, otherwise I don’t mention it.
September 16, 2011 at 2:16 am #69210PhilGParticipantMany counties in Colorado require a certain amour of “green” elements to get a building permit with out additional fees for not having them, I know in the beginning i had many conversations about the merit of getting timbers, trim and logs from a local mill getting salvaged logs within an hour os so from the house vrs’s gettin FSC certified from the north west or Canada, eventually they did make a change to the points system and give credit for local, salvaged unlabeled material with out any hassle at all. I was kind off worried at first, just glad in this case common cense won out.
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.