ORGANIZATIONS
FROM 8 COUNTRIES DEMAND THE FSC TO WITHDRAW CERTIFICATES
- Brazil - Letter
for the De-Certification of Suzano-Bahia Sul, Plantar and V&M
(in English and Portuguese)
- Chile -
Letter for the de-certification by the fsc of forestry companies
(in English and Spanish)
- Colombia - Letter
for the de-certification of Smurfit Kappa Cartón de Colombia
(in English and Spanish)
- Ecuador - Letter
for the De - Certification of FACE / PROFAFOR and ENDESA / BOTROSA
(in English and Spanish)
- Ireland -
Letter for the De - Certification of Coillte (in English
and Spanish)
- Spain -
From the galician ecologist movement to the FSC (in
English and Spanish)
- South Africa -
Letter for the de-certification of FSC certified plantations in
South Africa (Only in English )
- Uruguay
- Letter for the De-Certification of EUFORES, COFOSA, COFUSA and
FYMNSA (in
English and Spanish)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organizations
from eight countries demand the FSC to withdraw its “green
label” to several plantation companies
Press
Release - September 1, 2006
Organizations from eight different
countries are requesting the Forest Stewardship Council –a
labelling scheme that certifies good forest management practices-
to withdraw the FSC certificate awarded to a number of companies
in Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Ireland, South Africa, Spain
and Uruguay. The challenged certifications in all cases involve
large-scale tree plantations which the organizations point out violate
the FSC’s mandate of promoting “environmentally appropriate,
socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world's
forests.”
“None of the South African
plantations should have been certified by the FSC, firstly because
plantations are not forests and secondly because of the serious
negative social and environmental impacts they produce,” says
Wally Menne, a member of the Timberwatch Coalition. Philip Owen,
from GeaSphere adds that “In South Africa, Industrial Timber
Plantations impact most severely on the grassland biome, which is
the most threatened vegetation type locally. Surely –he adds-
the FSC should not be sanctioning this destruction of the natural
environment.”
In the case of Ecuador Nathalia
Bonilla –in charge of the certification issue at the local
NGO Acción Ecológica- is demanding the de-certification
of some 20,000 hectares of pine and eucalyptus plantations established
in the Andes by the Dutch FACE Foundation, as well as over 8,000
hectares belonging to Ecuadorian company ENDESA/BOTROSA, which has
a long history of social and environmental crimes. “We have
documented in detail the negative impacts of these plantations on
the livelihoods of the affected indigenous communities and on their
environment; now the obvious step is for the FSC to withdraw the
certificate to these plantations.”
Marcelo Calazans, a member of
the Brazilian Alert Against the Green Desert Movement, which campaigns
against tree monocultures described as “green deserts”,
states that “although we oppose the certification of all large-scale
tree monocultures, we are demanding the de-certification of only
three companies: Suzano-Bahia Sul,Vallourec & Mannesmann and
Plantar. The reason for this is that the social and environmental
impacts of these three companies are so well documented that it
is obvious that the FSC must immediately withdraw its certificate.”
The transnational Smurfit Kappa
has a long history of conflicts with local communities in the Colombian
region where it operates. “We cannot understand how this company
can sell its products under the FSC logo”, says Diego Alejandro
Cardona from CENSAT-Friends of the Earth Colombia. “The company’s
operations are probably economically viable”, states Cardona,
“but it no way can they be described as being environmentally
appropriate or socially beneficial. We therefore demand the FSC
to cease providing it credibility through the use of its label.”
In the case of Spain, local
organizations have been demanding for over a year the cancellation
of the FSC certification to plantations company NORFOR. Antón
Masa, from the Association for the Defence of the Ria of Pontevedra
explains that the reason for the urgent cancellation of the NORFOR
certification “lies in the serious deficiencies found in the
certification report and the clear inadequacy of NORFOR’s
management system with respect to FSC principles and criteria.”
Several organizations in Ireland
are demanding the withdrawal of the FSC certificate awarded to Coillte’s
438,000 hectares of plantations. Ciaran Hughes, from the Woodland
League says: “NGOs in Ireland that have campaigned for the
decertification of Coillte have been dealt a serious blow with Coillte’s
recertification earlier this year. Coillte practices have always
fallen far too short of the FSC principles and criteria.”
“In Chile there are serious
cases of companies that should have never received the FSC logo
and that deserve to be de-certified. Such are the cases of Forestal
Monte Aguila, belonging to CMPC (Mininco) and Forestal Bio Bio (Forestal
Arauco), that are severely questioned and whose certification does
not take into account their environmental impacts and the territorial
conflicts with indigenous Mapuche communities”, states Alfredo
Seguel, from the Agrupación Konapewman and member of the
working groups of the Coordination of Mapuche Territorial Identities
(CITEM).
As respects to Uruguay, local
organizations are demanding the de-certification of two national
(COFUSA and FYMNSA) and two foreign (Finnish COFOSA and Spanish
EUFORES) plantation companies. Ricardo Carrere, the author of the
report “Greenwash: Critical analysis of FSC certification
of industrial tree monocultures in Uruguay”, stresses that
“none of those plantations should have been certified”
and that “by certifying large-scale tree monocultures such
as these, the FSC is weakening local struggles against them.”
The organizations involved in
this activity have sent letters to the FSC Board and to the members
of the Plantations Review Working Group demanding the withdrawal
of the FSC certificate to all the above mentioned companies, on
the basis that none of them comply with the FSC mandate.
For interviews:
In Brazil
Marcelo Calazans
Brazilian Alert Against the Green Desert Movement
marcelo.fase@terra.com.br
+55 273 223 7436
In Colombia
Diego Alejandro Cardona Calle
CENSAT Agua Viva
bosques@censat.org
+57 1 3377709
In Chile
Alfredo Seguel
Coordination of Mapuche Territorial Identities
alfredoseguel@gmail.com
+5645 213313
In Ecuador
Nathalia Bonilla
Acción Ecológica
cbosques@accionecologica.org
+593-22-547-516
In Ireland:
Ciaran Hughes
Woodland League
ciaran_hughes@yahoo.co.uk
+353-87-9652992
In South Africa:
Philip Owen
GeaSphere
owen@soft.co.za
Mobile: 0730980867
In Spain:
Benito Andrade
Asociación pola defensa da Ría
bandrade@mundo-r.com
+34 636281252
In Uruguay
Ricardo Carrere
World Rainforest Movement
wrm@wrm.org.uy
+5982 4132989