|
|
CERTIFICATION
Open letter to the FSC Plantations Review Committee The undersigned are following the FSC plantations review with great interest and consider it to be a first step in the right direction. In this letter we would like to summarize our general viewpoints in this respect. From our diverse experiences in the matter, we know that the industrial tree plantations that are being implemented in many countries –particularly in the South but also in the North- are in many cases resulting in serious social and environmental impacts. This is true in both FSC-certified and non-certified plantations. Many local communities have been adversely affected by large-scale tree monocrops, which have occupied large expanses of lands that provided for their livelihoods. At the same time, they have resulted in biodiversity loss and depletion of water and soil resources. As a result, there is a growing opposition against existing and planned plantations in scores of countries around the world. As has been documented in South Africa, “timber plantations have forced thousands of people off the land in the past, and continue to do so in the present time. As access to natural resources is denied to rural people, thanks to the encroachment of timber plantations, more and more people must leave their traditional homes in search of a means to survive elsewhere, more often than not in squatter slums around the cities” According to a South African researcher and activist, plantation companies “ destroy or degrade natural grasslands where their plantations are grown, and damage plants and wildlife in adjacent forest or wetland habitats. They cause the loss of surface water in streams and marshes, depriving people and animals of access to water in the areas where plantations are established. They introduce toxic chemicals that pollute soil and water, and destroy natural processes in the soil. And now they can do all these things under the banner of FSC certification!" (1) In the case of Brazil (2), a study carried out on two certified plantations concluded that FSC certification is effectively undermining local peoples’ struggles to recover their lands. The case study research team noted “clear evidence of disputes with company neighbours over property and traditional use and tenure rights.” Ownership over most of the land currently in the hands of the two plantation companies involved (as well as others elsewhere) is being contested by the numerous local communities from which it was taken away. Other disputes between small farmers and the companies concern agrochemical use, blocking of roads or disruption of access, and water management. FSC certification has also seriously undermined workers’ rights. A case study in Thailand compared one by one each FSC principle to the reality of two plantations and documented infringements in practically all of them: land tenure, Indigenous Peoples’ rights, community relations, workers’ rights, benefits from the forest and so on. The conclusion should have been very clear – denial of certification – but instead, both plantations were certified. Only after publication of the research results coupled with national and international campaigning activities was the FSC certificate withdrawn. Many affected communities and support NGOs have been dismayed by FSC certification of that type of plantations –in some cases the same plantations they are opposing. They have not requested certification nor have they asked for participation or consultation in certification processes. Those communities are not trying to improve “bad” plantations; they are opposing them. Many times letters from communities and NGOs have been sent to FSC stating their concern over the possibility of FSC granting certification to the operations of companies, like in the recent case of the company BOTROSA in Ecuador (3), which “has done so much damage to the forests of Ecuador and to the communities that live in these forests and depend on them … has not favoured forest conservation nor have they respected forest community rights. On the contrary, they have carried out abusive forest exploitation, in many cases leading to their destruction.” However, in what can only be described as a top-down approach, the FSC has chosen to ignore those struggles and to go ahead with plantation certification. Even worse, the FSC has accepted as true what certifiers have informed and has certified those plantations. As a result, plantation companies have been strengthened with the FSC label and local struggles have been weakened … which is precisely what the FSC was never intended to do. The FSC's stated mission “is to promote environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial and economically viable management of the world's forests.” The sole fact that plantations are not forests –and in their vast majority are not aimed at eventually becoming such- should be sufficient to conclude that the FSC should not certify plantations at all, with perhaps the only exception of certification of plantations of mixed native species clearly aimed at forest ecosystem restoration. But if those plantations – both certified and non-certified- are proving to be environmentally destructive, socially unfair and even economically unviable –as is the case of countries where they are subsidized- then the call for the full withdrawal of the FSC from plantation certification becomes even more urgent. We sincerely hope that this will be the outcome of the Plantation Certification Review being carried out by the FSC and that, as a result, existing certified large-scale plantations will be de-certified. In the meantime, the FSC should impose a moratorium on further certification of plantations to avoid further damages to local communities and environments. 1 - http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/83/SouthAfrica.html 2 - Certifying the Uncertifiable. FSC Certification of Tree Plantations in Thailand and Brazil. World Rainforest Movement - August 2003 3 - Full letter
available at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/actors/FSC/BOTROSA.htm Yours sincerely, Lydia Bartz Peter Gerhardt Chris Lang Philip Owen Godfrey Silaule, Wally Menne Ricardo Carrere Tatiana Roa Avendaño Luis Eduardo Tantessio Wirsiy Emmanuel Binyuy Ricardo Sánchez María Isabel Cárcamo Elías Díaz Peña José Luis Castro Baleato Jessica Lawrence Alicia García Anna Petra Roge de Marzolini Ana Filippini Felix Gutiérrez Matta German Espejo Alicia Caulia Benito Andrade Ivonne Ramos César Ortiz Calcagno Miguel Domingo Alvaro Mónica Trujillo María Selva Ortiz Warren Clark Alexandra Velasco Lucio Cuenca Luis Ernesto Perez Esperanza Martinez Michelle Medeiros Ricardo Rodríguez Mazzini
Aurora Donoso Karin Nansen Jorge Daneri Emma Grau Vanesa Zehnder Orin Langelle Octavio Silvera Julio Castillo Witoon Permpongsacharoen Elizabeth Díaz Julio Casanova
|
 |
|||
|
|||
|
Go
to home page - Recommend
this page
World Rainforest
Movement
Maldonado 1858 - 11200 Montevideo - Uruguay
tel: 598 2 413 2989 / fax: 598 2 410 0985
wrm@wrm.org.uy
