-
Certified plantations in Uruguay:
Can the FSC
really guarantee peace of mind to consumers?
In
March 2006, the WRM released the publication “Greenwash:
Critical analysis of FSC certification of industrial tree monocultures
in Uruguay” (see
at http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Uruguay/book.html).
The report addressed the four main certified plantation companies
and included a very detailed critique
of the certifiers’ reports, complemented
with interviews with workers and people from local communities
in the vicinity of the plantation areas. The report concluded
that none of those plantations comply with FSC’s mandate because
they are not managed in an “environmentally appropriate, socially
beneficial or economically viable” way.
The two
certification companies involved (SGS and Smartwood) reacted to
the report by sending their response to FSC. Based on that “evidence”,
the FSC disseminated a statement
titled “FSC guarantees peace of mind to consumers” (see
at http://www.wrm.org.uy/actors/FSC/Peace_mind.pdf).
Heiko Liedeker, Director of FSC International, is quoted as
saying that “Reading the certification body’s reports it is apparent
that some information in the WRM report was based on misunderstandings
or in some cases presented out of context” and ends promising
that “Consumers can count on the FSC system as a guarantee for
good forest management”.
We honestly
believe that by acting in this way, the FSC is missing a good
opportunity for change, particularly in the context of the current
plantation certification review the organization is working on.
The WRM report is in no way “based on misunderstandings” or presenting
anything “out of context”; it is based on facts.
Unfortunately,
much as we would like to, we cannot comment on SGS’s response,
for the simple reason that the document they presented to FSC
is not publicly available. We can however comment on Smartwood’s
(available
at http://www.wrm.org.uy/actors/FSC/fymnsa_clarifications.pdf),
which states that “The WRM report findings
related to stakeholder interaction do not agree with SW’s records
or information on numerous elements.” In
this respects, Smartwood provides the following information:
“The
WRM report states that the head of a local workers union (Jose
Bautista) indicated to SW his perspectives on FYMNSA certification
and SW ignored them (“lo que dije a SmartWood sobre la certificación
de FYMNSA no lo tuvieron en cuenta para nada" y que “luego
que vino SmartWood a los pocos días había un gran cartel de la
certificadora en las oficinas de la empresa"). [“everything
that I told SmartWood with regard to the certification of FYMNSA
was completely disregarded.” Meanwhile, after SmartWood came to
assess FYMNSA’s operations, “within a few days there was a big
SmartWood poster hanging in the company’s offices”].
We would clarify the following: SOIMANORPA,
which Mr. Bautista heads up, was established in 2003. He was never
interviewed during the initial assessment of FYMNSA simply because
this organization did not exist at the moment. He was interviewed
during subsequent assessment of another operation, Villa Luz,
where he met with SW auditors Jacques Boutmy and Rolyn Medina.
During that meeting he indicated that, from his perspective, WRM
was not up to date on actual social or worker realities of operations
in the field. He also indicated that FYMNSA was a leader in allowing
the workers union to interact with FYMNSA workers, that his union
maintains constant and very open communication with FYMNSA.”
That is
Smartwood’s version, which apparently Mr Heiko Liedeker believes
to be true. I spoke on Thursday, 20th of
July with Mr Bautista and asked him
if he agreed with the points raised above by Smartwood. His answer
was: “It’s all false” (“es todo falso”). Mr Bautista is a very
well organized person and keeps record of all he does. He was
therefore able to track the meeting quoted above with Jacques
Boutmy and Rolyn Medina, and discovered that it took place on
20 October
2004, well before WRM had even thought about carrying out this
research!
I asked
him more specifically on whether in his view “FYMNSA
was a leader in allowing the workers union to interact with FYMNSA
workers”.
Once
again he replied:
“it’s false”.
With reference to SW's
statement that “his
union maintains constant and very open communication with FYMNSA”,
Bautista explained
that even though the company receives the union, that's just a
mere formality. And added: “three days
ago I was interviewed in Rivera [the capital city of the province
where FYMNSA is based] by TV Channel 6 and by four local radios
and I said that the company was violating labour rights and that
it should have never been certified. Maybe that’s the reason why
Smartwood has reacted in this way”.
In
its report to FSC, Smartwood adds that “FYMNSA has now hired an
External Labor Auditor to ensure compliance with labor laws, regulations
and procedures for all staff and contractors. This auditor sends
monthly reports to FYMNSA on these issues, including corrective
action requests (CARs).”
I
also asked Mr. Bautista about this and he replied: “I don’t know
anything about that”. One might think that the union leader with
which apparently FYMNSA maintains such a good communication would
be the first person informed about such good news. Unfortunately,
this is not the case.
Even worse, Mr Bautista explained at length the present very conflictive
situation resulting from the company’s violation of labour regulations
and sent me in writing a summary of the main points of the conflict
(see
http://www.wrm.org.uy/actors/FSC/Letter_Batista.html).
Contrary to what Smartwood’s response seems to imply, the document
ends stating: “Dialogue with the Union
still exists but the reverting of FYMNSA’s breaches of labour
legislation and respect for trade union organization and workers
has not been achieved.”
Even without
taking into account all the other environmental and social impacts
detailed in the WRM report, the above is sufficient to emphasize
that in this case –where labour rights are being violated- the
FSC cannot seriously pretend it can “guarantee peace of mind to
consumers”.
By Ricardo
Carrere, World Rainforest Movement, author
of the report mentioned in this article. E-mail: rcarrere@wrm.org.uy
