Talk:Forest Stewardship Council/Archive 1

Comment
Diamond's Criticism of Rivals

The "Criticism" section could use a source. Could we mention the companies' rationale for working with the FSC and similar organizations, other than desire to save the planet? Diamond's book argues that it's a useful form of marketing: a company can make its product more distinctive (thus creating a type of monopoly) by offering the seal-of-approval of a group like FSC, so that consumers will pay more for the product. Diamond cites a study saying so. He criticizes rival organizations by saying they're the same type of marketing strategy without the high standards that make it meaningful. (Would that qualify as a type of astroturfing?) Maybe we could even quote the book, if there's no better source explaining the argument. I gave away my copy, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris Schnee (talk • contribs)

Text extensions and edits of January 2008
First, thanks and congratulations to Kat Germanis for his efford to improve this important article. Unfortunately, the result is not completely convincing due to then following circumstances:
 * Style: Happens to sound much like a marketing presentation, like an advertisement; for example, the use of judgemental words ("...unique..."), or half-truths "...is growing rapidly" (well, nfortunately not in comparison to other certification schemes). POV is thus created in a subtile manner.
 * FSC is not designed to deal with global warming and illegal logging.
 * CoC-Certification is not up to date (mixed standard is obsolete, now changing towards input-output-balancing), and so are passages, which relate to the quality of the FSC-system (wood tracing...).
 * References (besides the fsc web site) could be suspected to not represent a neutral view; scientific sources are easily available and should be preferred
 * Too many weblinks?
 * Relevant information is missing. Especially the aspects concerning FSC's weaknesses and the arguments for the lacking broad acceptance esp. in Europe are not expressed adequately (legitimation of specific stakeholder participation, construction of an eventually redundant system of credibility in countries where administrative functions and law enforement are being carried out on a satisfying level, eventual unsuitability for small-scale family business etc...).
 * formatting could be improved

Don't get me wrong; I am no anti-FSC-POV-pusher, but the article really needs to be improved. I hope that I'll be able to handle that during the upcoming days. --Wladmeister (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive comments. In general, this is by no means the final version – there is much more to include!

I address your comments in the same order:

--Kat Germanis (talk) 3pm 17 Jan 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 14:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Style: This should sound neutral and not like a marketing piece! I have made some changes. Please identify any others. Re the half-truth ‘FSC is growing rapidly’, this is a fact. Last year the area of forest grew by 10 million hectares to 94 million hectares. In 2007 FSC CoC grew by 40% which speaks for itself, and no comparison is being made here to other certification systems.I dont see that this needs changing.
 * Global warming and illegal logging: FSC improves forest management practices and creates incentives to keep forests intact, and thus it contributes to the prevention of deforestation and so also the release of carbon dioxide (deforestation releases an estimated ¼ or 1/3 of global carbon emissions). And FSC most definitely deals with legality and goes well beyond that. Legality is the absolute minimum requirement for FSC forest management certification. FSC provides international standards that raise the bar for social and environmental practices - what may be legal in one country could be illegal in another. I would like to include a section on impacts at a later stage.
 * CoC: I made some changes to the CoC section. I am not sure exactly where you are referring to. Could you identify these before changing them?
 * References: There are many references available to support this text. I have since added more scientific reports since your comments. Everyone is welcome to add to this!! There is a lot of text there. Please also build on references within Wikipedia.
 * Weblinks: We could delete all the external links referring to FSC national initiatives in the Official FSC Sites section. This information is already available in section 3 ‘Global and Local’ – I thought it was useful.
 * There is still information missing, your right! This is most definitely a working document, and by no means finished. Please feel free to add to this. In doing so, we must maintain a global and balanced overview. I would like to include a section on FSC in the tropics and small businesses. I suggest a separate section called FSC impacts where we can address social, environmental and economic impacts.
 * Formatting: This should be easy to read. What suggestions to you have? Please feel free to make improvements.


 * Good job! I hope I'll be able to review it within the upcoming days. Furthermore, I will try to give some text input, too, of course. Cheers, --Wladmeister (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, some comments:
 * Formatting: There were some short passages in bold, which I de-bolded. Unfortunately, I'm not so familiar with the standards of the English wikipedia... Well, I don't much care and it is comparably unimportant.
 * References: The reference link to Lang's publication of GTZ is broken. It was cited a few times. I thus removed it.
 * Style: We have already talked about phrases like "rapidly growing". Yes, for sure, FSC is growing; however, it is important to compare: On the international level, there is only PEFC and ISO (and ISO does not really count). Right? As far as I know, almost 200 mio ha are already certified by PEFC, that is a) more and b) growing faster since it started only in 1999 (I do not say that in a judging way, but these are the figures). Also, when we say "rapidly growing", we should take into account a percentage of forest coverage on the corresponding regional or national level, instead of world wide figures, because all other certification schemes are applied only on a regional or national level. Is FSC growing rapidly in comparison with MTCC, for example? That is why I would not favour such expressions.
 * Style (II): I made some revisions on phrases like : "XY guarantees that..." (not, because I wouldn't believe it, I personally think is probably true.) Mechanisms providing a guarantee - that is an ideal. When ENGOs like the rainforest foundation launched critics addressed to FSC, they were normally claiming that the guarantee was not ensured.
 * CoC: I heard that the new standard intruduced input-output balancing. I have not checked if this is true, but I suppose it is. It's obviously basically the same principle like the market of "green" electricity: You put a certain amount of certified timber into the system, and you have an according output of certified wooden products, but the concrete product that you hold in your hands is not necessarily from a FSC-certified FMU. This is why all passages, which refer to the chain of custody, may need revision.
 * Illegal Logging and global warming: I added the phrase "directly or indirectly". Why? You are right that the CWS prohibts illegally logged wood in a FSC-certified mixed-standard wooden product. But the FSC certification of SFM does not necessarily lead to a decrease of illegal logging (because illegally harvested timber can be traded on other international or only on the national markets, because illegal logging for increasing circumstances of lifelihood remains attractive, because illegal logging due to poverty and for getting fire wood usually cannot be prevented by at all...). The contribution of FSC certification to combat global warming is an important synergy effect that is due to avoided deforestation; but is FSC especially designed for fighting global warming...? I am not so sure about that. BTW, I think the calculation of up to 1/3 of carbon emissions through deforestation and forest degradation is a figure that is not common. The IPCC reports 17,4%, and even ENGOs calculate "only" between 18 and 25 %. Well, however...
 * On missing information: I would find it very interesting to understand how group certification can be suitable for applying SFM certification on small scale business.


 * In my opinion, the first couple of sections are really good. They explain quite well what FSC is. And that's the idea of the wikipedia. What I regard as crucial are the last paragraphs: "International recognition and wide-ranging support", especially "Why do many stakeholders support FSC?". They sound very POV-like, just as if they were directly taken from the FSC website. Also, the information there is not always completely correct: For example, PEFC was not founded by the forest industry alone, but also by European forest owners' associations. In my opinion, after considering different aspects, it would be best to either
 * a) delete the whole section, or to
 * b) extend the article on the critical discussions on the various certification schemes.


 * On b): Extending the article is really difficult, because this debate is quite complex! One has to dig deeply into the matter of certification of SFM to understand where the differences are. For example, it would be necessary to explain the different nature of process-based certification and performance-based approaches. Also, it would be necessary to explain why certain stakeholders do not support FSC, or why some support FSC and other schemes; e.g. out of cost-effectiveness, of weeknesses of the early CoC concerning marketing aspects... There are the aspects of stakeholder participation (one of the typical arguments, for example: "Why does one environmental NGO have the same weight in the council like a forest owners' association?"). Then, there is the broad acceptance of a certification scheme as an indicator on how "good" it really is. And then, there are aspcets of green washing etc etc...
 * In short words: The article's aim must not be to convince the reader of the quality of FSC, but just to explain what FSC is. That is IMO enough. Explanations towards strengths of FSC makes it complicated when we want to maintain a neutral point of view.


 * BTW, I think there is still no article on SFM-certification in general in the English wikipedia. Somebody should create it.


 * However, you have done a nice piece of work! I hope I'll be more constructive in future :-)
 * --Wladmeister (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rearranging the introduction
The introductory section is now much too long, and so sections from there should be moved to other parts of the article.Hectorguinness (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it covers all the key issues in enough - but not too much - depth to give a basic understanding - who, what, where, why and how. I dont think we should remove too much from there. What are your suggestions? Maybe cut back a bit on the history? --Kat Germanis (talk) 3.15, 17 Jan 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 14:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is like an advertisement of FSC
I must say this article is not neutral. Words are like from FSC's own papers, not from dictionary. Sorry but are the people from FSC writing this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.118.199 (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I tried to make this article more neutral but some seems to like balanced view and changes were reverse back. So keep your silly article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.184.23.254 (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it so difficult to make neutral Wikipedia article????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.184.23.254 (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed this because references are not neutral: FSC is the only one endorsed by a wide range of companies, NGOs and individuals around the world representing social, environmental and economic interests. This is because other certification schemes do not have the same strict environmental, social and economic standards or such a rigorous chain of custody which tracks forest products from the forest to the final user.  As the WWF and other environmental groups state in a 2006 press release, "The only certification scheme currently recognized as credible by industry, NGOs and indigenous peoples groups alike is the scheme operated by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)." .
 * FERN and WWF are supporters of FSC, not neutral references. Far from neutral. Forest certification is business and Wikipedia should not support some business organisations more than others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.184.23.254 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I decided to change words in this An ever-increasing number of companies are committing to FSC including home-improvement or DIY companies, publishers, retailers amongst many others. to more neutral.
 * I removed also these: "FSC’s current unprecedented growth rate is a response to market demand for FSC certified timber and non-timber forest products". If someone wants to revert back, then write here why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.184.23.254 (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it sounds like an ad for FSC. I would like to see an inclusion of fsc-watch.org in this article--and not just under the sub-heading "criticism". Dnickarz (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do changes and let's discuss here which opinions will rise. I too consider editing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.77.243.100 (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Using supporters to criticize competing schemes?
I am not sure whether it is credible to use reports and statements by major FSC supporters like WWF and FERN to criticize "competing scheme" - I suggest to take it out. Also, it is not very credible to use reports from such supporters to highlight the positive aspects of FSC - it's like the Republicans saying that Bush was a great president!

I also question the wording of "competing schemes" - to my knowledge, the forest certification schemes out there have all the same objective of promoting sustainable forest management, and as there's simply not much forest certified out there, "competing" against each other appears to be beside the point. I'd rather think that these schemes need to work together - I suggest the wording "Alternative schemes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.141.169 (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not really good article. For example FERN highlights positive aspects of FSC. Of course because it's main supporter and founder. Same applies to Greenpeace, they are founders. It's silly to show these as a neutral facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.77.213.218 (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I made some changes. Write comments here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.213.49 (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WWF
You may be interested in the actions of the WWf in Australia, who began to take federal Government funding around the samw time as they stopped criticising the federal Government on environmental issues - in other words, they have been bought off in Australia. Not much of an organisation to have as your eco-friend I'd say. Do your research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.3.80 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No surprise there. The WWF is actively involved in destroying Rain forest, displacing natives and privatizing water supplies in Central America, working with such respectable members of the global community as Coca Cola... --SchallundRauch (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

complaint process
The article says that critics are encouraged to file complaints against FSC. Encouraged by whom? Then again, the one-dollar security deposit to file a formal complaint is not very much, so are you saying that the low cost is a way that FSC encourages people to file complaints with it? 68.55.112.31 (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying criticism
I work closely with Resolute Forest Products which is mentioned in the criticism section of this article. The criticism section is factual. At the same time it's written in a way that suggests the forestry operations under the Barriere Lake Algonquin territory fall within the Company’s FSC certification. This is not currently the case. The company issued a statement on the situation on July 18th (http://resolutefp.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=28238&item=130649).

The text as written in the Criticism section should remain. However, there should be room to add some text which helps prevent any misunderstanding of the land in question. I can share a draft additional paragraph (including citation) for the section for discussion purposes if the editors of this page are interested. Markblevis (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

For the purpose of discussion, here is a draft addition for the Criticism section. The following proposed text could be inserted between the current paragraph 8 and 9 and would serve to clarify that the operations in the section above apply to land that is not yet FSC certified, as well as provide balance.


 * For their part, Resolute Forest Products has sought to clarify that it has not yet received FSC certification for its forestry operations which are on Barriere Lake Algonquin territory. On July 18, 2012, the company issued a press release stating: “Resolute has managed woodlands in the Barrière Lake area for four years and also has several partnerships with a number of Aboriginal communities in Quebec and Ontario. The current controversy seems to be linked to political tensions within the Lake Barrière community, and Resolute regrets being at the center of this internal dispute. The Company continues to work collaboratively with local government and First Nations authorities."[footnote]


 * (Insert footnote to link to: http://resolutefp.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=28238&item=130649) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markblevis (talk • contribs) 13:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added a brief statement in the article, indicating the firm's alternate perspective on the conflict and including the reference. Maybe I missed it, but I do not see anything in the press release relating to the FSC status of the forest lands in question. Alternate sources, such as from relevant newspapers or even the FSC, would be useful here. It probably makes more sense to address this conflict on the Resolute Forest Products article, however. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal
The FSC chain of custody stub article duplicates material in this article & should be merged into it, I think. An alternative approach would be to break out that material from this article, into a more well developed spin-off article. For now, though, I would suggest merging into this one. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Material from referenced article merged into this one. The former can, and should in my opinion, now be deleted. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Merge completed. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)