The consultation process has closed and now we wait.
Soon we will find out whether the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) in Australia thinks that their certified logging companies 'have to' regenerate a logged site back to its ‘pre-harvest’ condition.
The FSC standard says, in black and white, that it does, but it all comes down to ‘interpretation’.
Our view on this is pretty clear.
If the FSC actually believes in its own mission (which I think it does), then the decision should be straight forward. This is not rocket science and it shouldn’t need a legal team.
The FSC logo is meant to mean that to be ‘certified’, logging companies leave the condition of forested areas under management (both native forest and plantations) in ‘as good as’ or even better state than when they found them.
That’s what we said in our submission - and over 250 people and 6 other organisations signed on to agree with us and have their voice heard.
But what will the forestry industry say in their submissions?
If FSC certified companies argue for a reduction in FSC requirements or for exemptions to be made, it speaks to us of greenwashing.
What do we mean by that?
Well, if companies in the forestry sector want to FSC accreditation for investment and marketing purposes to provide them with a social licence to operate, but are at the same time, are trying to ‘get out’ of having to comply with FSC rules, or advocate for reducing those rules - then it makes us wonder what their actual commitment is to sustainable forestry, and to the principles of the FSC.
Here's an every day example of what we mean.
Imagine you buy “free-range eggs” because you trust the logo on the carton. Then you find out that the producer is asking the organisation that owns the logo for permission to keep their hens in cages for 23 hours a day, while still calling the eggs “free range” and using the logo.
Most people would not be comfortable with that.
Would you be?
Something similar is happening with FSC-certified logging. Some companies are asking the FSC to lower its standards so they don’t have to restore forests to their pre-harvest condition.
That’s not what most people believe the FSC stands for. Let’s hope the FSC agrees.