Has RAN “sold out”?
Regular readers of the understory will be familiar with Glen Barry. Aside from goading us on the Understory, Glen also runs a number of websites about ecological protection–all of them valuable resources for the community of earth defenders of all stripes.
Last month Glen sent RAN an open letter criticizing, among other things, our support of the Forest Stewardship Council. We prepared a formal response, had a good conversation over the phone and continued corresponding via email in the weeks that followed (hardcore sleuths can download the full text).
We thought we were making progress toward a joint effort to put highlight problems with the FSC and were eager to begin a public debate about the system right here on the internet.
Glen thought otherwise. He declared last week that “RAN has sold out the international rainforest protection movement.” This week, he encouraged RAN supporters to “stop giving them money” and to “give it to [ecological internet] instead.”
I’m confused as to why Glen wasn’t satisfied with our efforts to address his concerns. Frankly many here have written his attacks off as ‘flame bait’ or worse. Still, i’m interested in the issues he raises, if not convinced of his conclusions or tactics. I also must admit that we’re just a little bit intrigued about being on the other end of a pressure campaign. Pull up a seat at the Understory and prepare for the sparks to fly!
Meantime, take a few minutes to learn more about forest certification (from critics and advocates) and let us hear from you on the debate about RAN’s support for the FSC.
6 Responses to “Has RAN “sold out”?”
Leave a Reply
All comments offered in the spirit of civil conversation are welcome! Commercial spam, obscenity and other rude behavior are not, and will be removed. Valid email addresses are required. (RAN respects your privacy; we will not use, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.)
November 14th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Let Glen waste valuable time going after his “allies”, after all, it’s a classic divide & conquer technique that the corporations depend on. Way to go Glen! Do us all a favor & go beat up a cardboard box, an FSC certified one that is.
November 14th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I pretty much wrote off FSC as another attempt to sell “sustainability” without changing much in the way of management on the ground, nearly 10 years ago. That was when I visited a logged site of FSC-approved Keweenaw Land Association (KLA) and wrote a letter to SmartWood regarding KLA’s poor logging practices. This “complaint” may have been one of the first challenging FSC standards. I soon learned very little monitoring was going on by SmartWood, when I visited the site with a SW representative. That person was very frank with me about shortcomings of FSC, including the inability of a small staff to go to many of the logging sites they were certifying. He told me they had a long ways to go “if the program is going to work.”
At the time, World Wildlife Fund was selling FSC around the World, and certifying millions of acres. Soon after, many state forest systems, and large corporate land owners in the US were beginning to be certified, both by FSC and SFI. Over the past 2 or 3 years here in Michigan, the State Forest System has been getting a joint SFI and FSC certification. Despite certification, Michigan still allows massive clearcuts and herbicide applications.
Getting back to KLA, the manager at the time, Al Steege, told a forester friend of mine at a conference that his company didn’t have to change practices upon being certified, and that they were realizing more profits because of the certification.
Then, I viewed FSC as impotent and a sham, and those pulling in big grants to promote the program (like WWF and perhaps RAN) as being opportunists with little knowledge about what was happening on the ground. Organizations involved were simply not doing the most important thing - going out and looking at the logging they were giving FSC certification to.
Ten years later, I still feel that FSC is a failure.
Doug Cornett
Northwoods Wilderness Recovery
November 14th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
This is the first time I’ve ever visited a blog. Unfortunately, I just finished remodeling and paying a premium price for FSC certified wood. I really thought that it was opportunistic of the companies to charge more, but at the same time, I wanted to cause the least amount of damage and get a new kitchen. I feel like I read the enviormantal publications, but did not know of this controversy. I will still support RAN. Not too many other organizations are doing creative actions and getting the attention of the media and public. But I know from trying to make “green” investments, that lots of companies are eager to look green, and it takes a lot of investigation to fine something that fits that philosophy.
Lorraine Priceman
November 15th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Doug, thanks for your observations. You should note that we do not pull in big grants to promote FSC. Not one. When I read about your frustrations with FSC, I see an opportunity for improvement, not a reason to abandon the program. What specifically would you like to see FSC do that would make a difference in your region?
Lorraine, welcome! Controversy abounds. I’m happy that you’ve come this far in your search. What controversies concern you most?
November 15th, 2007 at 11:35 am
I think Lorraine’s comment is a really important one.
Until a better solution comes along, FSC seems like a vital thing to have. Without it, SFI (the industry-backed greenwashing certification) would have full reign of the “Green” market, which is an unacceptable consequence of “keeping it real”.
It’s always easier to idealize the real than realize the ideal. “Selling out” is an unfortunate label for people trying to make things better.
(Disclosure: I’m one of the RAN webmasters, so… biased but informed.)
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:02 am
RAN’s position on the Forest Stewardship Council is that it “is a vastly superior alternative to standard industrial logging. In forests that would otherwise be logged without third party oversight, FSC promotes practices that preserve ecosystem functions (like habitat and water quality) and safeguards the most ecologically valuable areas.”
Readers might like to see the latest posting on FSC-Watch, http://www.fsc-watch.org/archives/2008/03/21/The_FSC_in_pictures, which shows numerous pictures of what FSC certified logging operations actually look like on the ground (or from space).
Readers might like to try and identify where exactly the “preservation of ecosystem functions like habitat and water quality” is supposedly taking place.