«Is eco-certification the solution to forest destruction?
There is ample evidence that FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certification
has failed to achieve its original forest conservation objectives, yet globally
the timber industry continues to push virtual 'self-certification' by
company-paid FSC "certification bodies". Many timber industry players
employ these supposedly independent and professional consultancies, which
have been approved by FSC International, to
implement their preferred timber product green-washing
scheme, instead of submitting their activities to impartial regulation and
policing by more independent government agencies.
Also, over time the FSC has come to be heavily dominated
by its so-called 'economic chamber' which is controlled by timber
industry members and the certification bodies, while a few remaining
die-hard CSOs and NGOs make up the membership of the "social" and
"environmental" chambers.
While there will always be exceptions to the rule, as the few 'good
examples' given by WWF's Kerry Cesareo illustrate, the truth is that
deforestation and plantation expansion have both increased dramatically
during the twenty years that the FSC has been in existence, and this
begs the question: Has the heavy marketing of the claimed benefits of
certification not had the perverse effect of encouraging increased wasteful
consumption of timber products, rather than to reduce the demand?
It is therefore really no surprise that crooking the system, as
described in the article below, has become so commonplace! The
dishonesty inherent in the FSC's certification of ecologically destructive tree
plantations as "responsibly managed forests" is another prime example of how the
original FSC principles have been corrupted to serve the timber industry's
selfish interest in expanding markets and increasing profits.» por
Wally Menne
plantnet@iafrica.com
Concordo com a crítica de Wally Menne e penso que o mesmo se passa em
Portugal com a grande maioria da certificação FSC. Ou seja, para que a
certificação funcionasse bem penso que uma verdadeira floresta devia
passar pela inversão das percentagens autorizadas pela FSC: os 10 ou 20%
de espécies de conservação e 70 a 80% ou mais de monoculturas de
eucalipto deviam ser 10 ou 20% de eucaliptos e 70 a 80% de espécies
autóctones. Por exemplo, o caso da certificação da FSC (por via da
Sativa) a milhares e milhares de hectares das mono plantações de
eucaliptos da Soporcel é escandaloso e bem triste, e é exemplo que se
espalha na generalidade da certificação da FSC em Portugal, ao que me
parece... Ora as monoculturas de eucalipto não são florestas e, a meu
ver, tais monoculturas não são nada sustentáveis a nível dos três
pilares da sustentabilidade (económico, social e ambiental). O eucalipto
tem pouco ou nada de sustentável a nível ambiental pois empobrece a
biodiversidade, provoca a erosão dos solos e a perda de recursos
hídricos bem como provoca um muito maior risco de incêndios. Penso, pois, que é preciso fazer uma crítica contundente e continuada da
FSC Portugal...
Paulo A.G. Berado de Andrade