In response to Coillte’s article in the Mar/Apr edition of Irish Timber and Forestry.
A Eagathoir, a chara,
I note that Ireland’s Forestry Board, the semi-state body called Coillte Teoranta, has taken the time to respond to the issues addressed in the Woodland League’s petition for reform if Irish Forest Policy, which includes the removal of FSC certification from Coillte.
I would, however, like to point out several inaccuracies in the statements made by Coillte. Since the article was published, I have been in contact with a founding member of FSC International, Mr. Simon Counsell (now of Rainforest Foundation UK). He is adamant that it is simply not correct to state that ‘continuous improvement is a central philosophy of the FSC’, as Coillte claims. FSC is, or at least claims to be, a performance-based certification system. The crucial feature of this is that certification is awarded on the basis of the candidate forestry company's actual performance at the time of assessment for certification. Possible or hoped-for “improvements” in the company's performance are not supposed to be taken into account when awarding a certificate.
This fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Forest Stewardship Council perhaps underlies the long-standing dispute between genuine social and environmental stakeholders and Coillte with their list of acolytes (aggravated, no doubt, by FSC International's dismal failure to resolve the conflict). It is under this misunderstanding that Coillte have obtained FSC certification, and it is a misunderstanding that has been propagated by the current FSC process in Ireland under the guidance of IFCI.
Coillte further argues that to question Coillte's certification is also to question "the other 47.5 million hectares of forests certified [by the FSC] globally". Simon Counsell also states that there are, indeed, reasons to question many of the other certificates issued by FSC-accredited certifiers. The Rainforest Foundation UK has collated information on scores of highly questionable certificates - and several of these have, on further investigation by the FSC, subsequently been cancelled. If it remains unresolved, the situation in Ireland will have serious implications for the credibility of the FSC EcoLabel, and for Soil Association/Woodmark’s credibility. The Woodland League has never denied this fact, and have in fact expressed this quite clearly.
Take, for example, the fact that the Indonesian State Forestry Company was awarded FSC Certification, despite the fact that it inflicted violence against local people, and had a lack of legal logging rights. After protests from community groups, certification was suspended. Ireland’s FSC Process is often compared to the FSC Process in the likes of Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia where the FSC appears to have actually undermined efforts at a local and national level to reform either specific companies or the overall legal framework for the forestry sector. However, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia are considered among the most corrupt countries in the world. What does it say about the Irish FSC Process, and Ireland in general, that we are compared with these countries?
Coillte go on mention that nearly half of their forest estate is covered by “diverse conifers and broadleaves”. Their Social and Environmental report says that 3.2% of Coillte’s estate is planted with native broadleaves, and a further 1.2% is planted with native Scots Pine. This means that in total, just over 4% of Coillte’s estate is devoted to native trees. Compare this to the 52.2% that is planted with Sitka, and the rest of their forest estate is planted with other foreign exotics [Source: Coillte Social and Environmental Report 2003]. The 1993 Convention on Biodiversity was overwhelmingly concerned with native biodiversity, the biodiversity of Sitka and other exotics are unimportant in comparison. Given the evidence, it is surprising that Coillte are ecologically ignorant enough to state, in support of their forestry, that: "Species data that clearly show that almost half of our forests are planted with diverse conifers and broadleaves", as though this was to be some achievement of any ecological value.
The only support from social and environmental panels for Coillte comes from Crann who have received most of their funding from the Forest Service/Coillte cartel since 1998, which must lead to questions of their bona fides as to their NGO status. When one of their leading members from the comfort of his own newspaper column makes the statement “trees are a crop like any other” (Independent, 22nd March 2005) it is easy to see their enthusiasm for the hand that feeds. An Taisce (a statutory body directly funded by the state, which is not an NGO) tacitly supports Coillte to the detriment of the many communities who feel betrayed by the FSC process in Ireland.
It has to be admired that Coillte can make so much of doing so little for the Irish environment. For example, Coillte unashamedly congratulates itself for now planting annually up to 9% broadleaves, up from the previous level of 3%. This is actually the worst performance by far of any EU country, the next worst achiever, France, still managing to plant 51% broadleaves.
Coillte go on to mention their “commitment to local communities”. Does this commitment include Monivea, where Coillte attempted to sell off parts of a Beech woodland that was owned by the people of Monivea, for developments such as nursing homes, despite the fact that a petition showed that over 90% of the people of Monivea were opposed to such developments? Please refer to the following paragraph from A History of Irish Forestry, by Eoin Neeson:
‘In the early 1970’s the State forests were opened to the public on the basis that to the public they belonged; “conservation” and “environment” became important words. A plan to awaken public consciousness of forests in this context culminated in the European Conservation programme of 1970, conducted by the Forest and Wildlife Service. A natural development was to regularize the position in respect of the abundant forest-associated wildlife, resulting in the Wildlife Act of 1976.’
Indeed, this policy of massive plantations of exotic conifers, which we inherited from the UK, has been thoroughly discredited and abandoned in every western country except Ireland. A host of works have documented the destructive nature of these plantations including the authoritative Natural Woodlands: Conservation and Ecology in Northern Temperate Regions, by Doctor George Peterken of Cambridge University. Examples of this damage include
(a) the destruction of rare species and natural wild flora by the dark closely planted conifers,
(b) acidification of soils, rivers and lakes,
(c) disastrous flooding and soil erosion,
(d) impoverishment of natural habitat: Plantations, having little shrub, and little ground vegetation, are poor wildlife habitats.
The 1988 Forestry Act, in which Coillte were formed and all the lands under the Land Commission were given to them, was effectively the biggest scam that this country has seen. The entire population of Ireland was robbed by our government. The fact that the 1988 Forestry Act gives Coillte only an economic mandate goes against several international agreements that this state has signed up to, including the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the Helsinki Agreement on Forestry Biodiversity, the Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe at Strasbourg and Lisbon and the Kyoto protocol.
Most notably, Coillte’s economic mandate is counter the Rio Earth Summit 1992 (to which the state is signatory). From this a set of forest principles and agendas were established, which became known as Agenda 21, which in turn led to the development of the FSC Principles and Criteria. Thus we can see that Coillte’s very mandate is counter to the FSC Principle to which they are certified!
However, one point that I will concede on is Coillte’s reduction in the use of pesticides. I understand that Coillte have nearly halved their pesticide usage in recent years. However, the Native Woodland Trust demonstrated its ability to manage its forests without the use of any pesticides, thus demonstrating that there is no need for pesticide usage on forestry. Coillte should be commended, however, on the point of reduction of pesticides.
It is the aim of the Woodland League that the Heritage Council’s policy of 51% native diverse planting be implemented. To do this, however, schools of excellence need to be established such that people, families, foresters and contractors that are involved with conifer plantations can be trained to manage and work native forests, and to make a living from these forests. We also recognise the necessity for a certain level of commercial plantations, but the sustainable level needed is far below what even we propose (i.e. 49% plantations is more than enough to sustain Ireland’s needs).
The WLL are also told regularly by IFCI that FSC Certification does not constitute Forest Policy, and thus the two cannot be linked. This is a ridiculous statement. If FSC requires an increase in native plantings, a reduction in chemical fertilizer and pesticide usage, etc., then yes, Forest Policy changes to accommodate this. For someone to say that FSC cannot affect Forest Policy demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the very basis of FSC and Local Agenda 21.
On a separate note, it was mentioned by the editor in the Jan/Feb edition that it was “unethical” to say that deceased persons would support this petition. I can assure you that this was not meant to be the case. It was meant to convey that the Woodland League wish to continue the legacy of support for native woodlands that was instigated by both Dr. Ann Behan and Freda Rountree. We certainly could never know if either of these great women would have supported the petition as it stands.
To finish, we would like to reject Coillte’s implications that the WLL have agendas other than the promotion of native woodlands, and we find this claims both mischievous and disingenuous. We are somewhat annoyed that the editor of this magazine would support this by branding our petition as “propaganda”. The WLL is an incredibly open and transparent organisation, and we have kept Coillte, IFCI and IT&F informed of both our motives and our actions. We have certainly never “hidden” from the economic forestry sector, and we are actively looking for the involvement of commercial foresters, forestry contactors, engineers, building contractors retailers for their input into the proceedings of the Woodland League.
[Sources:
Coillte Social and Environmental Report 2003.
Trading in Credibility. Rainforest Foundation UK Report. Nov. 2002]
Regards
Ciarán Hughes
Secretary, The Woodland League
ciaran_hughes@yahoo.co.uk
www.woodlandleague.org
087-9652992
