Plantations, poverty and power - Critical Information Collective

126
involved with FSC was that he “had grown disillusioned . . . about plantations, where the trend towards
monocultures and chemical-dependence continued unabated”. 629 Synnott writes that “FSC and
certification seemed to be what was needed for a major shake-up.”
Synnott notes the “rapid spread of industrial tree plantations, often at the expense of natural forests and
other natural habitats.” 630 He notes that people living near plantations “objected to the march of alienlooking
plantations, but they were easily brushed aside as being against the march of progress and the
national interest.” 631
Today, FSC has certified a large area of monoculture, chemical-dependent industrial tree plantations. The
exact area is impossible to determine, however, because FSC does not provide information about the area
of industrial tree plantations that it has certified. It classifies its certified areas as “Natural” (55.25%),
“Semi-Natural and Mixed Plantation and Natural Forest” (36.41%) and Plantations (8.33%). 632
At FSC’s Founding Assembly, in October 1993, FSC had two sets of Principles and Criteria. One set
applied to forests and one to plantations.633 Both sets had nine principles. The plantations set was
dropped, and reintroduced as Principle 10 in 1996.
FSC’s Principle 10 states that “Plantations shall be planned and managed in accordance with Principles
and Criteria 1 - 9, and Principle 10 and its Criteria.” In other words, the plantation itself must be
managed to comply to all of FSC’s Principles and Criteria. There is nothing in the Principles and Criteria
which would allow certifying bodies to issue certificates to companies that attempt to “offset” an area of
monoculture plantations with an area of protected forest. 634
Several of FSC’s Principles and Criteria should rule out the certification of industrial tree plantations. 635
629 Timothy Synnott (2005) “Some notes on the early years of FSC”, 19 November 2005, page 3.
http://www.fsc.org/fileadmin/webdata/public/document_center/publications/Notes_on_the_early_years_of_FSC_by_Tim_Synnott.pdf
630 Timothy Synnott (2005) “Some notes on the early years of FSC”, 19 November 2005, page 4.
http://www.fsc.org/fileadmin/webdata/public/document_center/publications/Notes_on_the_early_years_of_FSC_by_Tim_Synnott.pdf
631 Timothy Synnott (2005) “Some notes on the early years of FSC”, 19 November 2005, page 5.
http://www.fsc.org/fileadmin/webdata/public/document_center/publications/Notes_on_the_early_years_of_FSC_by_Tim_Synnott.pdf
632 FSC (2008) “Global FSC certificates: type and distribution”, FSC Presentation, 17 April 2008.
http://www.fsc.org/fileadmin/web-data/public/document_center/powerpoints_graphs/facts_figures/08-04-
01_Global_FSC_certificates_-_type_and_distribution_-_FINAL.pdf
633 Timothy Synnott (2005) “Some notes on the early years of FSC”, 19 November 2005, page 19.
http://www.fsc.org/fileadmin/webdata/public/document_center/publications/Notes_on_the_early_years_of_FSC_by_Tim_Synnott.pdf
634 This point was raised with FSC in 2002, by IMO, one of FSC’s certifying bodies. Six years later it remains true,
although this may be about to change, as a result of FSC’s Plantations Review, which started in 2004.
Wolfram Kotzurek, Karl Büchel and Thomas Papp-Váry (2002) “Requirements for certified plantations. Interpretation of
FSC – P&C”, Institut für Marktölogy forestry division.
635 This critique is based in part on the following:
“Comments on the FSC’s Principle on Plantations”, World Rainforest Movement Bulletin, Special Issue on FSC
certification of plantations, February 2001. http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/FSC.html#10
“Certifying the Uncertifiable: FSC Certification of Tree Plantations in Thailand and Brazil”, World Rainforest Movement,
August 2003. http://www.wrm.org.uy/actors/FSC/uncertifiable.html