Should never have engaged with the FSC in the first place. Engaging with these green fronts gives them an appearance of legitimacy.

From here in Tasmania watching the assault on Victorian forestry's a bit like watching a re-run on tv. Same script and we know how it ends.

Lessons for the future perhaps

A very well written piece on a wicked problem for Australia's native forest timber industry.

The basic points are that the FSC certification scheme is a product of the international environmental movement and was initially developed for tropical forests in developing countries; whereas the alternative PEFC scheme was developed by European forest owners and wood industries who didn't believe that FSC catered for their circumstances.

The PEFC evolved into an umbrella organisation that guided the development of national certification schemes, such as the former Australian Forestry Standard (now Responsible Wood) which specifically took account of the local conditions.

The article is correct that FSC has been applied differently in Australia compared to overseas countries. This reflects the totally uncompromising attitudes of our environmental movement which is ultimately the FSC's primary stakeholder. They have effectively mobilised FSC as a weapon to close our domestic native timber industry.

Their methodology is to incessantly push the line that FSC is the best certification system and the only one accepted by environmentalists, while trashing the Australian Forestry Standard as an industry standard that "certifies the uncertifiable." After claiming this moral high ground, then insist that the market craves FSC, convince Governments to force its industry to attain it, and then actively ensure that it can't get it by continuing anti-logging campaigns to show that stakeholders are not satisfied with forestry practices. This has not happened in other developed countries.

Not attaining the FSC is one thing, but every time the industry tries and fails is an opportunity for damning media coverage which implies that our forestry practices must be of Third World standard. In fact, our forestry practices are equal to world's best practice, but the average concerned citizen will probably never know it.

FSC has always been about making money for the Green movement. It is part of a range of this type of certification systems - all with the same objective.

Thanks David, for pointing out that FSC is not independent as it claims.
Surely the Responsible Wood certification program (formerly Aust Forestry Standard) must step up to try to convince the public that its is a perfectly acceptable program.
Of course that would not prevent activists taking VicForests to court, as we have seen recently.