Ecological Internet

As a sometime environmentalist I often find myself joining email campaigns of the ‘save the whales’ variety, targeting careless corporations and evil industrialists. The Ecological Internet ‘Forest Liars’ campaign that I signed this morning was different though. It included in its many targets; household eco-warrior names such as WWF, Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network and Friends of the Earth.

Although I moderated the tone of the pre-composed text, I still felt slightly uncomfortable hitting the ‘send’ button. This is not the first email alert of this kind that I have received from Ecological Internet, but it is the first one that I have acted upon. In pondering my motivation for this mutinous act, it will help to look at the background of a couple of key issues.

Many of you will know about Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification; it is a mechanism designed to reduce the environmental impact of an extractive industry, in this case logging. It works by creating a brand by which consumers can recognise timber products which originated from sustainably managed forests. The key to its success is independent auditing and enforcement of approved forest management procedures and chain of custody of the subsequent product.

FSC certification can apply to plantations, logged forest and primary forest. The justification for applying FSC certification to primary forest is that it’s better than the business as usual of conventional logging

The gist of Ecological Internet’s campaign is that the Earth’s climate is in such dire straights that we cannot afford to loose the carbon sequestering service of any more primary / old growth forest, and yet the above mentioned household names are all condoning and even encouraging FSC certified logging of primary forests.

I am sympathetic to this cause because the claimed environmental benefits of FSC seem to be in danger of exceeding their true value. The environmental best practice benchmark has been moved from conservation to ‘sustainable’ logging. There is even a suggestion that FSC certified logging of primary forest should be eligible for carbon credits. I do not need scientific research to prove to me that extracting the large valuable trees from primary forest will result in a net increase in carbon emissions – the opposite of a carbon credit.

The Schism is equally evident in the debate on biofuels. Biofuel consumption is increasing, predicated on the belief that it can help reduce our carbon emissions by replacing traditional fossil fuels. In this case there is scientific evidence which proves that biofuel can actually result in greater carbon emissions than fossil fuels. This occurs when the biofuel feedstock is grown on land which was previously rainforest. The rub being that rainforest and the soil or peat that it grew from stored more carbon than subsequent oil palms, soy beans etc.

Thus, on the one hand, organisations like Biofuelwatch are arguing that many of the claimed environmental benefits of biofuel are unfounded and we should not rush to embrace them. On the other hand WWF maintains that the use of biofuels should be increased and the sustainability claims made more accountable by the use of assessment and enforcement mechanisms similar to FSC. In this case known as the Round Table for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)

Given that palm oil plantations are a fact (and a very economically compelling fact) it makes perfect sense to me to try to influence the behaviour of the industry by working with it rather than against it. FSC started from a similar understanding; that if logging is going to happen anyway, why not try to create an incentive to do it more sustainably. The incentive being that FSC certified timber can access more markets and possibly at premium price.

The demand for FSC and RSPO certified products is generated in part by campaigning organisations and I am encouraged that these campaigns seem to be influencing behaviour for the better. Of course there will be those who say that too little is being done too late but the risk that environmentalists face, is if they are too self-righteous and aggressive in their campaigns then the target industry will close their ears and minds and we will achieve nothing.

When I consulted a close friend on my conundrum she said that the best we can do is to encourage engagement between all parties. She used the metaphor that a lack of engagement between environmentalists and industrialists in certain parts of Sabah had resulted not only in fragmented points of view, but in a fragmented landscape.

If I dig deep into my motivation for hitting that send button, I come upon a dialogue to which I was privy between Biofuelwatch and WWF. Biofuelwatch had attempted to engage with WWF on the subject of WWF policy on bio-fuels. The tone of the Biofuelwatch correspondence was well reasoned and not confrontational or sensational, as is often the case with Ecological Internet. The response from WWF was I thought, rather haughty and refused to acknowledge that there was an issue which needed to be addressed at that time. End of dialogue. I still do not know whether they are addressing it. Clearly, Ecological Internet believes that they are not addressing the FSC issue either.

The root of the schism appear to be that, while certification can help to reduce the environmental impact of some sectors of the industry, it does little to restrain the continued logging of primary forest or the expansion of biofuel feedstock cultivation. So, we have moderate environmentalists taking a cooperative tone while more radical activists are pointing out that this diverts attention from the continuing destruction taking place on the front line.

Although I am not always aligned with the style of presentation of Ecological Internet’s arguments, their email campaigns appear to be effective. They also seem to be able to identify campaign targets which are unpalatable to many and yet essential if environmentalism is to continue provoke debate and change on the most relevant issues.

I worry that the Grand Daddies of environmentalism might be focusing too closely on their damage limitation campaigns – such as reducing the impact of logging – that they are loosing sight of the fundamental principles upon which their organisations were founded – such as the prevention of logging.

I am troubled by the fact that environmentalists are turning against each other to point this out and also feel slightly guilty that I have joined in this attack. I present this article in the hope that it can explain if not excuse my actions and perhaps even help to facilitate engagement. I’d prefer our campaigns and environment intact, not fragmented.

%RELATEDPOSTS%