Forest Stewardship Council

Articles Tagged with: Forest Stewardship Council

21 January, 2011

Reclaimed Timber

By Ian Hall

The row of dark brown circles on the timber in the photo above are where bolts used to hold together the structure of an industrial warehouse (below). Responsible specification of timber in building projects gives me a headache. Reclaimed timber seems to be one of the best options but it’s hardly a solution to the mass market. What’s more, it may cost more than freshly cut timber so why should architects specify it?

Most of the timber that we used in the recent renovation of the Main Lodge building at Borneo Rainforest Lodge came from this warehouse. When specifying timber architects should consider the source. The lodge may contribute to the conservation of it’s own patch of rainforest but it wouldn’t be helpful for the building to cause rainforest loss elsewhere.

The advantage of specifying reclaimed timber is primarily to reduce demand for virgin timber. Another advantage is that timber is effectively a carbon store until it is burned or composted. Finally, reclaimed timber is invariably well seasoned which means that it is more reliable to work with and has an attractive appearance. As in the accompanying photos, the appearance can also tell a story about its past life and this appeals to the sentimental amongst us.

The downside is that the vagaries of supply effectively rules reclaimed timber out of the mass construction market. Even in smaller projects the added cost may deter some clients. Virgin timber is cheap because we don’t often pay the full environmental cost of timber extraction. This might include habitat restoration after logging and measures to reduce soil loss during logging for example. Reclaimed timber by comparison can be expensive due to it’s scarcity together with the labour cost of reclamation, cleaning and sorting.

The most viable alternative for a quick solution is to specify timber certified as sustainable by an organisation such as the Forest Stewardship Council. This however comes with no guarantee that you won’t cause damage to a valuable natural resource. The best FSC can do for you is to promise that using FSC certified timber is better than doing nothing.

There are no easy answers. We should try to use reclaimed timber where possible, use alternatives such as bamboo and coconut palm where practical and if we really must use virgin timber, try to make the most informed decision about where it comes from.

%RELATEDPOSTS%

7 March, 2008

Environmentalism Schism

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%

4 November, 2007

Sustainable Forest Management

My story of the Wild Cuckoo Chase is a case study into how seemingly elusive is the concept of sustainable forest management. At the Sabah Society talk in May 2007 entitled ‘Forestry in Sabah’ the State Director of Forestry admitted to an ‘environmental disaster’ in Ulu Segama Malua Forest Reserve.

Now 6 months on, the logging in this area is drawing to a close and the Forestry Department and NGO’s are poised to begin an ambitious reforestation program. This is a tough call for the NGO’s to make because although rehabilitation is desperately needed, to do so excuses the logging company from their obligation to avoid doing the damage in the first place.

It sends the message that it’s OK to log unsustainably because someone else will pay to clear up the mess. The logging licensee (in this case Yayasan Sabah) is left to go on making unsustainable profits by extracting timber from other forest reserves.

In the area surrounding Imbak Canyon Conservation Area, Yayasan Sabah is about to start logging the Sungai Pinangah Forest Reserve, otherwise known as Forest Management Units (FMU) 15 and 16. Together these FMU’s total 190,000ha and include large tracts of High Conservation Value Forests (HCVF).

The extent of this gearing-up to logging is clearly illustrated by the rate at which the State Government has been approving Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for timber extraction. These approvals have risen from 16,000ha of forest in 2005 to 29,000ha in 2006 and 67,000ha so far in 2007. Source: Sabah State Government

The fact that logging contractors must get EIA approval may sound encouraging but in fact this is largely a formality, serving only to delay rather than mitigate environmental damage. If logging is to go ahead, then the only widely accepted standard for environmental damage limitation is Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification.

Full FSC certification is a rigorous process and may take several years to complete but it would ensure that wildlife corridors, HCVF, steep areas and riparian reserves area all identified and protected. It is encouraging therefore that Yayasan Sabah are apparently intending to gain FSC certification for FMU’s 15 and 16. Souce: Tropical Forest Trust

The big question then is; why have EIA’s already been granted to log over 112,400ha of this forest when the FSC certification process has not got beyond the ‘pre-assessment’ phase?

It will be interesting to find out whether Yayasan Sabah are serious about FSC certification and if not, what alternative method of environmental protection is being used. It would be inexcusable to see a repeat of the Ulu Segama Malua disaster in Sungai Pinangah Forest Reserve.

%RELATEDPOSTS%

1 October, 2007

Wild Cuckoo Chase Pt.III

Read Part I and II first

Department Admits Logging Disaster’. That was the headline in the Sabah Daily Express the morning after the Sabah Society talk. It seems that the question and answer session at the end of the talk was dominated by discussion of an environmental crisis which had been unfolding for some time in the Ulu Segama Forest Reserve. It is uncharacteristically frank for a politician to admit to a ‘disaster’ and to give him credit the gist of the message appeared to be; ‘it’s a fair cop Guv, please go easy on us and we’ll promise not to do it again’.

The Ulu Segama Forest Reserve is managed by Yayasan Sabah for commercial timber harvesting. It almost completely encircles the Danum Valley Conservation Area and includes much of the catchment of the Segama River. Unsustainable logging practices have been prevalent in this reserve since the 1960’s but had intensified as the deadline to phase out all logging by the end of 2007 approached. The hardest hit area is known as North Ulu Segama and comprises 12,000ha of virtually clear-cut forest. Environmental refugees, famously orang-utans, have been unable to escape their decimated habitat due to being hemmed in by Oil Palm plantations to the north and the Segama River to the south.

Notwithstanding the environmental tragedy, the public interest of this case is that the Ulu Segama region is subject to a Sustainable Forest Management License Agreement (SFMLA). In other words Yayasan Sabah are contractually bound to manage this forest sustainably. The admission of an ‘Environmental Disaster’ by Sabah Forestry Department suggests that the SFMLA had been broken. Technically Yayasan Sabah can be sued for mismanagement and although this is unlikely to happen, at least the public now have evidence that their forest reserves are not managed as sustainably as it is claimed.

The other ‘successful’ outcome of the Sabah Society talk was that my ‘press release’ style email was mistakenly read out as a question to the Director of Forestry. In this email I had focused on the fact that proposed logging coupes near Imbak did not respect either the Imbak buffer zone or the presence of the Research Station and proposed Studies Centre. The Director’s response was to deny all knowledge of research activities near Imbak Canyon and in doing so suggest that the Conservation Division were not being transparent.

This of course was the incident to which my client referred in our meeting. As awkward as it was I knew that I had to explain myself immediately. My confession was taken curiously and on leaving the meeting I had the feeling that a re-appraisal had occurred, both of me and of the situation. Now that the dust has settled it looks as though the Imbak Studies Centre site and adjacent research plots will be spared the chainsaw, although how this will affect the viability of the proposed Studies Centre remains to be seen.

15 September, 2007

Wild Cuckoo Chase Pt.II

Read Part I first

Imbak Tampoi Basecamp

A white Landcruiser bounces into the Imbak Tampoi Basecamp and three men jump out clutching rolls of paper and clip boards. I sense forestry officials and so try to lurk inconspicuously. ‘Is that a map of Imbak region?’ I enquire innocently, ‘can I have a look?’ I add before he has a chance to respond. Sure enough it is a map of the proposed logging coupe, an area of nearly 23,000ha in the Sungai Pinangah, Gunung Rara and Kuamut Forest Reserves.

Much of this region has already been logged but as this selective harvesting was done 20-30 years ago there is much valuable secondary forest remaining. The proposed coupe borders four Virgin Jungle Reserves and encompasses un-logged areas, the Imbak Canyon buffer zone, plus steep areas which shouldn’t be logged under the sustainable forest management license agreement.

Most of my attention however is focussed on the 5000ha around the Tampoi Basecamp highlighted to be the first to go, sometime before the end of the year 2007. A short way down the track workers are already conscientiously marking out the 30m riparian reserve along the Imbak River.

I communicate my findings to an NGO colleague in Kota Kinabalu and together we begin to disseminate information to hopefully sympathetic acquaintances. Our plan is that we might be able to persuade someone to raise the issue at a forthcoming presentation to the Sabah Society by Sam Mannan, Sabah’s Director of Forestry. We even prime Sam himself about our concerns plus I write a ‘press release’ style email to the Sabah Society to inform them on the situation.

Unfortunately I can not make it to the talk as I am still in Imbak looking at birds. It is depressing to be surveying an area where our data may just record what used to exist. In this context I’m not sure whether it is better to find more species or less. Of course it’s better to find more but the whole thing feels rather hopeless. We record over 150 species, nearly 50 of which are Near Threatened or faced with a High Risk of Extinction as categorised by the IUCN Redlist.

A week later I am sitting in the office of my client; the Conservation Division of Yayasan Sabah. We are discussing my design of a new research laboratory at Danum Valley Field Centre but at the end of the meeting I can’t help enquiring for a progress report on the logging at Imbak Basecamp. Apparently the conservation division have lodged an appeal to save the 5000ha but are not hopeful. Once the logging contracts have been awarded it is very difficult to go back.

I ask whether the public and conservationists can help by campaigning for a reprieve. ‘No! That is absolutely what you should not do’ I am told emphatically, before he continued, ‘because apparently someone wrote an email that was read out at the Sabah Society talk and thanks to Sam’s [Mannan: Director of Forestry] response we are now having to answer to the Tan Sri about some things which have appeared in the papers about our Conservation Division’. My stomach lurched. He did not know who had written the email but I had a horrible feeling that I knew who the author was. I didn’t know what had happened at the talk, but it seemed that I had inadvertently landed my patron in the shit.

Pete on the Kangkawat River border of Imbak Canyon Conservation Area. The left hand side will be logged, the right hand side is conservation area.