Sometimes it feels like the Forest Stewardship Council’s (FSC) “tick-and-tree” logo is everywhere, but does it really guarantee that “simply by choosing products with FSC labels, you are helping to take care of the world’s forests”, as the Council itself claims? Obviously not, as three decades of well-reported failures and scandals prove, and recent allegations of “billion-dollar fraud at its heart” suggest.
Certainly, my own experience with FSC - mainly relating to just one logging concession in south-east Peru, run by a company called Maderera Canales Tahuamanu (MCT) - makes it clear that just because timber is certified doesn’t mean it hasn’t involved invading indigenous people’s territories, knocking down the forest they depend on to survive, scaring away game and other wildlife, developing infrastructure, and putting the indigenous people themselves - as well as the company’s own workers - at immense risk. Although the FSC finally terminated MCT in September, the company had been certified for an astonishing 14 years.
In response to these events in Peru, a former FSC Board member and Ecuadorian lawyer, Carla Cárdenas, proposed a motion at the Council’s recent General Assembly in Panama explicitly intended to “not allow certification of operations in areas where Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation live.” But that motion - which involved amending one of the FSC’s operating Principles and Criteria - didn’t carry. Here, from Washington DC, Cárdenas tells me what happened:
DH: Why did you decide to propose this motion?
CC: First, because it’s the right of every FSC member to propose a motion and look to change the system. Second, because when we realised the problems in Peru with the Mashco-Piro [the indigenous people in “isolation” most threatened by MCT’s operations] we asked the FSC’s Board of Directors and Secretariat what provisions there are in the FSC’s system to protect indigenous people in voluntary isolation, but there was no response. We suspected that was because there is no provision, no policy, nothing in the FSC’s Principles and Criteria about protecting those kinds of people.
DH: So what did you do?
CC: When there was silence from the Board we started to investigate and saw that the FSC’s Principle 3.1 says that every company in the FSC system should obtain the consent of indigenous people, but it’s impossible to consult with people in voluntary isolation, so what we discovered is that FSC companies can operate in the same territories as people in voluntary isolation, without consulting them. Then we discovered that FSC had commissioned research by Assurance Services International (ASI) and one of their conclusions was that no logging operations should be conducted in the areas where the Mashco Piro live, and then the FSC drafted - after about 10 months, maybe a year - an “Advice Note” saying certified companies in Peru must avoid contact. But that “Advice Note” was for Peru only and not for other countries. And so far just one company - MCT - had been suspended.
DH: Your motion would have applied globally, right?
CC: In the case of our motion, it would have created an immediate, obligatory mandate for all the companies in Peru and around the world. Another thing we realised was that the FSC’s Principles and Criteria don’t include the precautionary principle and the obligation on companies to respect indigenous people’s rights to be isolated and use their land and resources.
DH: What are the potential impacts of logging companies operating in the territories of people in “isolation”?
CC: There could be violent clashes between them and the wood workers, and as trees and wildlife disappear so do the plants, animals and water sources vital to their subsistence. They have no immunological defences against common illnesses like flu or measles, [so] any form of contact - direct or indirect, via contaminated tools, food or camps - can trigger deadly epidemics. Seeing outsiders, machinery, or forest destruction can cause terror - many groups flee deeper into the forest or enter into conflict with other indigenous groups.
DH: You mentioned it was Peru and the Mashco-Piro that first drew your attention to this. Can you explain how that happened?
CC: It was last year. We saw in the media that the FSC was certifying Maderera Canales Tahuamanu. It was like “Omigod! . . . what is happening? How can a green certification do this? How can a certifying scheme that includes human rights not protect indigenous people in isolation and initial contact?”
DH: Why do you think your motion didn’t carry? Who were the people speaking against it and what sort of things did they say?
CC: Some Peruvian organisations expressed their concern. They said the FSC-certified concessions protect those areas from narcos and mining, and that they were afraid that the concessions would leave [if they were no longer certified]. Also, they said some people invent the existence of the indigenous people in isolation to obtain lands, which I think is part of a campaign created by the companies in Peru to sow doubts in people’s minds. They’re running a campaign now, trying to make people believe that.
DH: Were you yourself there listening to those people making those arguments?
CC: They - Peruvians - said that in public in front of more than 600 people in the General Assembly. Where everyone’s in a big room and you can take the mike and talk about a motion.
DH: Who were those people exactly? What were their names, or what companies or organisations were they from?
CC: I’d prefer not to name them, because they’d hate me.
DH: Companies?
CC: They didn’t say too much in the Assembly. They just voted in silence, in the Economic Chamber, where everybody voted against.
DH: If your motion had been approved, what would have happened? What would that have meant for FSC’s protocols and the way FSC-certified companies operate?
CC: First, there would have been immediate action. Like, from today, there could be no possibility of certifying areas inhabited by indigenous people in voluntary isolation. Second, it would be global - not only in Peru, but around the world. And third - and most importantly - that every concession owner would have to stop working in any part of their concession where there is evidence of people in isolation and instead declare a conservation area anywhere that is used by people in isolation to obtain food, walk or anything else. The idea was that inside the concessions companies must respect the right of the people in isolation to remain isolated, and they must apply the precautionary principle. That’s why the companies don’t like it - because it could mean that in one concession alone they lose half of it, or even more.
DH: So there was a lot at stake.
CC: Yes.
DH: And how did you feel when you heard your motion hadn’t passed?
CC: Disappointed. I used to believe in the FSC system - that if you wanted to buy a product that says “FSC” on it then you’re also buying the respect of peoples’s rights and respect for nature. But right now I have my doubts, because a person in Europe can buy a wood product that is coming from the same area as people living in voluntary isolation.
DH: What’s next for you now? Are you going to keep fighting for this in some way?
CC: I’m going to submit a formal claim to the UN Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert Barume, and I’ll keep pressuring FSC International’s Board to look for a solution.
DH: Carla, thank you and good luck.