The British Standards Institution which operates under the name BSI was asked how it could certify the timber as sustainable given the lack of completed rehabilitation afterwards.
Loading
A BSI spokesman said it conducted a thorough assessment of both the timber salvage before mining and the effectiveness of subsequent rehabilitation in line with the standard’s requirements.
“The assessment undertaken at that time determined that forest conversion was not occurring as there is a mandated requirement for rehabilitation.”
BSI was asked how a requirement for rehabilitation rather than actual evidence of rehabilitation was sufficient evidence of sustainable forestry,but it did not answer.
Simon Dorries,chief executive of Responsible Wood that manages PEFC certification in Australia said BSI’s audit was not a simple check of legal obligations and involved a detailed verification of rehabilitation.
“Any implication that a certification decision was made simply on the existence of legislation is not factual and is completely misleading,” he said.
Dorries suggested BSI be asked for further clarification on their audit process.
The BSI spokesman said it was accredited to deliver independent assessments against the standard and followed a robust process in line with the standard.
The Forest Products Commission was asked if it stood by its claim that “certification provides consumers with assurance that their timber products originate from responsibly managed forests” but it did not answer the question.
An FPC spokesman said certification was determined by an independent body.
Loading
“Attaining the Responsible Wood certification means that the FPC can extract maximum value for the State as these timber products may otherwise be wasted,” he said.
An Alcoa spokeswoman said the BSI audit showed its rehabilitation efforts were consistent with the standard’s requirements.
She said when BSI conducted the audit it engaged with Alcoa and inspected sites with examples of the whole process from before mining,shaping the ground after mining,and areas five to 20 years into the rehabilitation process.
Wilderness Society campaigns director Amelia Young said the PEFC certification in Australia and internationally was a woefully inadequate basis to assess whether forest products were sustainable.
“As this example shows,a successful audit against a weak standard is a meaningless result,” she said.
“We are concerned that when an organisation like the British Standards Institute provides a green tick based on an assessment against deeply inadequate guidelines,
“It moves it from being an individual instance of greenwashing into a systemic case of green laundering.”
Dorries said the PEFC standard is based on science and designed to manage environmental,social and economic values in all forest types.
“I expect that certification of native forests conflicts with the purpose of the Wilderness Society to end native forest harvesting,” he said.
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories,analysis and insights.Sign up here.