FSC Misleads Canadians, Smears Paper Packaging BY JOHN MULLINDER An open letter to Francois Dufresne, President and CEO of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Canada: Dear Mr. Dufresne: I recognize that FSC is in a three-way fight for market share in the forest and paper certification business, and that part of that fight is your recent launch of a new video plug for FSC aimed at the users of paper packaging. Actually, as a commercial it’s not bad. Congratula- tions. Except for the big lie, or maybe I should say the totally misleading perception that the video leaves about paper packaging and deforestation. Because your slick commercial perpetuates a forestry myth, broadly smear- ing the Canadian packaging industry in the process. The video begins well though. Some “70 percent of consumers want the packaging of the products they buy to be sourced responsibly.” Couldn’t agree more. Wish it was higher. The good news is that every mill member of PPEC already has proof of responsible sourcing: in- dependent third-party chain-of-custody certification as to where its fibre comes from, whether recycled or virgin. But then comes the smear. “Paper, board and bioplas- tics can be a result of deforestation or poor forestry prac-
tices.” Can be? What does that mean? Could be? Or may- be, might not be? Which is it? And where’s the evidence, the examples, for this link you make between packaging and deforestation? Unfortunately, your video doesn’t pro- vide any. Just smears everyone. Like saying all the Duch- esnes in the world could be, could be, child abusers. I am sure they are not, but you get the point. When you posted your commercial on Linked-In, I challenged you to provide specific examples of situations where trees used for packaging were harvested from forests that were not later regrown. Because that’s the law in Canada, as you know, Mr. Dufresne. Any provincial (crown) forest land that’s harvested must be successful- ly regenerated afterwards, either naturally or artificially (through tree planting or direct seeding). A week went by with no answer, and then you posted the clip again. This time I pointed out (as if you didn’t already know) that the United Nations does not consider deforestation to have occurred when a forest is returned to forest. That is, when it remains as forest and is not con- verted to non-forest uses such as agriculture, oil and gas projects, hydro-electric development, residential subdivi- sions, and so on. But you already know this. You acknowledged this when you responded to my second Linked-In comment, and it’s posted on your website: “Deforestation, clear- ance or clearing is the removal of a forest or stand of CONTINUED ON PAGE 30
. . . IS NOW ONLINE! Please visit: www.boardconvertingnews.com
28
www.boardconvertingnews.com
April 20, 2020
Made with FlippingBook Publishing Software