North America's largest paper and forest products company is not only facing a financial crisis, they are finding themselves on the wrong side of the forest management practices debate. AbitibiBowater Inc. the newly formed company resulting form the merger of Abitibi-Consolidated and Bowater Incorporated has found itself the target of a Greenpeace campaign set on forcing it to adopt the Forest Stewardship Council's forest management practices. According to an article on Global and Mail's Reportonbussiness.com:
Greenpeace has also been pressuring AbitibiBowater Inc. customers to force the company to adhere to the forest management practices set by the Forest Stewardship Council - rather than the Canadian Standards Association norms it now meets.
The customers are listening - and capitulating. Transcontinental Inc., the second-largest Canadian-based commercial printer, just adopted a new purchasing policy under which it will give preference to FSC-certified paper. You can't blame it. "FSC certification has won the image battle," Transcontinental vice-president Jean Denault told Les Affaires, a Montreal business weekly published by the same company.
Still, in the global context - and there really is no other one now - Canada's forest management practices rank near or at the top. Whether certified by FSC or CSA, there is little substantive difference. Admittedly, that wasn't always the case, but it is now.
Last year the UK Government cited CSA as source of legal and sustainable timber. According to the Canadian Standards Association Website, "as of December 2006, about 60% or 73.4 million hectares* out of 123 .7* hectares of certified Canadian forests had been certified under the CAN/CSA-Z809 SFM Standard."
A report conducted by Montreal-based management consultants ÉEM Inc. and released last month by Markets Initiative found the "FSC to be the most effective certification system for achieving sustainable forest management in Canada. Unlike the other certification systems, namely CSA, SFI and PEFC, FSC is the only one that prohibits the use of genetically modified trees, prevents the conversion of natural forest to plantations and requires a precautionary approach to the management of areas with high conservation value."
Discussion
By Paul West on Nov 16, 2007
If there is "little substantive difference" between FSC and CSA, then it would seem that it would not be a big deal for AbitibiBowater Inc. to meet the FSC standards.
By Mark Budd on Nov 16, 2007
There is a huge difference between FSC and CSA. CSA (or even SFI for that matter) would never have given a certification to Asia Pulp and Paper.
By Gregor Bingham on Nov 28, 2007
There is little substantive difference between FSC and PEFC/SFI/CSA. The approach of all of them is the same - the triple bottom line. Sustainable profit, people and planet. The list of their unique principles are easy to see on their websites. SFI follows PEFC guidelines. No longer a Dept. of US Pulp and Paper Industry. SFI is ONLY North America. CSA is aligned directly to PEFC guidelines. CSA is obviously only Canada. There is obviously either more to the story, or Greenpeace are picking on the wrong people. Joint certification has been a problem for a while, both FSC and PEFC did not want to share. This has been opened up recently. There is cost involved and one would assume the more trees, the more the cost. I think its a VHS / Beta war again, but for a good cause I hope.