Article published by Mike Gaworecki Popular in the CommunitySponsoredSponsoredOrangutan found tortured and decapitated prompts Indonesia probeEMGIES17 Jan, 2018We will never know the full extent of what this poor Orangutan went through before he died, the same must be done to this evil perpetrator(s) they don’t deserve the air that they breathe this has truly upset me and I wonder for the future for these wonderful creatures. So called ‘Mankind’ has a lot to answer for we are the only ones ruining this world I prefer animals to humans any day of the week.What makes community ecotourism succeed? In Madagascar, location, location, locationScissors1dOther countries should also learn and try to incorporateWhy you should care about the current wave of mass extinctions (commentary)Processor1 DecAfter all, there is no infinite anything in the whole galaxy!Infinite stupidity, right here on earth.The wildlife trade threatens people and animals alike (commentary)Anchor3dUnfortunately I feel The Chinese have no compassion for any living animal. They are a cruel country that as we knowneatbeverything that moves and do not humanily kill these poor animals and insects. They have no health and safety on their markets and they then contract these diseases. Maybe its karma maybe they should look at the way they live and stop using animals for all there so called remedies. DisgustingConservationists welcome China’s wildlife trade banThobolo27 JanChina has consistently been the worlds worst, “ Face of Evil “ in regards our planets flora and fauna survival. In some ways, this is nature trying to fight back. This ban is great, but the rest of the world just cannot allow it to be temporary, because history has demonstrated that once this coronavirus passes, they will in all likelihood, simply revert to been the planets worst Ecco Terrorists. Let’s simply not allow this to happen! How and why they have been able to degrade this planets iconic species, rape the planets rivers, oceans and forests, with apparent impunity, is just mind boggling! Please no more.Probing rural poachers in Africa: Why do they poach?Carrot3dOne day I feel like animals will be more scarce, and I agree with one of my friends, they said that poaching will take over the world, but I also hope notUpset about Amazon fires last year? Focus on deforestation this year (commentary)Bullhorn4dLies and more leisSponsoredSponsoredCoke is again the biggest culprit behind plastic waste in the PhilippinesGrapes7 NovOnce again the article blames companies for the actions of individuals. It is individuals that buy these products, it is individuals that dispose of them improperly. If we want to change it, we have to change, not just create bad guys to blame.Brazilian response to Bolsonaro policies and Amazon fires growsCar4 SepThank you for this excellent report. I feel overwhelmed by the ecocidal intent of the Bolsonaro government in the name of ‘developing’ their ‘God-given’ resources.U.S. allocates first of $30M in grants for forest conservation in SumatraPlanet4dcarrot hella thick ;)Melting Arctic sea ice may be altering winds, weather at equator: studyleftylarry30 JanThe Arctic sea ice seems to be recovering this winter as per the last 10-12 years, good news.Malaysia has the world’s highest deforestation rate, reveals Google forest mapBone27 Sep, 2018Who you’re trying to fool with selective data revelation?You can’t hide the truth if you show historical deforestation for all countries, especially in Europe from 1800s to this day. WorldBank has a good wholesome data on this.Mass tree planting along India’s Cauvery River has scientists worriedSurendra Nekkanti23 JanHi Mongabay. Good effort trying to be objective in this article. I would like to give a constructive feedback which could help in clearing things up.1. It is mentioned that planting trees in village common lands will have negative affects socially and ecologically. There is no need to even have to agree or disagree with it, because, you also mentioned the fact that Cauvery Calling aims to plant trees only in the private lands of the farmers. So, plantation in the common lands doesn’t come into the picture.2.I don’t see that the ecologists are totally against this project, but just they they have some concerns, mainly in terms of what species of trees will be planted. And because there was no direct communication between the ecologists and Isha Foundation, it was not possible for them to address the concerns. As you seem to have spoken with an Isha spokesperson, if you could connect the concerned parties, it would be great, because I see that the ecologists are genuinely interested in making sure things are done the right way.May we all come together and make things happen.Rare Amazon bush dogs caught on camera in BoliviaCarrot1 Feba very good iniciative to be fallowed by the ranchers all overSponsored Certification, Commentary, Conservation, Deforestation, Editorials, Environment, Environmental Policy, Forest Stewardship Council, Forestry, Forests, Researcher Perspective Series Reflecting on the General Assembly in Vancouver, held earlier this month, has me questioning whether FSC is going to stay fit for purpose for this century, or whether it is going to be held back by misguided economic self-interest.The idea is that members of the three FSC chambers – social, environmental, and economic – come together to shape the future of the certification system by discussing and voting on motions that fundamentally affect the way FSC is run. But is that really still the case?For the first time in the eight FSC general assemblies I’ve attended over the past 20+ years, I wondered whether this is a network with a shared vision that is innovative, adaptive, and progressive.This post is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the author, not necessarily Mongabay. Held every three years, the General Assembly (GA) is supposed to be the top Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) platform for decision-making. The idea is that members of the three FSC chambers — social, environmental, and economic — come together to shape the future of the certification system by discussing and voting on motions that fundamentally affect the way FSC is run. But is that really still the case?Reflecting on the recent General Assembly in Vancouver, held earlier this month, has me questioning whether FSC is going to stay fit for purpose for this century, or whether it is going to be held back by misguided economic self-interest.Thankfully, there were some positives, where the FSC family did what it does best at General Assemblies — listened to each other and, with cross-chamber collaboration, negotiated motions that have broad support (you can read about all motions that passed here). For example, the smallholder/community ‘super motion,’ which combined a whole set of motions, had unanimous support and will provide further impetus for continued progress toward addressing this uncomfortable weakness in the FSC system. A negotiated neutral motion on ‘controlled wood’ (wood mixed into FSC products but not fully certified) passed, urging implementation of the current standard that requires, in particular, Free, Prior, & Informed Consent of indigenous peoples and protection of High Conservation Value landscapes. Motion 7 on continuing to address what restoration and restitution a company that has breached the 1994 conversion cut-off rule would have to do to get certified stumbled but then was passed. There was good support for a review of certification assessment integrity — long overdue. And the general assembly did not go backwards on its previous support for protecting Intact Forest Landscapes (IFL) under Motion 65, which was agreed during the GA in 2014. There was also good collaboration on a few motions to help with Motion 65 implementation, even if only one passed.However, for the first time in the eight GAs I’ve attended over the past 20+ years, I wondered whether this is a network with a shared vision that is innovative, adaptive, and progressive. Following the disastrous 1996 GA, we figured out how to do cross-chamber negotiations to get broad support of motions on key issues at the next assembly in 1999 – this was a eureka moment for the FSC. But at the Vancouver GA, the development of block voting by the economic chamber to kill motions — the flourish of red (no) cards now known as the ‘red sea’ — was extremely concerning, particularly as high priority issues for the social and environment chambers were voted against without explanation, justification, or prior engagement in the cross-chamber motion preparation process. For me this is a turning point. This is not how we do things at GAs.The author speaks at the FSC General Assembly in Vancouver earlier this month. Photo courtesy of Grant Rosoman.Tactical opposition for anti-competitive reasons also reared its ugly head this GA around the forest conversion/restoration issue. Pulp & paper companies that are already FSC certified want to prevent their competitors from receiving the stamp of approval that FSC certification represents. This behavior by many in the economic chamber runs totally against the collaboration and spirit of an FSC GA, reinforced by the social chamber at one point doing a ‘yellow card’ (point of order) protest against it.What do we make of an economic chamber that does not support basic transparency of maps of FSC certified areas, including companies such as International Paper, when this is the global norm? Consumers have the right to know where the products they buy are coming from. The RSPO, generally viewed as weaker than the FSC, already has this as a requirement. There was also strong economic opposition to perfectly reasonable motions on good animal welfare and the development of the Indigenous Cultural Landscapes concept. A motion supporting social requirements in the Chain of Custody standard — a hot issue facing commodity supply chains — was voted down. But probably the most disappointing development was the rejection by the economic chamber of a motion on FSC developing a strategy on restoration — such an obvious development that FSC is actually already doing it. Forest restoration is essential if we are to de-carbonize the atmosphere and survive on planet Earth.All I can read from this is a vote for no change, for FSC to not progress or innovate, and for FSC’s requirements and standards to not be added to or strengthened — as much as anything to keep costs down rather than have progressive social and environmental standards. But with already waning environment chamber support for FSC, and many in the social chamber asking questions, will the trends in this GA push more stakeholders away from continuing to engage and support FSC? I think so, and with the retrograde moves of the Vancouver GA I fear FSC will continue to lose relevance and influence.I hope I’m wrong, and the economic sector can reflect on the delicate balance of interests in FSC where no one chamber should dominate, and also on whether they want FSC as a brand that is values-driven and continues to keep pace with society’s expectations around people and planet, as well as profit.The opening plenary of the FSC General Assembly in Vancouver earlier this month. Photo courtesy of Grant Rosoman.Grant Rosoman is a Global Forests Solutions Senior Advisor for Greenpeace International.