The article states that the "other" certification system "feature weak environmental protections". This is incorrect - independent assessment, e.g. by the UK government procurement office, CPET, clearly show that the mentioned certification systems are comparable.

Furthermore, I would very much question that FSC is more democratic than PEFC (of which CSA and FSC are members and endorsed). The majority of FSC standards are so-called interim standards, which are set by certification bodies. They are developed with minimal stakeholder input, and in such cases you have certification bodies developing standards against which they then certify, which violates the basic principles of transparency and independence.

Must say though am disappointed with the lack of any hard questions to RAN in their interview. Certainly from all Ecological Internet has been putting out on the matter you could have asked:

1.) How much does FSC depend upon primary forest logging? Do you agree with estimate of 60% of their timber from primary forests? Why don't you know?

2.) How does logging 500 year old trees in 60 million year old forests protect them?

3.) Is there some threshold past which lost of terrestrial ecosystem is likely to hurt the biosphere?

It was full of pretty softball questions and I hope you do a follow-up.

Regards,
Dr. Glen Barry

yah, i guess mr butler could of asked about whether ran supports acts of terrorism and violence in the name of saving a few trees as you do mr barry.

Given that the FSC is revising its principles and criteria for the first time since its founding, it seems like the time to engage with the organization rather than disengage from it. If the principles and criteria that emerge after that process are as flawed as the current ones, then I think that's the time to talk about abandoning the certification scheme. We can't change the past.