Dear Philip, > If it is the best information I doubt. The economic intests are too > big for a > good selfcriticism. Maybe some people can send you inside information > on how > the deal was done here in the Netherlands of certified timber and > later the > certification had to be withdrawn and the stuff sold as certified.... > To be clear - I was not an eyewitness some others on the list are ... > > Yes, standardize the certification bodies is one of the aims to keep > their > power. There is a need of good certification, but all countries and > parties > have to contribute in an equal way. Thanks for pointing this out. I am sad to admit that we are one of the victims. The Malaysian Timber Council had recently sponsored a study & test case. SGS, an FSC approved certifier was appointed to conduct this study. We have agreed on the terms of the contract & terms of reference with SGS. For some reasons only known to SGS, no certificates were issued when the test-parcels arrived in the Netherlands. Instead SGS offered to issued a provisional certificate. We were taken aback by this apparent breach of contract. To date, SGS has not been able to fulfill the terms of the contract, nor, provide for a credible full report of the situation. From what I understand, there has been a lot of 'passing the buck' between the SGSs in Malaysia & Europe. As for Brazil, they stand a better chance in working on the ITTO standards without losing any money. Malaysia is an advocate for the ITTO standards. My personal opinion is: Forget about FSC & SGS! WWF can paint it all very rosy, but will not be responsible for any refunds. God bless. Nelson Wong MTC
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0