Year m3 per 1/2 ha m3/ha
8 15.20 30.40
12 42.75 85.50
16 101.34 202.68
20 237.50 475.00
TOTALS 396.79 793.58
Treemail understands that this yield forecast is after
retainment of 5% for Flor y Fauna.
The total yield expectation is therefore 835.35 m3/ha for
Teakwood VI (MAI=41.77 m3/ha).
Example 2 and 3
Year m3 per 1/2 ha m3/ha
8 18.39 36.78
12 51.73 103.46
16 122.62 245.24
20 287.38 574.76
TOTALS 480.12 960.24
Treemail understands that this yield forecast is after
retainment of 5% for Flor y Fauna.
The total yield expectation is therefore 1,010.78 m3/ha for
Teakwood VI (MAI=50.54 m3/ha).
In addition, Prof. J.C. Centeno received a copy of a fax
message of April 15, 1996, from van Rossum van Veen (advisors
to Flor y Fauna in The Netherlands) to WWF-USA. The figures in
this fax provide identical growth predictions as the official
brochure for Teakwood VI of March 1993. Year 8 assumptions for
yield are 3.80 m3 for 1/8th of a ha, which equals an
expectation of 30.40 m3/ha annually for example 1 and 2;
example 3 has these respective figures at 4.60 and 36.80.
CHAPTER 3
----------
Court Case
----------
Before the Court of Leeuwarden, in session on December 7,
1993, OHRA and Flor y Fauna's legal representatives presented
memoranda of pleading. In these documents, to the best of
Treemail's knowledge, OHRA and Flor y Fauna have provided the
most elaborate source of publicly available materials on their
justification of growth and yield projections for the Flor y
Fauna plantations. In this chapter excerpts from the court
memorandum are presented.
Flor y Fauna builds the presentation upon the findings of a
bailiff who has measured a few trees. Measurements provide
hard data, it is argued. From the bailiff's data, several
forecasts are presented in yield tables. Flor y Fauna's lawyer
argues at length to show the court that Flor y Fauna considers
the following tables to reflect very prudent representations
of reality. The Flor y Fauna lawyer F.H.J. van Schoonhoven
pleads as follows (excerpts):
"Theories can be good, stories can sound convincing, but is
numbers that speak the purest language. Upon Huizinga and
OHRA's request, bailiff Groot left for Costa Rica on November
22, 1993, with the assignment to visit a number of plantations
and to draw up a report. Bailiff Groot was accompanied on this
occasion by one of the few tropical foresters from The
Netherlands, Mr. A.J.M. Wouters (Ministry of Agriculture,
Nature and Fisheries, department of Tropical Forestry), Mr. W.
Kriek (International Coordinator of the Forestry Action Plan)
and Mr. H. Voortman (WWF-NL)."
"The measurements were taken from both thinner and thicker
trees, to which bailiff Groot observes that the thicker trees
were in the majority. With this, bailiff Groot wishes to make
it clear that it is not entirely correct to take the mean of
all of his measurements, but that in order to determine a more
accurate mean this value should be increased."
"The figures and measurements of bailiff Groot are of no value
without a correct interpretation. It is important here, to
arrive at drawing up a basic scheme of expected timber yields
for the nearby and further future. As point of departure the
measurements of the bailiff should be taken, from which point
prudent calculous follows. The following points of departure
are thus formulated on these data, on which the basic scheme
is calculated. Already at this point it should be noted that
these points of departure are explicitly supported by Mr.
Wouters, who gave evidence in a written statement to this
effect (EXHIBIT 5)."
"After four years, the average Huizinga [Flor y Fauna's
Director; author's note] teak tree in Teakwood I has reached a
diameter of over twelve centimeters (calculated by division of
the diameters as measured by the bailiff by the number of
trees measured). The young teak trees (Teakwood III and IV)
are (comparatively) somewhat thicker. For the calculation of
the basic scheme this is left out. When corrected for the
thickness of the bark the net thickness after three years is
put at 10.5 centimeters. Actually, this figure is too low as
point of departure now that the better trees (i.e. the ones
with the larger diameters) surpass the lesser ones (i.e. the
ones with the smaller diameters). (See the official report
near the bottom of the penultimate page: "...to which I can
further remark, that the thicker trees were predominantly
present"). The purer mean thickness will thus be more than the
mean of the trees that were measured by bailiff Groot. For the
purpose of drawing up the basic scheme this fact will be left
out. On top of that, the thinnest trees will be removed at
time of the first cut and especially the thicker trees will be
left standing. Comparatively, this will result in an extra
mean diameter increment, at every cut. This effect will also
be left out of the equation."
"The mean height of all the measurements taken by bailiff
Groot in Teakwood I, II and IV is 14.3 meters. For the basic
scheme we will lower this to twelve meters."
"The current growth will continue (three centimeters per year
for the coming four years is a minimum that can be expected).
A mean diameter increment of 1.7 cm per year is absolutely
too low. This low mean would deny all the added value of
future maintenance, fertilization and management. For the
basic scheme we will "forget" this added effect and keep the
increment at 1.7 centimeter per year."
"The height increment will be curtailed in favor of the
diameter increment as a result of a change in the nourishment
and fertilization (less P, more K). Even so, the trees will
continue to grow at a gross rate of 2-2.5 m per year. As a
result, Huizinga expects the trees to be (substantially)
higher than 30 m after 20 years. For the basic scheme Huizinga
uses a gross increment of 1.1 meters per year. Thus the usable
height will increase with 66.6% of 1.1 meter = .77 meter,
which is rounded off to the lower value of .75 meters per
year."
"Huizinga starts all projects with 1,600 teak trees per
hectare (the distance between trees is two and a half
meters)."
"Because of the strong initial growth, Huizinga expects that
the first cut can be advanced (after year seven). If the
current growth continues (and this is to be expected), then it
might be that the first cut will take place in two years from
now (that is, after year six). This will further increase the
yield because the trees that are not cut will receive more
space, light and nutrition. (N.B. each cut amounts to 25% of
the standing trees)."
"The average height of the Teakwood I trees is already 5 m
over what is used as an assumption in the basic scheme."
"The increment of the usable height per tree with .75 meters
per year is too conservative. A teak tree can, even during the
last years (between age fourteen and twenty), hardly grow any
slower than one and a half gross meters per year (=one meter
usable height per year)."
"The loss of a total number of trees of 240 per ha will prove
to be far too high. At this point it can already be concluded
that the loss at the first cut [Treemail notes: the word
thinning would be more appropriate, but is never used] is
practically zero (a maximum of 10 trees per ha). Huizinga
already foresees now that the expected loss at the first cut
will be practically zero. For the fourth cut, so Huizinga
expects, the loss will also be small. These are the strongest,
thickest and most healthy trees from the plantation, that will
be cut last. In fact, it is to be expected that the final cut
of the thickest trees should not even have any loss
whatsoever. For the purpose of the basic scheme, prudent
points of departure are taken. The sum total loss of 160 trees
per hectare at the second and third cut can be considered as
high. Initially, Huizinga assumed a loss of 200 trees for the
second and third cut. This appears to be unrealistic, and is
therefore reduced to two times 80, which is 160 trees.
Finally, the sales value of all the trees that are lost is set
at NLG 0.--. This is, it goes without saying, quite different
in practice. After all, it is evident that these trees will
also be processed and sold. For the calculation of the basic
scheme this is left out of the equation."
BASIC SCHEME 1
For reasons of economy of space, the full table is not
presented here.
The main results are:
Diameter at year 20 is 37.7 cm
Usable tree height at year 20 is 20 m
Total tree loss is 240 trees/ha
Total commercial yield is 1,057 m3/ha
The table is based on the following assumptions:
1. mean diameter increment is 1.7 cm/yr
2. usable height increment is .75 m/yr
3. trees lost: 40 - 80 - 80 - 40
4. cylinder correction: 25%
BASIC SCHEME 2
Year Diameter Loss Cut Yield
(in cm) (trees/ha) (trees/ha) (m3/ha)
4 10
5 12.5
6 14.5
7 16.5
8 18.5 10 390 94
9 20.5
10 22.5
11 24.5
12 26.5 50 350 232
13 28.5
14 30.5
15 32.5
16 34.5 50 350 491
17 36.5
18 38.5
19 40.5
20 42.5 10 390 996
TOTAL 120 1480 1813
This table gives, in addition to the above, a "usable tree
height of 24 m after 20 years".
This table is based on 4 assumptions:
1. mean diameter increment is 2 cm/yr
2. usable height increment is 1 m/yr
3. trees lost: 10 - 50 - 50 - 10
4. cylinder correction: 25%
"The written declaration from Mr. Wouters (see exhibit 5)
confirms that all the points of departure are correct and that
he can approve of the basic scheme which results in a
commercial timber yield of well over 1,000 m3 per hectare. A
timber yield of 1,057 m3 per hectare, that is what Huizinga is
going for, and he will attempt to do better still. This should
be easily attainable."
Flor y Fanua's legal representative F.H.J. van Schoonhoven
then continues with the presentation of a basic scheme 3:
"In conclusion, more minimal [author's note: yes, that is what
is written because the basic scheme 1 has already been
depicted as minimal projection of expected yields] assumptions
than those used for the basic scheme are not justified by the
findings of bailiff Groot. But still, in order to arrive at a
scheme with even lower values, the initial diameter is lowered
with half a centimeter to ten centimeters (instead of 10.5
centimeter) and the annual increment is lowered to one and a
half centimeter (in stead of 1.7 centimeter). The following
picture then emerges:"
BASIC SCHEME 3
For reasons of economy of space, the full table is not
presented here. The main results are:
Mean diameter increment of 1.5 cm/yr results 34 cm at year 20
Usable tree height at year 20 is 20 m
Total tree loss is 240 trees/ha
Total yield is 867 m3/ha (MAI=43.35 m3/ha)
"From basic scheme 3 it appears that an even further reduction
of the already low points of departure lead to a yield per
hectare that is within the margins as they were presented in
the calculated examples by Huizinga and OHRA."
-end of court presentation by F.H.J. van Schoonhoven-
Notes on the data OHRA and Flor y Fauna presented in court:
The Ministry of Agriculture's report on the Flor y Fauna teak
plantations informs that: "In WWF-NL's commission, the FYFSA
plantations were checked in 1992, by an environmental
consultant (Masterson, 1992), against the Forest Stewardship
Councils' Principles."
Prof. Dr. Ir. R.A.A. Oldeman notes on February 17, 1996
(excerpts):
"After careful study of bailiff Groot's report on the teak
plantations of Flor y Fauna in Costa Rica (Nov. 1993) and the
appended declaration of a former student of mine named Ir.
Wouters (Dec. 1993), and the derived written memorandum of
pleading in a case [Flor y Fauna + OHRA + Huizinga + Natura
Bergum] versus van Weezendonk (Dec. 1993), I summarize the
value of the joint papers as follows.
Forty trees out of 2 million were measured, this amounts to
one in 50,000. From this, values for mean diameters are
calculated within a margin of one tenth of a millimeter (e.g.
12.06 cm). This is comparable to measuring the body length of
300 Dutch people (1 in 50,000) and to determine that the
average Dutch person's body length would be 1 meter and 76 cm
and 6.2 mm.
-THE SAMPLING SURVEY IS NO GOOD.
-THE ERRORS OF MEASUREMENTS ARE NOT RATED.
-THE SOURCE OF THE MEAN RATED HEIGHTS IS OBSCURE AND THEREWITH
THEIR RELIABILITY IS VERY LOW.
-THE SLIPSHOD USE OF CORRECTION FACTORS AND (SO-CALLED
HARVESTABLE) HEIGHTS HAVE INTRODUCED SERIOUS ERRORS INTO THE
CALCULATIONS.
-THE YIELD TABLES, AS INTRODUCED IN THE WRITTEN MEMORANDUM OF
PLEADING, LACK ANY, I REPEAT ANY, BEARING ON REALITY.
-THE ERRORS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ARE AT THE LEVEL OF SECONDARY
FORESTRY TRAINING WHERE, AS A RULE, SUCH ERRORS ARE CONSIDERED
UNACCEPTABLE.
In conclusion, I point out the substantial damage to the
national and international reputation of Dutch forestry and
nature conservation, to the credibility of the Dutch civil
service as an instrument of policy-, certification-, and
project- making, and to the investors who have been lured
towards the teak investments through the media; all of this
brought about by the OHRA/Flor y Fauna teak affair. The most
impacting long-term damage of all will hit the tropical
forests. As a result, their preservation will be taken far
less serious."
On the Ministry of Agriculture's report, Professor Centeno
notes on June 20, 1996:
"As late as December of 1995, Flor & Fauna introduced as
evidence in a court of law a document from the Ministry of
Agriculture of the Netherlands, dated December 28, 1993
[Reference 9], where the MINIMUM expected yield for these
plantations is established at 1,057 M3 per hectare during the
20 year rotation period. This implies a MINIMUM mean annual
increment of nearly 53 M3 per hectare per year!!
The same document was introduced as evidence by OHRA to the
Reclame Code Commissie in January of 1996.
[NOTE: This document has proved to be an embarrassment to the
Ministry of Agriculture, due to its speculative nature, to its
lack of professionalism, and to the inclusion of such an array
of elementary mistakes that would flunk first year forestry
students at any University]
To deny now such documented evidence of grossly exaggerated
growth rates is a serious miscalculation of the memory and
intelligence of the investors OHRA it bound to serve."
CHAPTER 4
------------------------------------------------
Compiled Comments on Flor y Fauna's Projections:
------------------------------------------------
a) In a letter to WWF-NL and OHRA of November 11, 1995 (which
was made public for the Standards Advertising Committee's
hearing on May 9, 1996) Flor y Fauna's Pablo Camacho states
that:
"Since early 1995 I have been part time employed by Flor y
Fauna. As part of my work for Flor y Fauna I am responsible
for collecting growth and yield data of the teak plantations
set up since 1989."
"At the request of Flor y Fauna I have analyzed the growth
data from a series of selected sites in TEAKWOOD III, IV, and
V that are best comparable with the sites of the TEAKWOOD VI
plantation. The initial growth figures for TEAKWOOD VI
(planted in 1993) have also been analyzed again using data
recently collected."
"Based on all these data it is my professional judgement that
the yield that can be achieved on the OHRA/TEAKWOOD VI
plantation will be approximately 700 cubic meters per hectare
over the 20 years rotation. Similar growth figures are
expected for TEAKWOOD VII, and VIII plantations."
"I have been informed that Flor y Fauna has indicated a range
for the expected yields to range between 400 to 850 m3/ha over
the 20 year rotation. Based on the current growth data and the
current development of the plantations there is no doubt that
the yield prediction of the various stands will fall in this
range." -end-
b) Prof. Centeno comments on June 20, 1996:
"In its promotional brochure: TEAKWOOD III: AN INVESTMENT IN A
GREENER FUTURE [Ref. 11], Flor y Fauna pushed investments in
its venture promising unaware customers a total of 950 M3 of
tradable timber per hectare in 20 years [equivalent to a mean
annual increment of 47.5 M3 per hectare per year, and refers
only to the proportion of the timber whose economic value
belonged to investors]. At that time Flor y Fauna sold
directly to investors, requesting 28,600 US dollars per
hectare. The return to investors was highlighted at over 1.6
million dollars per hectare!" -end-
c) In a message to Prof. Centeno from the Chairman of the
Board of the FSC, dated January 22, 1996, and referring to the
director of the Rainforest Alliance, it is stated: "He [the
director if the RA] informed me that FyF significantly reduced
its growth estimates based upon empirical data from the
monitoring program..."
OHRAs adjunct Director H. Janssen denies this in a statement
to 'Het Financieele Dagblad (NL's financial daily newspaper)
on May 7, 1996. Janssen states: "It is an old misunderstanding
.. OHRA has, from the very start in March of 1993, used the
range from 20 to 42.5 m3 in its advertising materials."
d) On January 28, 1996 OHRA's Director of the Board Huesmann
informs the Associated Press of The Netherlands, ANP, that:
"The yield of the first plots that Flor y Fauna started eight
years ago is exactly conform the expectations. Investors that
have joined have meanwhile received their first share of the
profits [note: to the best of Treemail's knowledge, these
first shares of the profits were not yet received by investors
at the time of the writing of this paper]."
e) On March 4, 1996, OHRA and WWF-NL present an 'executive
summary' of a report by CCT to the press. The summary presents
data on attained growth based on measurements provided by Flor
y Fauna. The reported MAI for Teakwood I (at age 6) is given
as 17.38 m3/ha, and for Teakwood II (at age 5) as 14.48 m3/ha.
f) In the Flor y Fauna info-sheet to investors of April 28,
1996, called 'Teakwood Info' the following information can be
found:
"The thinnings for TW I - V are completed, and in TW VI a
partial thinning was executed."
"Thinnings in TW I - VI have produced 65 cubic meters of sawn
timber. This yield is not high because it was mainly a
purification, which means that all the poorly growing trees
were removed. Only the stems with a diameter of > 8
centimeters were sawn. Smaller diameters go to the turnery to
be processed into table-legs, chair-legs, lamp posts etc."
The Dutch language summary of the CCT report informs: "FyF has
started storage and maintenance of the trees with a small
diameter, which are produced during thinning of the
plantations. The tree stems are still waiting for a suitable
demand."
CHAPTER 5
-------
The End
-------
Flor y Fauna's information sheet 'Teakwood Info' of April 28,
1996, informs the investors that the projected date of
thinnings has been advanced and that the yield is lower than
expected. Thinnings have been initiated for Teakwood VI,
according to the same Teakwood Info. This implies that, for
Teakwood VI, the thinnings have been advanced from the
anticipated year 8 to year 3. This is by no means a small
margin!
The rationale for a possible advancement of the Teakwood
thinning schedule is in the case of trees growing faster than
expected, according to Flor y Fauna's court presentations.
However, according to the information provided in Teakwood
Info, this condition is not met. In fact, Flor y Fauna has
informed that the yield is lower than expected. At least one
alternative rationale for such drastic advancement of thinning
schedules as Flor y Fauna now reports for the Teakwood VI
plantation is well known in forestry; and this is when the
thinnings are primarily required as a phytosanitary measure.
After having projected timber yields in the order of 1,000
m3/ha in sales brochures for Teakwood I-V and VI, and after
having substantiated these figures in court, Teakwood's
present attempts at demonstrating that they have never
portrayed any other yield range than 400-800, or 400-850 m3/ha
remain unconvincing and they are in flagrant contradiction to
the very materials that the OHRA itself has presented as
exhibit before the Standards Advertising Committee (i.e. the
March 1993 sales brochure). The first utterance to outsiders
of the latter figure appears to have been by OHRA in a letter
to NOVA on November 30, 1995 (see separate agenda).
OHRA's latest 'infomercial', Vast en Zeker of Spring 1996,
repeats the same range of mean diameter increments as those
given in the original sales brochure for Teakwood VI of 1993.
In forestry, there is a conversion factor named 'form factor'
that provides a linear relationship between stem-diameter and
stem-volume. Even if this conversion factor is invariably
depicted as 'cylinder correction' by Flor y Fauna, the fact
remains that this is a constant for any given seed provenance
and its value can be found in any serious teak volume table
for the provenance of the trees planted by Teakwood (see the
full text of the Declaration by Prof. Oldeman of February 17,
1996).
If the Teakwood trees would demonstrate a decrease of expected
yields from 1,000 to, say, 500 m3/ha while maintaining the
same diameters, this would imply that the form factor would
have halved. This portrayal of calculous is reminiscent of
[.....]. Such unusual growing behavior is arguably typical for
car antennas and telescopes, but it is not likely to occur
with trees, not even with teak trees.
The Rainforest Alliance's Smart Wood Programme has certified
the Flor y Fauna plantations in 1995. This was done on the
basis of yield forecasts of 1,001.50 m3/ha for Teakwood I-V
(MAI=50.07 m3/ha). In the case of the plantations of Teakwood
VI-VIII, the certificate endorses a range from 933.74 m3/ha
for Teakwood VI-VIII (MAI=46.69 m3/ha) to 1,129.69 m3/ha
(MAI=56.45 m3/ha).
Basically, only three reports were ever presented by the
Teakwood partners in substantiation of the yield predictions.
These are: a) the bailiff report of 1993, b) the Ministerial
report by Mr. Wouters, and c) the CCT 'executive summary'
presented in March 1996 [note: All three reports were produced
after OHRA and WWF-NL had joined the programme. The Rainforest
Alliance presented its first audit report during the mission
of Wouters and the bailiff; according to the Ministerial
report that is].
ad a) The bailiff's report and tables have been convincingly
dismissed as statistically invalid and as entirely irrelevant
to the formulation of yield projections.
ad b) The Ministerial report states on page 2 that its
conclusions and findings are for the Ministry's internal use
only. What is more, two years after its publication, it
surfaced that the report had been prepared by the President of
Flor y Fauna's Scientific Advisory Board [note: see agenda on
main events for details]. As to the author's endorsement of
the bailiff's findings, see ad a) above.
ad c) For the hearing at the Standards Advertising Committee's
of July 18, 1996, OHRA has announced that the CCT report has
not been finalized, and that it can therefore not present the
full text of the CCT report. This does not bode well with
regards to CCTs methodology, as executive summaries are
supposedly written only after a main text body is finalized.
Even so, the executive summary informs: "The company has
reported data on teak volume yields and increments higher than
those reported for teak in Costa Rica and other countries."
According to CCT's 'executive summary', these figures that are
higher than anything ever reported, result in an endorsement
of an expected cumulative log volume "from some 400m3 to
800m3".
From this it can be deduced that Flor y Fauna acknowledges
that in order to attain growth figures within the range of 400
to 800 m3, cumulative log volume will have to surpass anything
ever recorded prior to the presentation of the CCT 'executive
summary' in March 1996. Notwithstanding, Flor y Fauna has
advertised Teakwood I-V with cumulative log volume projections
of 1,001.50 m3/ha. This notwithstanding, OHRA has advertised
Teakwood VI with projections ranging from 933.74 to 1,129.69
m3/ha.
Investors have at no point in time been informed of the
staggering magnitude by which 'anything ever recorded on teak
growth in Costa Rica or other countries' would have to be
surpassed in order to attain such projections. Quite to the
contrary: the sales brochure for Teakwood VI assures the
investors that the projections are arrived at "on the basis of
publications and research in the region".
At this point, it is relevant to look into the Smart Wood
Programme's 'Guidelines for assessing forest plantations,
revised draft of October 1993. The chapter 'Generic
information and criteria for forest plantations' outlines
requirements that have to be fulfilled in order to obtain a
Smart Wood certificate: "Growth and yield projections in
planning and/or marketing documents are reasonable and based
on a combination of scientific literature and documented or
practical local experience." However, it is precisely this
type of documentation that CCT claims to be non-existent. Is
this perhaps the reason why Teakwood has never presented such
documentation; not in court, not to NOVA journalists, not to
the media, and possibly not even to the Rainforest Alliance as
would be required under the Smart Wood criteria for
certification of forest plantations?
On at least three counts, Teakwood can be perceived as having
the responsibility to base its yield projections on
scientifically valid data:
1. The text of the Teakwood brochure of 1993, in section 4.2,
states that increment projections are arrived at "on the basis
of publications and research in the region".
2. The Smart Wood Programme's 'Guidelines for assessing forest
plantations, revised draft of October 1993, chapter 'Generic
information and criteria for forest plantations': "Growth and
yield projections in planning and/or marketing documents are
reasonable and based on a combination of scientific literature
and documented or practical local experience."
3. As the Teakwood contract partners all claim that the Flor y
Fauna plantations are managed according to the FSC Principles
and Criteria [note: see agenda of main events for details],
Flor y Fauna is required to operate within the accredited
Smart Wood Guidelines. This is all the more acute, now that
the FSC Director T. Synnott has expressed to WWF-NL in a
letter of January 30, 1996, that: "The FSC expects to extend
accreditation to cover plantations in the very near future."
Arguably, there is a fourth count by which Teakwood contract
partners are bound to base yield projections on scientifically
valid data and regional research. This would be out of their
shared responsibility and respect towards the investor. But
that, of course, remains a matter of perception.
Treemail urgently calls upon all those involved in the
Teakwood debate to consult and adhere to the Society of
American Foresters' Code of Ethics. It is a mighty fine
document.
Treemail (full copyright)
Prins Bernhardlaan 37
6866 BW Heelsum
The Netherlands
tel & fax: +31 317 314860
E-mail: treemail@vr.nl
NL Chamber of Commerce: 09088647
NL Vat registration: 0929 26 502 B 01
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Subject: Teakwood's agenda of events
AGENDA of Main Events
subject: Teakwood
author: Paul Romeijn
date: July 18, 1996
INTRODUCTION
------------
This agenda is made to serve as a reference sheet to those who
follow the public debate on the Teakwood programme. It
highlights some of the materials on file at Treemail's office.
Although the materials have been compiled and translated with
due care, Treemail fully disclaims any responsibility as to
the correctness of its contents and refers the readership to
the original documents.
(Introduction-Section A)
The principal players in the debate:
------------------------------------
Teakwood:
This is an investment programme in teak plantations in Costa
Rica. The programme was started in 1989 by Dutch owned Flor y
Fauna S.A. who independently sold the projects called Teakwood
I-V to Dutch investors until 1993. In 1993 Flor y Fauna was
joined by OHRA insurance company and WWF-NL for the plantation
projects called Teakwood VI, VII and VIII.
The principal Teakwood contract partners are: Van Rossum van
Veen of The Netherlands as chief advisors to the Teakwood
programme; Flor y Fauna S.A. of Costa Rica as managers of the
plantations; OHRA insurance company to operate as a sales
agency for a financial product that ties the teak investment
to a life insurance policy; and WWF-NL (The Netherlands branch
of the World Wide Fund for Nature) as endorsing agency with an
important PR and sales function (e.g. the sales brochure of
1993 refers to WWF's role in sale of Teakwood's end-products
as: "Of course, a buyer must be found for this product in
advance. The collaboration with WWF will make this easier and
can probably lead to even higher returns for the investors,
according to the programme's initiators." The Teakwood VI
brochure portrays the WWF Panda logo on its cover).
Rainforest Alliance:
The Rainforest Alliance is based in the USA, and has certified
the Flor y Fauna plantations in 1995. The Teakwood plantations
were thereby recognized as 'well-managed' under the Rainforest
Alliance's 'Smart Wood' programme, thus allowing the
plantation's produce to carry the 'Smart Wood' label.
FSC:
The Forest Stewardship Council was established as a legal
entity on October 25, 1995, is based in Mexico, and accredits
certifying agencies. As of end of February 1996, the FSC has
accredited the first four certifying agencies, including the
Rainforest Alliance. This accreditation does not include
plantation forestry at the time of writing of this agenda.
Prof. Dr. J.C. Centeno:
WWF-NL commissioned a report on the economic analysis of the
Teakwood plantations in 1993 to Prof. J.C. Centeno of
Venezuela.
Treemail:
The Dutch television programme NOVA approached Treemail, a
forestry advisory company based in The Netherlands, to provide
information for a broadcast on the Teakwood programme. In the
programme, NOVA interviewed Treemail's Director Paul Romeijn.
(Introduction-Section B)
The incorrect claim to an 'FSC certificate':
--------------------------------------------
One key-issue of the debate is the claim to a certificate for
the Flor y Fauna plantations supposedly issued by the Forest
Stewardship Council.
This claim was made by Flor y Fauna at the occasion of a court
hearing on December 28, 1996.
This claim was made by WWF-NL in a book that was written,
printed and put in circulation in 1995 (ISBN 90-74595-07-3).
The WWF book is adorned by the (new) FSC accreditation logo on
its front cover.
OHRA printed and distributed this claim millions of times in
its advertisements over the period between August 19, 1995 and
November 30, 1995, according to its own memo of February 2,
1996.
Before, during and after this period, another version of these
advertisements for the Teakwood investment scheme was
circulated. The sole difference between the two versions is
that the text 'Rainforest Alliance' replaces the text 'Forest
Stewardship Council' when referring to Teakwood's certificate.
In the advertisement, the text under the header Eco-
Certificate reads as follows: "The Teakwood plantation Flor y
Fauna has recently received the official certificate of 'well
managed' plantation from the Forest Stewardship Council (or
the Rainforest Alliance, depending on the version), and is
thereby the first have plantation grown tropical timber with
an eco-certificate."
This agenda does not deal with the reference to an 'eco-
certificate' for Flor y Fauna, of which Treemail is not aware
of any substantiation by the Teakwood partners. This agenda
refers only to the claim of the Flor y Fauna plantations
having been 'FSC-certified'.
The (draft) 'Manual for evaluation and accreditation of
certification bodies' of January 1996 (FSC Document #2.1), on
page 86, states that type of use of the FSC accreditation logo
as in the WWF publication "can only be made with prior,
written consent of the FSC." The FSC announced this
accreditation logo in FSC Notes of January 1996, Vol.1, Issue
2, where it reads: "correct use is controlled by legally
binding contracts and will be protected by legal action."
TEAKWOOD AGENDA OF MAIN EVENTS
------------------------------
[note: near to all the written communications referred to
below have been transmitted per E-mail or fax]
1995
23-11 NOVA broadcasts Teakwood over Dutch national
television.
24-11 The Greens in the Dutch Parliament submit 6
questions on the Teakwood case to Ministers of
Agriculture and Finance.
30-11 OHRA informs NOVA in writing that expected yields
are in the order of 400-850 m3/ha over the 20 year
cycle, and this is "without doubt" according to
their scientists.
01-12 OHRA's Board Director Huesmann writes personalized
letter to Teakwood investors where he projects 11-
25% rates of return to investors.
06-12 Van Weezendonk files case of misleading
advertisements against 5 teak investment schemes at
the Standards Advertising Committee. OHRA requests
and receives time for refuting, this allows for
preparation of CCT summary report.
10-12 Prof. J. Centeno reports to FSC Director T. Synnott
on possible claim to FSC certification having been
made for the Flor y Fauna plantation.
18-12 Treemail presents WWF-INT forestry officer Per
Rosenberg a video copy of the NOVA broadcast and of
one of the OHRA advertisements containing the claim
to 'FSC certification' obtained by the Flor y Fauna
plantation (and as reported by Treemail to FSC
Director T. Synnott on December 20, 1995, and to SW
Director R. Donovan on January 7, 1996).
20-12 Ministers of Agriculture and Finance answer to the
questions from the Greens in Parliament of November
24, 1995.
20-12 FSC Director T. Synnott phones to Treemail's office.
The fictitious claim 'FSC certified' for the Flor y
Fauna plantations is discussed at length. During the
conversation T. Synnott ascertains and is assured
that Treemail perfectly understands the terminology
'endorsed', 'accredited', 'certified' and the
distinction between 'a possible claim to FSC or
Smart Wood certification' and that there is mutual
agreement that there is no misunderstanding
whatsoever about the exact nature of the fictitious
claim [note: witnessed by G.Ch. Kiel, international
forestry expert, at Treemail office].
21-12 OHRA's adjunct Director Janssen informs Treemail per
fax that copies of the FSC certificate can be
obtained from Flor y Fauna, in response to a request
by Treemail to OHRA of December 15, 1995.
21-12 Following the telephone conversation of December 20,
1995, FSC Director Synnott informs Treemail per fax
that "the FSC Board cannot yet approve the
certificates for plantations in the absence of the
new Plantation P&C.", and: "We believe that the Flor
y Fauna evaluation and report was thorough and
competent."
28-12 Court case Flor y Fauna S.A. against Van
Weezendonk's reputed libel in his statements in NOVA
broadcast. in The Hague. Tomlow, Van Weezendonk's
legal advisor, distributes notes to court, including
a copy of the 'Centeno report' to journalists. Flor
y Fauna claims 'official FSC certificate' for their
plantations in court (which Treemail reports to FSC
Director T. Synnott on same day). At the hearing,
Flor y Fauna did not once mention an organization
called Rainforest Alliance, or its 'Smart Wood'
certificate.
1996
05-01 Le Vif/L' Express reports that tropical tree
investments schemes have been spreading into
Flanders, and are now active in the French speaking
part of Belgium.
07-01 Treemail informs Smart Wood Director, with copy to
FSC Director, that: "I regret to inform you that
your interventions have not succeeded in preventing
F&F stating in court on 28 December 1995 that F&F
plantations have been officially certified by the
FSC ...". This letter is later referred to by the
Smart Wood Director as part of the listing of
communications of January 28, 1996 [note: cross-
reference with FSC announcement of June 25, 1996].
08-01 FSC Director T. Synnott copies letter to SW Director
R. Donovan to Treemail office. Quote: "I expect you
will be asking OHRA why they stated in public that
the F&F plantations have been certified by the
FSC.", and: "Richard: I expect that this issue can
be sorted out without too much harm. We also
anxiously await your decision on whether the
Rainforest Alliance is willing to sign the
[accreditation, Treemail's note] contracts.", and :
"Paul: Thank you very much for keeping us informed,
and for working at damage-control."
10-01 Ruling on case Flor y Fauna versus Van Weezendonk,
libel case dismissed, and judge condemns Teakwood to
cover legal costs.
10-01 Van Weezendonk adds incorrect FSC certification
claim for the Flor y Fauna plantations to his
complaint at the Standards Advertising Committee.
10-01 Prof. J. Centeno suggests to FSC Director T. Synnott
to the FSC should request a public disclaimer from
the Rainforest Alliance to the effect that the
certificate they issued does not in any way imply an
endorsement by the FSC; with copy to SW Director R.
Donovan.
19-01 Ir. P. Hulsebosch reports to the internet forestry
list about a red code (ie instructions to remain
silent) issued by DGIS to Costa Rica based sector
specialist for the environment Ir. J. Bauer. This
was never refuted by DGIS, or by its forestry
advisors at IKC-NBLF (part of the Ministry of
Agriculture) who are subscribers to the list.
23-01 Coordinator W. Kloppenburg of the Foundation BOS
makes written suggestion to OHRA to 'reconsider the
financial product Teakwood' [note: co-reference the
agenda's entry for January 31, 1996].
23-01 Prof. J. Centeno writes to FSC's Board Director B.
Cabarly that: "It seems appropriate in this case for
the FSC to request a public disclaimer from OHRA.
The lack of reaction by the FSC to these statements
[note: this refers to the fictional claim to FSC
certification for the Flor y Fauna plantations] can
only be considered an endorsement by the FSC of
OHRA's untruthful claim."
25-01 Prof. J. Centeno requests support from Minister
Pronk of The Netherlands for an opportunity to speak
in The Netherlands, and this request is copied to
HRH Prince Bernhard.
27-01 Press release "Setting the record straight, the teak
sword swings again" by Prof. Dr. J.C. Centeno
distributed to ANP, The Netherlands Associated Press
service. This press release includes reference to
the incorrect claim to FSC certification for the
Flor y Fauna plantations. The press release is
circulated over the internet forestry list.
28-01 Smart Wood Director states in generic letter to have
"seen no documented evidence that they have
represented the certification in any other way."
when referring to possible claim to "FSC
certification' made for the Flor y Fauna plantations
(instead of 'Rainforest Alliance certified'). This
letter was copied to Treemail's office per fax on
January 30, 1996, and to Prof. J. Centeno's office
on February 1, 1996.
29-01 FSC Director T. Synnott informs Treemail in a fax
message that: "It is unfortunate that OHRA referred
to the plantations as being FSC certified. The
expression FSC certified is inaccurate and
premature. The possibility of a certified enterprise
making misleading public claims is in first
instance, a matter for the certifier. Therefore
Rainforest Alliance is pursuing the matter, in close
communication with the FSC [ref: agenda entry for
March 11, 1996 and June 25, 1996]."
30-01 Treemail sends a copy of advertisement to FSC
containing the incorrect FSC certification claim,
with notification to Smart Wood Director R. Donovan
(who received similar copy faxed directly to their
office on February 2, 1996; also see notes in this
agenda of January 28, 1996 and March 11, 1996). The
letter states: "I hope we can all agree that as of
this moment further ignorance of this OHRA claim in
their advertisements will be labelled as silly by
all others from now till ever after."
30-01 FSC's Director T. Synnott informs A. van Kreveld and
W. Braakhekke, both WWF-NL, in a fax ("designed for
your support and use, as appropriate", according to
the letter) that: "The Rainforest Alliance Smartwood
Program is one of four certification programs which
the FSC has evaluated and approved for accreditation
as an independent certification body", and:
"Accreditation contracts will refer only to
certification of natural forests."
31-01 WWF-NL Director of Conservation W. Braakhekke
communicates to Professor Centeno (with copies to
HRH Prins Bernhard of The Netherlands, Minister
Pronk, WWF-NL Chairman Nijpels, FSC and Rainforest
Alliance) that WWF-NL research has failed to
identify one single instance of Flor y Fauna claim
to a certification by the FSC [note: This is
precisely the issue of a complaint before the
Standards Advertising Committee, as per January 10,
1996]. This letter is later made public by OHRA's
use in defence before a hearing at the Standards
Advertising Committee on March 26, 1996.
31-01 OHRA threatens Stichting BOS with legal action [see:
this agenda's note of January 23, 1996].
01-02 Internal OHRA memo counts well over 1.5 Million
incorrect advertisements of FSC certification for
Flor y Fauna plantation, and a mailing of 127,000 to
potential investors.
04-02 "Teak controversy flares up in The Netherlands"
distributed over forestry list by Prof. Dr. J.C.
Centeno.
05-02 OneWorld Online publishes "WWF endorsed teakwood
scandal hits tropical timber market" on
http://www.oneworld.org/
06-02 OHRA threatens Prof. Dr. J.C. Centeno with legal
action.
06-02 FSC Board decides to ask the FSC Secretariat to
request correction from OHRA and WWF-NL for
incorrect claim to FSC certificate for Flor y Fauna
plantations "in their respective brochures and other
places where the original misstatements circulated
[note: consult agenda entry for April 3, 1996, on
how this Board decision is reflected in
correspondence from the FSC Secretariat to OHRA]".
07-02 The Greens in the Dutch Parliament submit second
round of questions on the Teakwood case, this time
to Ministers of Agriculture, Finance and Foreign Aid
[note: see agenda entry for March 29, 1996, for
Ministerial response].
09-02 Prof. Dr. J.C. Centeno takes up residence at Tomlow
lawyers office in the Netherlands to facilitate
legal action to be taken by OHRA.
09-02 WWF spokesperson Marie Christine Reusken states in
articles of GPD (e.g. as reported in the newspapers
'De Brabander' and 'De Gelderlander) that "Flor y
Fauna received a certificate from the Forest
Stewardship Council in Mexico."
12-02 Treemail distributes extra info on "Teak controversy
in The Netherlands" over the forestry list. This
message contains excerpts from the 1993 bailiff
report and Flor y Fauna's provisional yield table.
15-02 Elsevier Magazine states: "Flor y Fauna is the first
teak plantation that supposedly received a
certificate issued by the so-called Forest
Stewardship Council, FSC. The claim is important,
for such a certificate would furnish the project
with the essential credibility. In addition, WWF-NL
has made swift certification conditional to joining
the Teakwood programme. All the more painful to
mother organization WWF and WWF-INT that, as it
appears now, the claim is untrue. OHRA, Flor y
Fauna, nor any other party involved can claim an FSC
issued certificate." and: "Salient detail: WWF is
one of the main sponsors to the FSC."
18-02 Distribution over the forestry list of excerpts from
Professor Oldeman's "Notes on measuring procedure
'Huizinga & Groot'".
21-02 FSC announces accreditation of the first four
certification bodies. Plantation forestry is
explicitly excluded from this FSC accreditation.
22-02 FSC Director T. Synnott announces launch of the
worldwide FSC timber logo (for independent eco-
friendly forest products) on RTL-4 Dutch television
news broadcast.
22-02 Smart Wood Director R. Donovan releases an open
letter entitled 'preliminary comments on Centeno
observations and Rainforest Alliance certification
of Flor y Fauna'. For months on end, R. Donovan
fails to communicate a copy of this open letter to
Professor Centeno in spite of repeated requests, and
even though this document clearly states "cc: Julio
Centeno".
This open letter states: "We request that any
individual contact us if they have specified
DOCUMENTED situations where misleading information
is being presented on either Smart Wood, the FSC or
Smart Wood certification on Flor y Fauna. Please
contact us immediately. To be fair to all concerned,
verbal statements are not sufficient; we need
documented evidence [ref: agenda's entry of January
30, and February 2, 1996]."
24-02 Article "Blasting the FSC in The Netherlands"
distributed over forestry list by Prof. Dr. J.C.
Centeno.
01-03 Intermediair (weekly) reports shipment of 'FSC
certified timber' to have been unloaded at Rotterdam
ports, reports 5 Million ha of FSC certified forests
worldwide, and in same article interviews Gemma
Boetekees (FoE-NL, and later FSC-NL office holder)
and Arnold van Kreveld (WWF-NL).
04-03 Teakwood press conference hosted by OHRA and WWF-NL,
in presence with Costa Rican Minister of Environment
and Energy R. Castro. Presentation of CCT summary
report and KPMG report.
06-03 Costa Rica's Prime Minster J.M. Figueres and
Minister of Environment and Energy R. Castro joins
in with Teakwood representatives at a round table
conference on "Reforestation investments in Costa
Rica", organized in cooperation between the Costa
Rican Embassy in the Netherlands and the foundation
Eco Operation (DGIS funded institution to execute
the bilateral environmental treaty between the two
countries).
08-03 The Tico Times, an English language newspaper for
Central America, publishes an interview with
Rainforest Alliance's Smart Wood Director R.
Donovan. Quotes: 'Smart Wood now admits it didn't
investigate the company's financial projections and
its advisors are disputing the plantation's growth
projections. Donovan said he believes Flor y Fauna's
higher projections are not realistic, but that "the
lower rates are possible".' and: 'Donovan confessed
that he himself would have doubts about investing
with OHRA in a teak farm in Costa Rica.'
11-03 FSC publishes public statement on certification,
which includes a reference that any claim to
plantations being certified by FSC to be a 'double
mistake'.
11-03 Smart Wood Director R. Donovan releases statement on
Flor y Fauna certification, with a copy to the
forestry list. Here the Smart Wood Director again
claims not to have been able to identify a single
document containing a claim to 'FSC certification'
after having studied the materials [see notes of
January 28, 30 and 31, and February 22, 1996)]. R.
Donovan adds to be "in almost daily contact with the
FSC Secretariat" over the Teakwood case [also
consult with agenda entry for May 11, 1996].
The statement claims: "Smart Wood is now working to
verify Flor y Fauna's advertising claims with
respect to FSC and/or Smart Wood. If deliberately
misleading claims have been made by others, then
appropriate actions will be taken."
[note: The Smart Wood Director here reiterates the
impression that it is Smart Wood and not the FSC
that is investigating the incorrect claim of FSC
certification for the Flor y Fauna plantations. This
is congruent with a letter by FSC Director T.
Synnott to Treemail of January 29, 1996. However,
the FSC issues a public statement on June 25, 1996
to the contrary. There the FSC announces that only
the issue of the growth and yield projections "is
being dealt with by the Rainforest Alliance".]
12-03 "World record on teak yield: truth or trickery?"
distributed over forestry list by Prof. Dr. J.C.
Centeno.
29-03 Ministers answer to second round of questions from
the Greens in the Parliament. Minister of Finance is
not willing to exert control over teak investment
schemes. Workshop on Dutch plantation investment
schemes in developing countries as commissioned by
DGIS to the Foundation BOS is cancelled. Prof. J.C.
Centeno is not invited to The Netherlands by
Minister Pronk [note: At the time of publication of
this agenda, DGIS still fails to communicate the
nature of this decision to Prof. J.C. Centeno. Cross
reference this agenda's entry for January 25, 1996].
03-04 FSC Director T. Synnott informs OHRA on the claim to
FSC certification for Flor y Fauna that: "We urge to
ensure that statements of this kind are withdrawn
immediately. [see agenda entries February 6, 1996
and of June 25, 1996]"
12-04 Treemail communicates to key-FSC Board members and
the FSC Secretariat [cross reference: FSC statement
of June 25, 1996]:
"End of December 1995 Tim Synnott phoned our office
and convinced himself that I understood perfectly
well the distinction between certification and
endorsement, which is not too hard for someone who
was brought up bi-lingual and was later trained as a
tropical forester. I have never, to my knowledge,
confused these terms neither in English or in Dutch.
We have seen many euphemisms used to smoothen
mis-information produced intentionally by F&F,
WWF-NL, OHRA and van Rossum van Veen, including some
of these statements originating from Oaxaca.
Examples of such statements are: unfortunate,
premature, mistake, slip of the pen, and now
possibly a language difficulty.
Intentional? Yes, because even after being
confronted with the misleading nature of the
statements, WWF-NL -as I quoted- still maintained
use of FSC certified to the press. And yes, since
WWF-NL brochure, OHRA advertisements and F&F
statements in court skipped any mention of RA when
elaborating the subject. Nor will it suffice for RA
to investigate Flor y Fauna advertisements, since we
all know quite well that advertising for Teakwood is
done by OHRA, and not by Flor y Fauna. And even more
yes, since Teakwood is backed by a scientific
advisory board whose members are all perfectly
capable of understanding these issues and of
handling any of the possible language barriers
between Dutch and English that you refer to. Also,
this hide and seek game was prolonged for months as
parties were unable to find statements produced by
OHRA and WWF-NL that were printed and distributed
over 1,500,000 times or to verify statements made in
court; and is apparently even maintained after
Treemail faxed copies of same to RA and FSC."
14-04 Wageningen University Newspaper, WUB, publishes
major article on Teakwood.
15-04 A.J.M. Wouters is advanced to the much higher
position of interim Director of the Directorate
Science and Knowledge Transfer of the Ministry of
Agriculture, Nature and Fisheries, a key position
for controlling these budget lines for the
Agricultural University of Wageningen and the
cluster of agricultural research institutions 'DLO'
(ref: 'Wagenings Alumniblad', June 6, 1996).
A.J.M. Wouters is the author of an official report
on the Teakwood plantations by the Ministry of
Agriculture. Meanwhile, it has surfaced that he is
also the President of Flor y Fauna's scientific
advisory board. The fact of this collaboration was
not declared when the author presented his
declarations of support of the Teakwood programme
before several courts. The Ministerial report has
lost its pretence of independence, as claimed by
WWF-NL's Director S. Woldhek in a letter to the
editor in the national newspaper NRC, published on
December 30, 1993, where he announced this report as
an "independent and professional evaluation of the
project" [note: cross reference Treemail's
publication over the internet forestry list of June
5, 1996].
Professor J. Centeno notes the following on this
document (ref: The elusive nature of forest
management certification claims, June 20, 1996):
"As late as December of 1995, Flor & Fauna
introduced as evidence in a court of law a document
from the Ministry of Agriculture of the Netherlands,
dated December 28, 1993 [Reference 9], where the
MINIMUM expected yield for these plantations is
established at 1,057 M3 per hectare during the 20
year rotation period. This implies a MINIMUM mean
annual increment of nearly 53 M3 per hectare per
year!!
The same document was introduced as evidence by OHRA
to the Reclame Code Commissie in January of 1996.
[NOTE (by Prof. Centeno): This document has proved
to be an embarrassment to the Ministry of
Agriculture, due to its speculative nature, to its
lack of professionalism, and to the inclusion of
such an array of elementary mistakes that would
flunk first year forestry students at any
University]"
[note: also see this agenda's entry of February 18,
1996]
16-04 Questions in Parliament to the Minister of Finance
raised by VVD, a political party that is coalition
member of the Dutch Government, as a result of
publicity surrounding ostrich farming, diamond and
teak investment schemes, and calling for effective
control by the Minister [note: agenda entry on
Ministers answers for May 30, 1996].
28-04 FSC's newly opened NL office sends generic mailing,
with introductory letter of April 9, 1996. Enclosed
in the mailing is a report on the FSC Board meeting
of early February, with the Board's decision to
request rectification of incorrect claim to FSC
certification for Flor y Fauna plantations to WWF-NL
and OHRA. Enclosed is the Smart Wood statement on
certification of Flor y Fauna of March 11, 1996. The
mailing does not contain FSC's March 11, 1996
statement.
28-04 Symposium presentation by Paul Romeijn at University
of Twenthe. DGIS representative and speaker at the
symposium Ph.J. Bastiaenen informs symposium public
that DGIS has had no ties or dealings whatsoever
with Teakwood.
01-05 DGIS publishes an article entitled "OHRA does not
mislead investors" [note: published in the May 1996
issue of 'Internationale Samenwerking', the official
magazine of the public information service on
international cooperation from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs; cross reference with agenda's entry
for May 9, 1996].
09-05 The Standards Advertising Committee rules on
complaints against five teak investment schemes,
including Teakwood.
09-05 Flor y Fauna submits their first and only
contribution to forest mailing list, and announce
circulation of an English translation of an article
in Money "shortly" (which never materialized).
11-05 Francis Sullivan, WWF-UK, informs Treemail's office
that: "I have been following these developments
closely in my capacity as a member of the FSC Board
and in view of the involvement of WWF Netherlands.
I understand that there is full involvement of all
interested parties within Holland and Costa Rica and
that a solution appears to be emerging [note: this
may well be the solution emerging on June 25, 1996,
as emergence at an earlier stage would still allow
plaintiff at the Standards Advertising Committee to
submit an exhibit of written evidence. Plaintiff can
hereby only use a full 10 minutes. This is the time
allocated to plaintiff for entire oral presentation
before the Committee]."
20-05 Publication by Treemail of open letter to FSC's
Director of the Board with question on independence
of accrediting body (FSC) from timber producing
entity (WWF-NL).
30-05 Ministry of Finance again rejects call for control
of teak investments, in answer to questions by the
VVD in Parliament (ref: NRC Handelsblad, May 31,
1996).
05-06 Treemail publishes University of Twenthe Symposium
presentation of April 18, 1996, over the forestry
list.
12-06 WWF-INT declares ISO 14001 proposal "a sham
certification system".
24-06 Publication of 'The elusive credibility of forest
management certification claims' by Prof. J.C.
Centeno over the forestry list.
25-06 FSC Secretariat makes a 'public statement' named
"FSC/OHRA/WWF-Netherlands" available to OHRA and
WWF-NL only (?) while referring to letter to OHRA
referenced in agenda entry of April 3, 1996. This
letter is used as exhibit by OHRA for the Standards
Advertising Committee hearing of July 18, 1996
[note: compare with agenda entry of February 6, 1996
to see how the FSC Board decision on this subject
has transpired into the FSC Secretariat's practice;
and with the entry for May 11, 1996]; [second note:
this 'public statement' by the FSC was copied to
defendant OHRA, but not to plaintiff van Weezendonk
or to anyone else that Treemail is aware of].
In its 'public statement' the FSC Secretariat states
that: "During the period August 1995 to January
1996, a brochure published by WWF-Netherlands and
several newspaper advertisements by OHRA linked
FSC's name with the Flor y Fauna plantations and the
Smart Wood certificate. They wrongly stated or
implied that the plantations had been certified by
the Forest Stewardship Council. These statements
were incorrect on two counts, because the FSC does
not carry out certification, and because the FSC
does not yet endorse or recognize the plantation
certificates issued by FSC-accredited bodies [note:
the advertisements and the WWF publication referred
to by the FSC Director contain no reference
whatsoever to the Rainforest Alliance or its Smart
Wood certificate and, in reality, only refer to a
certificate issued by the FSC for the Flor y Fauna
plantations]."
About OHRA, the FSC Director states that: "They soon
discovered the error, but because of production
times the statements appeared once more in a mailing
distribution [note: the last time the fictitious
claim was made in mailing distributions is,
according to OHRA, November 30, 1995]."
FSC Director sums up: "The FSC concludes that the
mistakes made by WWF-Netherlands and OHRA were
unintentional", and that the FSC is therefore
"satisfied" [ref: consult and compare this with the
agenda's entry for July 18, 1996, and with the
references given for that entry; also cross-
reference with note on Smart Wood release date March
11, 1996, and the entry for April 12, 1996]."
Please note the use of the key-word "UNINTENTIONAL"
as the FSC Director's principal conclusion.
28-06 Het Financieele Dagblad (the Financial Daily)
announces transfer for WWF-NL public relations
director F. Strietman, as per September 1, 1996.
18-07 Standards Advertising Committee hears the appeal in
the Teakwood case. OHRA presents in evidence a
letter from OHRA adjunct Director Janssen of April
24, 1996, to the FSC Secretariat. Janssen informs
the FSC Director T. Synnott that: "Fairly quickly we
discovered the error. As some leaflets were in
production (with a lead time of some 8 weeks) these
were issued in November 1995 with the same error in
a limited mailing [note: compare with Flor y Fauna's
position voiced on December 28, 1995]."
OHRA thereby claims to have become aware of its
fictitious claim somewhere within the eight weeks of
the lead time of end of November 1995 [note: for
WWF's declared position see agenda entry dated
January 31, 1996; and entry for February 9, 1996].
For the same occasion, OHRA's legal representatives
Ekelmans den Hollander write in defence on the
certification complaint: "The mistake has been
detected and corrected by the OHRA itself in January
1996, before [note: the word 'before' appears
underlined] the complaint was filed by van
Weezendonk [ref: this complaint was filed on January
10, 1996; consult entries in this agenda of June 25,
1996 for FSC's conclusion and position, with note
dated January 7, 1996, and with February 9, 1996 for
WWF's subsequent comments to the media.]"
In continuation, OHRA's legal representatives
Ekelmans den Hollander write: "OHRA has always
portrayed that it has been certified by the
Rainforest Alliance." and: "OHRA stresses once more
that it has itself discovered the mistake and that
OHRA itself it has immediately corrected it itself."
Treemail (full copyright)
Prins Bernhardlaan 37
6866 BW Heelsum
The Netherlands
tel & fax: +31 317 314860
E-mail: treemail@vr.nl
NL Chamber of Commerce: 09088647
NL Vat registration: 0929 26 502 B 01
BACK TO
*********************************************************************