Kleenex clean up their act over ancient forests

Thanks for your comments.

Ancient forests like the Canadian Boreal Forest need protection. That's why we're happy with Kimberly-Clark's new policy, because it immediately protects areas of ancient forest - and will protect much more over time.

We launched the Kleercut campaign in November 2004 because of the serious impact Kimberly-Clark was having on ancient forests. After nearly five years, with the support of activists and volunteers worldwide, we believe that we have an agreement with the company that will protect ancient forests.

Of course, complete change doesn't happen overnight, whether for governments, individuals or for multi-national corporations like Kimberly-Clark. But things have changed for the better under Kimberly-Clark's new policy, and we're confident that's going to carry on.

In a bit more detail: For more than seven decades, Kimberly-Clark purchased pulp from the 2 million hectare (5 million acre) Kenogami Forest in Northern Ontario. At times, they purchased more than 400,000 tonnes of pulp, or 13% of their total global supply of virgin fibre, from this forest. In recent years, they also received pulp from the adjoining Ogoki Forest (1 million hectares or 2.5 million acres). These forests hold big intact wilderness spaces that are vital to species such as woodland caribou. As a result of our campaign, Kimberly-Clark is no longer buying pulp from these forests. The reason? The current manager of the forest, Buchanan Forest Products, refused to meet the strict ecological criteria that Kimberly-Clark laid out in their new policy. We believe this is real change on the ground that will lead to more conservation of these two forests.

A key element of Kimberly-Clark's new policy is the company's commitment to stop using any fibre from the world's most ecologically sensitive forests areas. They also agreed not to source fiber from a number of other forests, including primary tropical rainforests. These are the forest areas that we have been fighting to protect during the 5 years of this campaign.

Additionally, Kimberly-Clark is reducing its pressure on ancient forests by increasing the amount of recycled fibre used in their products, and giving a preference for post-consumer paper. This will spur increased recycling efforts and diversion of paper waste from landfill.

The policy also increases the use of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified fiber, which currently is the only certification system in the world that supports and verifies environmentally responsible and socially just forest management. Kimberly-Clark's commitment is to ensure that 40 percent (up from 29% today) of the fibre used in North American tissue products - representing an estimated 600,000 tonnes - is either recycled or FSC certified by 2011. This is a very big jump for a corporation the size of Kimberly-Clark.

Also, and very central to our campaign, the company is making big positive change in the Canadian Boreal Forest. In less than a year and a half, Kimberly-Clark will no longer buy any wood fiber from the Canadian Boreal Forest that is not FSC certified. They are decreasing this from over 400,000 tonnes in 2007 to zero by the end of 2011. This is great, because we believe this shift will shake up the forest products industry worldwide and lead to a decrease in further threats to ancient forests.

Certainly, there is still more to be done. We are not going away. We will work with Kimberly-Clark to ensure the policy is fully implemented in the coming years. The challenge is now out to Kimberly-Clark's competitors and the rest of the pulp and paper sector to stop destroying ancient forests. With your help, we will continue to pressure these companies to reach and exceed the new bar for forest protection set by this agreement.

Please visit http://www.greenpeace.ca/kleercutvictory for more detailed information.

I too am alarmed at the statistics Ecological Internet are quoting, and emailed Greeenpeace yesterday for a response (which was prompt, but simply links to more standard news items, and a promise to pass the message to the forests team).
For the case to be "closed" I think we need a strong and clear response from Greenpeace. From where I am standing at the moment this is a small step in the right direction - but no "great victory" as claimed.
I have been lobbying FSC on the ethics of "managing" virgin forests - and how FSC products can still be obtained from ancient trees in virgin tropical forests (imbalancing delicate age-structures and the forest ecology). FSC have constitutional aims (social and economic) as well as the environmental, but Greenpeace is purely an environmental pressure group. So why is this campaign "closing"? This is too important to permit such hollow victory - or ar Ecological Internet misinformed?

Perhaps someone would like to comment on this text from Ecological Internet (http://forests.org/blog/2009/08/release-greenpeace-wipes-its-v.asp#comments). Ecological Internet vigorously condemns Greenpeace Canada's greenwash endorsement of continued Canadian ancient boreal forest logging to make throw away paper items, including toilet paper. Yesterday Greenpeace announced a premature end to its "Kleercut" campaign against Kimberly-Clark Corporation, the maker of Kleenex, Scott and Cottonelle brand paper products, boldly proclaiming "today, ancient forests like the Boreal Forest have won." Greenpeace's long-standing campaign against "ancient forest crimes" by Kimberly-Clark was suspended on the basis of promises that 40% of its North American tissue fiber will be either recycled or FSC certified by 2011. The company traditionally has used 3 million tones of virgin fibre a year, which will fall to 2.4 million tons if they are successful. This atrociously weak target will legitimize continued destruction of Canada's ancient forest ecosystems for throw away paper products for decades. "In a world well past its carrying capacity, facing abrupt climate change and species and ecosystem collapse, we call upon Greenpeace to immediately disclose the ecological science that suggests primary and old growth forests can and should continue to be clearcut to wipe our asses," questions Dr. Glen Barry. "It is just like Greenpeace to half carry out a campaign, achieve partial success, claim victory and move onto a more telegenic protest opportunity to fill their coffers." Ecological Internet calls upon Greenpeace to embrace substance over style (for a change) and immediately disassociate itself from the Forest Stewardship Council's ongoing certification of first time industrial logging of primary forests as being "well-managed" while implying sustainability. "No one including Greenpeace can tell us how many tens of millions of hectares of primeval forest ecosystems are being destroyed under FSC's certification label for, amongst other things, toilet paper and lawn furniture. Until Greenpeace and friends stop greenwashing FSC ancient forest logging, we call upon committed forest protectors to resign their membership from Greenpeace and other ancient forest logging apologists, and to stop using virgin toilet paper, no matter how sensitive their behinds," explains Dr. Barry. It is up to us to continue the Kleercut campaign until primary forest logging ends. This places Greenpeace in strong contention for the upcoming "Forest Greenwash" of the year award.

John Shave I fully agree with the comments of the Ecological Internet. How can allowing, supporting and condoning the felling of Boreal Forest be acceptable to an ecologically concerned organisation? I understand the argument that it is better to engage with a forestry organisation but an agreement that gives a seal of approval to cutting virgin forest goes way too far in appeasement.

For anyone who wishes to let Greenpeace Canada know how they feel about their decision, please visit this Ecological Internet action: http://forests.org/shared/alerts/send.aspx?id=gp_ancient_forests I am a member of Greenpeace UK but feel Greenpeace Canada has made a poor decision.