Bunnings is keeping an eye on how timber harvested by the West Australian government to allow Alcoa to mine has been labelled sustainable despite no rehabilitation of the jarrah forests being completed in 60 years of bauxite mining. Source: WA Today
In 2020, UK company BSI audited the Forest Product Commission’s timber harvesting before mining, and Alcoa’s rehabilitation afterwards, and decided it met the requirements for sustainable forest management under the global Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification.
But the Wilderness Society called that conclusion “greenwashing”.
Bunnings, which sells jarrah products described as “sustainably harvested”, confirmed some of its products made from the once ubiquitous WA hardwood come from PEFC-certified forest areas cleared for Alcoa.
In March, WA Today revealed that none of the almost 280 square kilometres of jarrah forest cleared by Alcoa over 60 years has been rehabilitated to the point where it meets the completion criteria agreed between Alcoa and the WA government.
Australia’s largest hardware retailer is aware of concerns about the rehabilitation of areas cleared for Alcoa. It plans to review the findings of an upcoming audit that it understands will consider the adequacy of Alcoa’s rehabilitation.
Timber harvested from a native forest can only be classified as sustainable under the PEFC standards if it is not “converted” to another use. In practice, this means the return of the natural ecosystem.
Each year the FPC harvests timber from about 700 hectares, or seven square kilometres, of forest along the Darling Scarp between Perth and Collie before Alcoa mines bauxite to feed its three alumina refineries.
The audit by BSI has allowed the state-owned FPC which aims to “deliver healthy forests for future generations” to market the timber as “Responsible Wood.”
The British Standards Institution which operates under the name BSI was asked how it could certify the timber as sustainable given the lack of completed rehabilitation afterwards.
A BSI spokesman said it conducted a thorough assessment of both the timber salvage before mining and the effectiveness of subsequent rehabilitation in line with the standard’s requirements.
“The assessment undertaken at that time determined that forest conversion was not occurring as there is a mandated requirement for rehabilitation.”
BSI was asked how a requirement for rehabilitation rather than actual evidence of rehabilitation was sufficient evidence of sustainable forestry, but it did not answer.
Simon Dorries, chief executive of Responsible Wood that manages PEFC certification in Australia said BSI’s audit was not a simple check of legal obligations and involved a detailed verification of rehabilitation.
“Any implication that a certification decision was made simply on the existence of legislation is not factual and is completely misleading,” he said.
Mr Dorries suggested BSI be asked for further clarification on their audit process.
The BSI spokesman said it was accredited to deliver independent assessments against the standard and followed a robust process in line with the standard.
The Forest Products Commission was asked if it stood by its claim that “certification provides consumers with assurance that their timber products originate from responsibly managed forests” but it did not answer the question.
An FPC spokesman said certification was determined by an independent body.
“Attaining the Responsible Wood certification means that the FPC can extract maximum value for the State as these timber products may otherwise be wasted,” he said.
An Alcoa spokeswoman said the BSI audit showed its rehabilitation efforts were consistent with the standard’s requirements.
She said when BSI conducted the audit it engaged with Alcoa and inspected sites with examples of the whole process from before mining, shaping the ground after mining, and areas five to 20 years into the rehabilitation process.
Wilderness Society campaigns director Amelia Young said the PEFC certification in Australia and internationally was a woefully inadequate basis to assess whether forest products were sustainable.
“As this example shows, a successful audit against a weak standard is a meaningless result,” she said.
“We are concerned that when an organisation like the British Standards Institute provides a green tick based on an assessment against deeply inadequate guidelines,
“It moves it from being an individual instance of greenwashing into a systemic case of green laundering.”
Mr Dorries said the PEFC standard is based on science and designed to manage environmental, social and economic values in all forest types.
“I expect that certification of native forests conflicts with the purpose of the Wilderness Society to end native forest harvesting,” he said.
