FSC Staff,Members and Stakeholders

To FSC Board of Directors

FSC Staff,Members and Stakeholders

FromGeaSphere (A section 21 non-profit organisation)

PO Box 14842

Nelspruit 1200

Mpumalanga, South Africa

/

Cell: +27 (0)83 386 8907

Nelspruit, 16th June 2011

Open letter to the FSC Board of Directors, FSCstaff, and FSC stakeholders

Rejection of thedecision of the FSC Complaints Panel and its response to the formal complaint submitted by GeaSphere

Summary:

AfterGeaSphere’s complaint regarding the killing of baboons in FSC-certified timber plantations in South Africa was formally accepted by Andre de Freitas (FSC Executive Director), it was supposed to have been evaluated by an independent and impartial Complaints Panelinkeeping with FSC guidelines.However the Panel’s response does not appear to have considered any of our recommendations. Ithas also failed to acknowledge that lethal control methods are not a solution to the baboon-damage issue, and that a moratorium should be placed on the killing of baboons until sufficient research data are available to support a holistic evaluation of the issue.

GeaSphere believes that the Complaints Panel appointed by the FSC was not independent and impartial at all, and therefore rejects the decision of the Panel for the reasons detailed in this letter. In our view the FSC procedurestodeal with a formal complaint have not been followed. Members of FSC’s management appear to have deliberately withheld relevant information and thusinfluenced the Panel’s decision. This letter provides suggestions for general improvements to the FSC dispute resolution system for handling formal complaints.

It also provides information to substantiate our allegations, anddescribes the flawed processing of the formal complaint, and it is addressed directly to the Board of Directors of FSC and to certain FSC staff members, as we have lost faith in the ability of the Executive Director and his office to deal with this issue appropriately.

By reason of the scale of the complaints and allegations, we urge all members of the FSC Board of Directors to carefully consider the letter and its contents and to then take the necessary steps. GeaSphere calls on the FSC Board not to accept the Complaints Panel’s decision and final report.

Dear FSC directors and staff,

Dear FSC members and stakeholders,

On the 11th of January 2011 GeaSphere submitted a formal complaint for the attention of Mr Andre de Freitas, Executive Director of FSC International. The formal complaint, titled “The killing of baboons in FSC-certified industrial timber plantations in South Africa”, was accepted by the Executive Director and was to be processed in adherence with official FSC guidelines ‘FSC-PRO-01-009’.

Asupposedly independent and impartial panel of three expertswas thenappointed by Mr Andre de Freitas. After evaluating GeaSphere’s complaint and related evidence, the Complaints Panel came to a final decision which was forwarded to us on 3rd June 2011.

Followingour careful evaluation of the final report and themanner in which our formal complaint was handled by FSC, wedecided to reject the final report and its findings; and with the wisdom of hindsight, do not consider the mandate of the Complaints Panelto belegitimate.Our decision to reject the Panel’s report and its contentsis based on solid reasoning and we will therefore detail a number of the issues for your attention:

Independence and Impartiality of the Complaints Panel

The final report by the Complaints Panel, dated 29th May 2011, does not reflect the views of an objective, impartial and independent panel. Instead, thecontent,language and tone of the report indicate that the panel has heldbiastowards the subject of the complaint through the entire process.This appears to be due to the members of the Complaints Panel being either directly affiliatedto or financially linked to theFSCor the timber industry in South Africa.

We identified several issues and flaws in the report, some of which we would like bring to your attention:

The report gives incorrect numbers of baboons killed in the past and wrong information on the history of lethal control methods used in the plantation industry in South Africa. The statement by the Complaints Panel that “several hundreds of baboons” have been killed is incorrect.In a report by Dr. R.A. Fergusson in 2005 (‘Review of baboons, baboon damage and baboon control in South African Plantation Forests, with particular reference to Mpumalanga Province’), commissioned by the timber industry, it is stated“from the records discussed above at least 3340 baboons have been removed from plantations in the Sabie/Graskop area in the last 30 years, the majority of those in the last 10 years.” (cf. pg. 31) If the hundreds of baboons killed after 2005 are added, it is correct to use the term “thousands of baboons killed” when referring to all killings done by the timber industry.

In the same report, Fergusson gives a detailed and substantiatedhistory of lethal baboon control in Mpumalanga – dating back to as early as 1976 (“There are reports from 1976 onwards concerning attempts to poison baboon troops that were causing damage”, pg. 27; “Mondi Forests correspondence records use of traps from March 1976 at Klipkraal and Ramanas”, pg. 29). Thus, the Complaints Panel saying “according to the available information, lethal management of baboons in commercial forestry in Mpumalanga began in one plantation in the late 1990s” (pg. 2) is wrong.

We assume that these mistakes could only have been made because the critical paper by Fergusson had not been read thoroughly by the Complaints Panel members, and for this reason the Panel was not aware of the actual dates and numbersand therefore misstated them in their final report.

Although we clearly indicated in the complaints letter why we demand a moratorium, and although we submitted a number of supporting evidence in the form of research and suggestions as to non-lethal solutions, it appears the Complaints Panel did not take our material into consideration at all. The report did not include any comments on our proposed key non-lethal solution – the diversification of timber plantation compartments with indigenous vegetation to provide the baboons with sufficient food.Our call for a moratorium was rejected without givingan adequate reason and the Panel’s report left a lot of gaps in their defense of killing such a large number of baboons.It is crucial to note here that ourplea for a moratorium was basednot only on ethical concerns, but on scientific evidence suggesting that current lethal control procedures do not work, and that they do not even represent a cost-effective use of timber industry resources. The specific paper, “Habitat Structure, Population Characteristics and Resource Utilisation by Chacma Baboons in Commercial Forestry Areas of the Eastern Mpumalanga Escarpment” by Henzi et al. 2006, that contains this information has been made available to the Complaints Panel for evaluation. Yet,to our surprise and disappointment,it appears that the Complaints Panel did not assess this and otherstudieswell enough to obtain a holistic understanding of the problem.

We suspect that the panel did not make any effort to be unbiased and to consider all documentation equally, and we conclude that the Complaints Panel has held a strong bias towards favouring the timber industry’s views. It appears that the Complaints Panel deliberately ignored scientific research which does not support the use of lethal control methods.In other words, the main principals of Independence and Impartiality were not upheld and point 4.10 of the FSC formal complaints procedure (“The members of the Complaints Panel shall judge in all fairness and according to rules of this procedure.”) has not been respected.

FSC procedure guidelines have not been followed by FSC and Andre de Freitas in particular:

The official FSC procedure FSC-PRO-01-009 states:

4.2 The Complaints Panel shall consist of three (3) members. The members shall be impartial and free of any conflict of interest in relation to the complainant and to thecomplaint. The Director of FSC A.C. shall ensure that the composition of theComplaints Panel satisfies the requirements of impartiality and conflict of interest.

NOTE: Members of FSC and FSC/ ASI staff, as well as affected stakeholders shall not be eligible to be part of the Complaints Panel, unless unanimously accepted bythe Parties to the Complaint.

FSC guidelinesfor the Complaints Panel selectionare not clear and allowtoo broad interpretation:

According to the FSC procedure, “members of FSC andFSC/ASI staff” are not eligible to be on the Complaints Panel unless accepted by the Parties to the Complaint.

In a mail dated 22nd February 2011 we informed Andre de Freitas and his assistant Angela Rott that we did not accept the nomination of Dr. Timothy Synnott as he is a former Executive Director of FSC, a member of FSC through his forestry consultancy ‘Estudios Forestales Synnott S.C.’ and due to his involvement in several FSC processes, including the FSC P&C review Working Group.Mr De Freitas rejected our objection “based on the fact that Dr. Synnott is not a member of staff of the FSC, nor of ASI”.However, in our opinion, FSC’s procedural guidelines mayindicate thatneithermembers of FSC, norFSC/ASI staffshould be considered eligible to be part of the Complaints Panel. We acknowledge that this point is debatable and the actual statement dependent on the respective interpretation. Thus,if the guidelines mean to say “FSCstaff members and FSC-ASIstaff members are not eligible to be part of the Complaints Panel”, it would be clearer to state it just like this, and we recommend that the FSC wouldreword this itemto prevent similar misunderstandings in future.

Generally speaking we do not regard someone that has a close relationship with the FSC through membership, participation in processes, and former role as Executive Director, as independent and impartial to any complaint. The core element of a formal complaints procedure is an independent and impartial Complaints Panel and anyone affiliated to the FSC and/or the timber industry in some way cannot, in our view, represent these crucial principals and should therefore not beon the Panel.

Regarding one member of the Complaints Panel, namely Dr. Kobus du Toit, we see a clear breach of the FSC guidelines by FSC and its management, and above all point 4.2.

Despite being involved in the baboon-damage issue and providing services to the timber industry, David Pepler and Dr. Kobus du Toitwere nominated by FSC to be on the Complaints Panel.

On the 21st February 2011,Angela Rott, Executive Assistant to Andre de Freitas, notified usofpossible candidates for the Complaints Panel. The names and information we received were as follows: "Dr. Timothy Synnott, consultancyEstudios Forestales Synnott A.C. andformer ED of FSC; Dr. Kobus du Toit, Chairman of the SA Veterinary Ethics Committee; and Dr. DrDavid Pepler, Horus Wildlife Consultants.”.

It was obviously impossible for us to evaluate the impartiality and independence of the candidates based on the little information that was made available to us by the FSC. Hence, we didour own research. While it was difficult to obtain substantial information on the candidates via the internet, we were fortunate to have obtained a document compiled for the Baboon Damage Working Group – a group mainly consisting of timber industry representatives that deals specifically with the issue of damage caused by baboons in plantations. The author of this document titled 'Protocol for the management of Chacma Baboons causing damage in Southern African commercial plantations' from 2007 is Dave Pepler, one of the candidates for the Complaints Panel proposed by the FSC. In this protocol, Peplerdetails how to best and most effectively capture and kill a baboon ("The most effective killing shots are placed in the brain, the heart or the spinal column in the neck.", Page 5; "Once animal have suitably calmed down they must be killed by a single shot to the brain.", Page 22).

With apprehension about his nomination by the FSC and by Andre de Freitas, we objected strongly to the nomination of Dave Pepler on the 22nd February 2011, and in the same letter urged the Executive Director and his assistant to have a much more careful look at the other candidatesto avoid such an intolerable decision being taken again. The FSC accepted our rejection to the nomination of Dave Pepler and nominated Dr. Jeff Garnas.

FSC providedincorrect information on Dave Pepler to us, asit appears he isnotreally “Dr. DrDavid Pepler”not having obtained any doctorate during his tertiary education. FSC assigning him the title of “doctor” is misleading, and this shows that the FSC wasnot fully and incorrectlyinformed about the proposed Complaints Panel’s candidates.

As Executive Director of FSC International,Andre de Freitas, by nominating Dave Pepler and providing incorrect information,failedto “ensure that the composition of the Complaints Panel satisfies the requirements of impartiality andconflict of interest”.

The issues identifiedduring the formal complaint process led us to be more cautious when evaluating the impartiality and independence of the other candidates. As we still lacked information about Dr. Kobus du Toit, aside from his apparently being the chairman of the SA Veterinary Ethics Committee, we clearly and in ‘bold writing’ requested the following information from both Andre de Freitas and his Assistant (in the same email in which we objected to Dave Pepler):

• Has Dr Kobus du Toit ever been involved in the 'management of problem animals [lethal - killing, poisoning, etc.] in South Africa as a wildlife veterinarian?In Dave Pepler's document it states that often, the killing is done by wildlife veterinarians.
• Or has Dr Kobus du Toit ever been consulted by the plantation industry regarding problem animal control?

The questions were clear and we sincerely expected FSC and especially Andre de Freitas to follow up on this.

We eventually received a reply via email from Angela Rott, sent from Andre de Freitas’ email address on 28th February. Rather than being able to definitely deny any involvement of Kobus du Toit in the baboon issue, Angela Rott simply assumes: “So, Dr. du Toit seems not have been involved with baboons so far and I think he could give valuable input to the panel.” She furthermore provided information from the internet on some of his other work and promised to forward a short CV and bio as soon as they are available. The CV, which was sent to us on the 9th of March, did not hint towards any involvement of Kobus du Toit with the Baboon Damage Working Group or any timber company either. Consequently, we accepted the nomination of Kobus du Toit. We rightfully assumed that Andre de Freitas and Angela Rott lived up to their responsibility to make 100% sure that Kobus du Toit has never been involved in the baboon issue to ensure that there is no conflict of interest and to avoid a repetition of the mistake made with the nomination of Dave Pepler.

However, taking a closer look at the final report of the Complaints Panel we noticed that the Complaints Panel used four documents in their evaluation that have been compiled by a certain J.G. du Toit. As from the final report, the following documents were used to evaluate the complaint:

39 Baboon bibliography, from du Toit.

40 Baboon capture data from du Toit.

41 Report: A holistic approach to baboon damage in pine forests. du Toit

42 Du Toit, J G (2009) Baboon damage in Forestry.

We became curious as to the identity of this J.G. du Toit, who compiled at least four documents on the baboon issue, probably commissioned by the timber industry. Internet research and a phone conversation with Kobus du Toit resulted in the disturbing discovery that J.G. du Toit and Kobus du Toit are one and the same.

This is shocking, as Dr. Kobus du Toit, member of the supposedly independent and impartial Complaints Panel (as “ensured” by the Executive Director of FSC according to the procedure) has been involved in the baboon issue to a great extent in recent years, having written 4 documents from “Baboon capture data” to “Baboon damage in Forestry”.

It is very worrying too that Dr. Kobus du Toit’s CV does not include any information about any projects on baboons although a number of other projects, titles and other experiences are listed in the CV. We could presume that the CV has been manipulated at some stage to hide Dr. Kobus du Toit’s previous, and perhaps current involvement in the baboon issue.

Most disconcerting however is that, in a telephone conversation between Philip Owen and Dr. Jakobus du Toit on the 13th of June 2011, Dr. Du Toit confirmed that he disclosed all information on his involvement with the baboon issue and his work for the timber industry in this regard to the FSC. This in turn means that the FSC, most probably including Executive Director Andre de Freitas and his Assistant, were fully aware of Dr. Kobus du Toit’s involvement in the baboon issue, and deliberately withheld this indispensable information from us. It would mean that the FSC intentionally influenced the outcome of the formal complaint and was aware at all times that the basic principles of impartiality and independence were not upheld. If Dr. Kobus du Toit really disclosed information on his involvement with the baboon issue to the FSC (and we can assume this to be the case after confirmation by him personally), this cannot be regarded as a mistake or an oversight by the FSC and its management, but an internal investigation should decide if it can be considered fraud.