Two major global forest certification schemes, the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification and the Forest Stewardship Council both prohibit the use of gene technologies in trees.
Photo: PIXABAY
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is holding firm on its stance against the use of genetic technologies in forests, despite potential easing of rules in Aotearoa at least.
The government proposed a new system last year to enable the use of new breeding techniques or genetically modified organisms (GMO), with further detail on the scheme expected next month.
Supporters identified opportunities for their use in forestry, such as using gene-editing tools to sterilise wilding conifer pines by deactivating their ferocious pollen and seed production.
But the two major global forest certification schemes, the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification and the Forest Stewardship Council both prohibited the use of gene technologies in trees.
FSC senior policy manager for Australia and New Zealand, Stefan Jensen, said some plantation growers in the southern hemisphere were interested in the use of genetic technologies in breeding trees, particularly New Zealand and Brazil.
However, he said its position was unchanged since its establishment in 1993.
“There’s really no scope for the use of GMO in the FSC system. Even if it is legal at the national level, it’s not accepted in FSC-certified forest.”
The Germany-headquartered organisation with members across the globe bearing its certification stamp that showed wood products originated from sustainably harvested forests.
Jensen said its northern hemisphere members were less interested in using genetic technologies as they foresaw fewer benefits and potential reputational harm.
“There’s certainly also some strong opposition to GMO at the moment across all groups of stakeholders in the system.
“So I think that that position is probably here to stay.”
He said it saw some significant downsides of introducing GMOs into the FSC system, with ramifications for small holders, especially.
“I can understand why some growers in New Zealand would be frustrated if they get the opportunity to use these new technologies legally,” he said.
“But because they are certified to FSC, they are effectively precluded from using them.”
Jensen said GMO in forestry could lead to negative outcomes as it had for cotton farming in India, where genetically modified cotton seeds resulted in a market monopolised by conglomerates that ultimately hurt local farmers.
Gene editing technologies like CRISPR were mooted by some in the sector as a tool for changing how wilding conifer pines like Pinus contorta or Douglas fir reproduced.
Wilding pines covered about 2 million hectares and cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year to control them.
Jensen said he understood that using GMO to prevent further spread of wilding pines was a “really worthy cause” for growers in New Zealand and other countries.
“I do not think there is any denying that there is upside of GMO too. But as an organisation like FSC, we have to weigh up a cost-benefit analysis, probably mixed with a bit of a precautionary approach.”
He said since FSC was a voluntary certification scheme, growers might have to consider what was in their best interests.
FSC was consulting around draft clarifications of definitions for new breeding techniques in its standards, with submissions closing on 28 September.
More than 15,000 New Zealanders shared their views on the Gene Technology Bill during the select committee late last year, and further clarity around the scheme was expected in October.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
