Talk:Resolute Forest Products/Archives/2013

Untitled

In the spirit of full disclosure, I work at the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) of which Resolute Forest Products is a member company. As someone with an obvious interest in the subject of this article, I believe it's appropriate that I act transparently in suggesting changes to the article.

I noticed the latest revision to this article includes a very pointed statement which violates Wikipedia's policies on neutrality of articles (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). I believe it's fair to say that balance can be restored by removing the current last sentence of the second paragraph in the Forest Management section.

It's also worth noting that Resolute issued a response to the Greenpeace criticism which, among other things, notes some roads featured in the Greenpeace criticism of the company pre-date the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA) and other roads were built by the Québec Ministry of Natural Resources in order to provide access for the reforestation of a large areas of forest which burned in the summer of 2007. In the interest of balance, it seems appropriate the article should also identify the counterpoint and link to the Resolute response to Greenpeace ( http://www.resolutefp.com/uploadedFiles/Sustainability/Conservation_and_Biodiversity/Partnerships_and_Research/Letter%20To%20Customers%20Addressing%20Greenpeace%20Claims.pdf).

susanmmurray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanmmurray (talk • contribs) 21:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Change to "Forest management" section due to announcement by Greenpeace

Let me begin with full disclosure that I work closely with Resolute Forest Products.

Greenpeace issued a media release on March 19, 2013 asserting the organization had "incorrectly stated that Resolute had breached the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement by approving and developing roads in “areas of suspended harvest” and that Resolute was secretly engaged in logging, contrary to the terms of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. These statements were repeated and republished in subsequent publications." The release notes that Greenpeace has "removed any reference to the statements from all its materials. Greenpeace sincerely regrets its error." The announcement has been covered in mainstream media including The Globe and Mail. In light of this development, it would be appropriate to remove the paragraph beginning "As of December, 2012, GreenPeace asserts that..." and ending with "...logging companies who signed the agreement and were acting in good faith" as soon as possible. This change would also address the Neutral Point of View dispute posted last month.

Unless any objection is voiced, I will make these proposed changes at 12pmET on March 21. Alternatively, if an independent "seconder" wishes to, I encourage them to make the change sooner. Markblevis (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

In follow up to my submission to this Talk page on Tuesday, I'm going ahead with the removal of the following paragaph due to Greenpeace's acknowledgement on the official Greenpeace website that the accussations against Resolute were "inaccurate" and the organization has retracted their comments and pulled down online properties which promoted their inaccurate claims against Resolute.

The following now-inaccurate paragraph has been removed: As of December, 2012, GreenPeace asserts that Resolute Forest Products is not keeping the terms and conditions of "Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement". As noted on the official GreenPeace web-site: http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/Blog/its-over-resolute-forest-products/blog/43395/ A Greenpeace field investigation revealed newly built roads in off-limits areas in Quebec’s endangered Montagnes Blanches forest, a forest managed by our CBFA partner Resolute Forest Products. This blatant violation of one of the foundational elements of the agreement was a slap in the face to both the environmental organizations and the other logging companies who signed the agreement and were acting in good faith.

Markblevis (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I also removed the NPOV dispute on the page since the article no longer contains the contentious paragraph. Markblevis (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional edits

I hope that the proposed change I suggested sounds reasonable. I’d like to add the following additional edits to the language to more accurately reflect media reports on the issues identified in the criticism section.

In the first paragraph of the criticism section, change “As a result of a lack of progress…” to “Claiming a lack of progress…” In the first paragraph of the criticism section, change “Resolute Forest Products has been criticized for advancing logging…” to “Resolute Forest Products has been criticized by Greenpeace for advancing logging…” At the end of the first paragraph of the criticism section, add “Greenpeace withdrew an earlier criticism of Resolute Forest Products on 19 March 2013 noting that a December 2012 campaign against the company “incorrectly stated that Resolute had breached the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement”[citation http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/Global/canada/pr/2013/02/Notice_of_correction_regarding_Resolute_Forest_Products_operations.pdf]” At the end of the second paragraph of the criticism section, add “On 3 May 2013, however, it was reported that an agreement was put in place which addressed the ongoing pension dispute with Resolute agreeing to increase its pension payments and “stabilize the pension plan over the next decade”. [citation http://www.kenoradailyminerandnews.com/2013/05/03/kenora-mill-workers-union-says-conflict-over-pensions-may-be-settled-for-good].” — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBJJ01 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have applied the changes as indicated above. MBJJ01 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggested changes to article structure

My name is Monica Bailey and I am posting this as a representative of the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC), a trade association which represents Canada's wood, pulp and paper producers. Resolute Forest Products is a member of FPAC.

For the purpose of coherence, I’m proposing a few structural changes to the article. First, move to the end of opening section of the article the comment “Resolute Forest Products is a member of the Forest Products Association of Canada.”

Second, the “Forest Management” section be renamed to “Operations” and be focused on relevant operation information maintaining existing citations and adding other relevant information (addition in bold text):

The company website reports Resolute Forest Products manages “approximately 14.9 million hectares (36.9 million acres) of forestland in North America (as of June 30, 2011). 98% of this area is public land in Canada, managed through long-term forest management arrangements that include a public input process and regular periodic government auditing.” On 18 May 2010, Resolute Forest Products joined 29 other organizations including Greenpeace and The David Suzuki Foundation[9] to become a founding member of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA).[10] The agreement formalizes the members’ commitments to conserving vast areas of forests and enabling the legislated protection of large-scale areas that are needed to preserve threatened species such as woodland caribou.

Resolute became a member of the World Wildlife Fund’s Climate Saver’s Program on November 10, 2011 with a commitment to “reduce their absolute greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 65 per cent by 2015 below 2000 levels”[new citation http://www.wwf.ca/?10101/Resolute-Forest-Products-Joins-WWF-Climate-Savers-Program].

Finally, other existing citations of Resolute should be moved to a new section to be called “Controversy” and should read as follows, maintaining existing citations:

As a result of lack of progress on delivering results particularly on the creation protected areas and caribou conservation plans, Greenpeace and Canopy, two founding signatories, departed the agreement in December 2012 and April 2013 respectively.[11] Other environmental organizations suspended work with Resolute on May 21, 2013 announcing that "Resolute will not do the minimum that the science says is required to protect our forests and the threatened caribou that call them home[12]". Greenpeace released a report examining Resolute's sustainability claims in May 2013, alleging that the company is deceiving customers about the sustainability of their forestry operations and their interactions with communities, First Nations and workers[13].

Resolute Forest Products has been criticized for advancing logging and roadbuilding in endangered species habitat in Quebec and Ontario.[14] The primary workers' union has recently been critical of the company's attempts to renegotiate pension contributions with their pension underfunded by approximately $1.9 billion.[15]''

--MBJJ01 (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have applied these changes as indicated above. MBJJ01 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)