Federal Forestry Flakking

Canada's diplomatic corps is fully involved in a worldwide PR war to defend Canada's forest industry and forestry practices

By Aaron Freeman

  If you're a large multinational, how do you choose a good public relations firm? Fortunately for at least one client, the BC forestry industry, the federal government has shown that it offers an array of services that puts any full-service PR firm to shame.
  Not that this industry doesn't need the help. Forestry executive David Emerson, speaking at an industry association meeting in January, noted that forestry companies are losing the fight for credibility in the world marketplace, and that environmentalists are "whipping our asses."
 

Much is made of the success of international campaigns against greedy forestry but less is known about Canada's counter-strategy which employs similar tactics

  Greenpeace and other environmental groups have successfully adopted a market-based strategy of targeting industrial consumers of wood, asking these companies to stop buying products made from wood cut using unsustainable methods. The enviros say most BC lumber falls into that category, a claim the industry disputes, and all players in the debate allege that the other side is using lies and half-truths to further their cause.
  Much has been made of the success of this campaign, which combines a variety of media-savvy strategies delivered through their international network. But less is known about the Canadian government's counter-strategy, which employs a similar approach.
  In 1998, forestry companies and unions asked the federal government to help counter the environmentalists' campaign. The federal and provincial governments had already contributed $4.5 million to start up the International Forestry Partnerships Program, whose mandate was "to communicate Canada's sustainable forest management policies and practices" abroad. But the industry said more was needed to counter the new market-based campaign.
  According to access to information documents obtained by The Hill Times, the federal government responded with an extensive public relations campaign promoting the BC forestry industry. While some of the initiatives the government undertook are not unlike assistance given to other Canadian industries at trade missions abroad, the scale of the effort was unprecedented, amounting to a comprehensive, taxpayer-funded PR campaign that would have cost the companies millions of dollars if they had to pay for it themselves.
  Through the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), the government used its global network of consulates and embassies to make the forestry companies' case.
  In the spring of 1998, U.S. environmental groups took out an ad in the New York Times listing 27 Fortune 500 companies that had pledged not to purchase wood cut from endangered forest areas. The ad also listed several companies that refused to make this pledge, an attempt to shame them into changing their buying practices.

PR machine in gear
  Immediately following publication of the ad, the Canadian foreign service PR machine went into high gear. Consular staff were alerted in at least 10 U.S. cities. Staff called dozens of companies named in the ad, including Hewlett Packard, Levi Strauss, Mitsubishi, 3M and Hallmark. They compiled reports on the companies' social and environmental policies, how each was approached by Greenpeace, and who the relevant contact people were at the company, recommending ways to make "future contact with these companies [and] to inform decision makers of the Canadian viewpoint on sustainable forestry."
  The government often responded to industry criticism by hosting tours of BC forestry sites for foreign government, corporate and media representatives. One such promotional tour for U.S. officials in 1997 cost Canadian taxpayers $80,000. Embassy officials recommended conducting a similar tour following the New York Times ad.
  Canadian consulates also issued a press release criticizing Greenpeace's claims, highlighting the contribution of the forestry industry to BC communities, and that millions of hectares of old-growth forests in BC are "fully protected or considered to be unavailable or unsuitable for harvesting."
 

Embassies keep regular tabs on what the environmental groups were doing and share information expertly

  The foreign service wrote letters to major news outlets to counter pro-environmentalist media coverage. When letters from concerned foreign timber buyers were received by consular staff, they were sometimes circulated to forestry company officials to obtain their input.
  When the Los Angeles City Council was considering a resolution that would have required the city to purchase only wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council - the standard approved of by most Canadian and international environmental groups - the Canadian consulate was quick to fire off a letter from Deputy Consul General Dwayne Wright. Wright suggested that such a resolution would be in violation of international trade rules, arguing that preference for FSC-certified wood would result in "unfair discrimination against other recognized certification systems," a dubious interpretation of international trade rules.
  Canada eventually succeeded in defeating the resolution.

Embassies play key role in counter-spin strategies
  Embassies kept regular tabs on what the environmental groups were doing. The December 1998 "Report of Forestry Issues" from the Canadian High Commission in London focused almost exclusively on the campaigns of Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund and Friends of the Earth. The report summarized speeches by each group's representatives, media coverage of their campaigns, and their success with European governments and corporate buyers. Other reports singled out the key Greenpeace players, such as Canadian forestry activist Tzeporah Berman.
  In Brussels, embassy staff Johan Willemen attended an Earth Day seminar conducted by Flemish environmental groups, without disclosing his embassy affiliation. He used his presence at the meeting "to identify several organisations, research institutes and civil servants in the forestry field who would benefit from [information] that will cast doubt about Greenpeace allegations."
 

As part of their duties, foreign service officers regularly contacted journalists to try to change the spin on stories about Canadian forestry

  DFAIT developed fact sheets to counter reports issued by the environmental groups, and distributed them through foreign missions. The missions would provide feedback to develop the spin of these materials. An email from an embassy staff in The Hague, for example, advises Ottawa to "avoid terminology which portrays Canada as a leader or 'proud steward,'" suggesting that this would not be believable to audiences in The Netherlands and other countries. "We would recommend to use words like 'sustainability' or 'commitment,'" the staff wrote.
  Following a tour of the province for journalists hosted by the Canadian mission in The Hague, the embassy conducted media monitoring on behalf of industry, translating and sending articles to the BC forestry companies. Media reports were regularly issued by other embassies, such as Brussels, which conducted meetings with Belgian reporters resulting in favourable press in May 1998.
  Foreign missions regularly exchanged strategies on how to deal with Greenpeace. In October 1998, when Greenpeace organized a visit by school children carrying anti-clearcutting banners to the embassy in Washington, DC, the embassy was briefed by staff at the Bonn embassy, which dealt with a similar incident earlier that year.
  The Bonn embassy was particularly engaged, hosting a three-city tour of "public and private sector experts" in May 1998 to promote Canada's forestry practices for business audiences. The embassy translated backgrounders for the audience, and conducted an invitation-only lunch media briefing at a hotel near the embassy. An email from the embassy noted that "More active Embassy/Consulate involvement is of symbolic importance to many it seems." Bonn also repeatedly urged Ottawa to pursue "civil legal remedies" against Greenpeace.

Diplomatic spin doctors
  As part of their duties, foreign service officers regularly contacted journalists to try to change the spin on stories about Canadian forestry. In London, the High Commission worked with a forestry industry PR firm, Pielle Communications, trying to convince producers of a BBC "Newsnight" feature in May 1998 to provide a more pro-industry slant. The staff also recommended arranging a follow-up interview with BBC and a BC forestry executive.
  Following extensive media attention about the trial of two Belgian activists arrested in BC while protesting logging practices, a document from Brussels embassy analyzed the Greenpeace campaign. The document noted that the media covered the incident as a "human interest story," making it difficult for the Canadian government to respond.
  The embassy staff authoring the report about the media's coverage exhibited a sophisticated understanding of Greenpeace's efforts. "The success of [Greenpeace's] approach can be attributed to its image building and its target," he wrote. "The target is neither a European nor a developing country. Canada is far away and exotic, a country whose image in Europe rests on its vast natural resources - minerals, forests and wildlife. ... [T]he image has a particular poignancy for Germans, Belgians and Dutch, who are frequent tourists to Canada or who have relatives in Canada, but who are not aware of Canadian issues, perspectives or approaches. Greenpeace's creation of images and manipulation of symbols are very useful in building sympathy with Europeans/Belgians who feel they have 'mistreated' their own nature and thus must expiate this sin by 'preventing' Canadians from committing the same mistakes."
  The report recommends putting more resources into a media strategy, running "image-building" ads in Belgian newspapers, and bringing Belgian journalists to Canada and "credible experienced foresters and native people" to Belgium to promote the pro-industry viewpoint.
  It also notes that because many BC forestry companies do not have offices in Belgium, "we have developed a close working relationship with the CCPA [Canadian Pulp and Paper Association] Information Office in Brussels, and with Canfor's European office, also located here."
  The report outlines the embassy-industry combined strategy: "When stories about the Great Bear Forest started appearing in the press, we quickly established closer contacts with CPPA-Brussels and Canfor. We saw a common purpose and recognized that each had specific strengths and weaknesses. While we have good information sources, we were not always best placed to speak publicly of this issue. Thus, we sent them the articles as they appeared, with summaries or translations of excerpts when necessary."
  "We will continue to build on this network, extend it to other Canadian wood-related industries' offices in Brussels, and exchange information about upcoming visits by BC companies' forestry experts. Other posts in Western Europe are more than welcome to link in to this 'support group,'" the report adds.
  DFAIT does not deny that Canadian missions are being used to promote the forestry industry abroad. According to a DFAIT spokesperson, "It's the role of the Canadian government to promote products and commercial actions that create Canadian jobs." He estimates that approximately 20 staff in the United States, 15 in Europe and 10 in Japan all work part-time on "advocacy and public relations" on forestry issues. Here in Canada, staff have taken an "advocacy training session on forestry-related issues."
  He says DFAIT's efforts are "complimentary to industry public relations," but says the department "has to act at arms length; otherwise it has no credibility."
  Forestry executives have modest praise for the federal effort. Bill Dumont, the chief forester for Western Forest Products, says his industry has had "excellent assistance from Foreign Affairs," but he points out that "for the magnitude of the sector in Canada, they could be doing a lot more."
  Greenpeace says Canadians should be outraged that taxpayer dollars are being used to prop up the forestry industry. "Emerging industries like tourism are quickly becoming more important than forestry in BC, and even forestry executives are now recognizing that they need to move away from PR and actually change their practices," says Greenpeace forestry campaigner Gavin Edwards. "The government is joining in the fight on one side, when it should be playing a neutral role, trying to build consensus among the parties."
  Since 1998, there are signs that more is being put into the forestry promotional campaign. Last year, multi-year funding was renewed for the International Forestry Partnerships Program. The $1 million-a-year budget of the organization is split between the federal and provincial governments.
  The BC provincial government also recently announced that it will set aside one percent of all government revenues from the forestry industry for a promotional campaign to buy BC wood. The industry is calling on the federal government to match this $24 million-a-year effort.

Aaron Freeman is an Ottawa-based writer. He can be reached at freeman@essential.org

Posted: February 12, 2001

[ Front Page ]