<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Forest Stewardship Council &#8216;Still The Best&#8217; Says WWF</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.natural-environment.com/blog/2008/11/19/forest-stewardship-council-still-the-best-says-wwf/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.natural-environment.com/blog/2008/11/19/forest-stewardship-council-still-the-best-says-wwf/</link>
	<description>Blogging for the Natural Environment</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:56:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jonny Good</title>
		<link>http://www.natural-environment.com/blog/2008/11/19/forest-stewardship-council-still-the-best-says-wwf/comment-page-1/#comment-4476</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonny Good</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:28:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.natural-environment.com/blog/?p=922#comment-4476</guid>
		<description>Hmm - appears as if the study was rigged, which I find amazing given that we're talking about WWF here.... see http://www.pefc.org/internet/html/news/4_1154_64/5_1105_1992.htm I've checked out the footnotes, and have to agree with the comments made by PEFC. Makes me actually wonder why WWF feels it neccessary to do something like this - risking their credibility for FSC. But whatever the reason is, I wish they would simply support both systems - with so many more forests to protect, they should rely on everything that is out there to help us accomplish this task</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm - appears as if the study was rigged, which I find amazing given that we&#8217;re talking about WWF here&#8230;. see <a href="http://www.pefc.org/internet/html/news/4_1154_64/5_1105_1992.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.pefc.org/internet/html/news/4_1154_64/5_1105_1992.htm</a> I&#8217;ve checked out the footnotes, and have to agree with the comments made by PEFC. Makes me actually wonder why WWF feels it neccessary to do something like this - risking their credibility for FSC. But whatever the reason is, I wish they would simply support both systems - with so many more forests to protect, they should rely on everything that is out there to help us accomplish this task</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

