some of it quite serious. The problem is less the validity of the system, or its Principles and Criteria, than its consistency and enforcementproblems which some have linked to the growing power of large forestry interests within the FSC. In November 2002, the UK-based Rainforest Foundation (RF) released a report that claimed that the forest companies producing FSC-certified wood have been implicated in gross abuses of human rights, including the torturing and shooting of local people; are logging in pristine tropical rainforest containing some of the worlds most endangered wildlife species, such as the Sumatran tiger; and have falsely claimed to comply with the FSCs audit requirements, such as by allowing uncertified wood to be labelled with the FSC seal of approval. (Counsell & Loraas, 2002, p.1) The RF report is intriguing not only because of its criticisms, but because it links them to FSC certifications trajectory of developmentevolving from a mechanism of support for discriminatory grass-roots boycott campaigns to become a major international forest policy tool of global decision-makers. The RF sees in this a subtle shift from the use of the FSC principally as a tool for improved forest management to one of improved marketing of forest products. One central focus of the RF criticism of the FSC revolves around the behaviour of the most powerful environmental member of the FSCthe WWF (known as the World Wildlife Fund in North America, and the Worldwide Fund for Nature elsewhere). The WWF has been instrumental in achieving increasing forest industry involvement in wood certification, primarily through its Trade Networks which now exist in 15 countries and include over 600 corporate members. A growing number of environmental and indigenous groups, however, feel that the WWFs ambitious agenda for spreading FSC