The Tropical Timber Issue on Green Labelling
by Tan Sri Dato' Wong Kum Choon, former CEO, Malaysian Timber Council
Since the seventies and especially from the mid eighties, environmentalism
has increasingly become an issue of global interest, politics, trade and
business and international debate. Global concerns about the deteriorating world
environment include trans-boundary pollution, the disposal of toxic waste, earth
warming from the greenhouse effect, the depletion of the ozone layer, acid rain,
marine pollution, land degradation and the extinction of numerous plant and
animal species.
In the wake of global environmental concerns, the timber issue was seized
upon by Northern environmentalists and political interests as a convenient
"scapegoat" so much so that tropical forest bashing has become the
order of the day. The reported depletion of tropical forest by FAO totalling 169
million ha. during 1981 - 90 or at the rate of about 16.9 million ha. a year was
used to denounce tropical forest management as untenable while the main causes,
i.e. poverty under-development and debt, were ignored. The concerns about
tropical forest vis-a-vis the environment are:
- its role for carbon sequestration and as a "green lung" to clean
up the carbon dioxide that constitutes more than half of all greenhouse
gasses,
- as habitat for about half the world 's plants and animals and the
possibilities of still untested genetic plant materials yielding remedies
and cures for cancer, aids and other diseases, and
- the disruption to the livelihood of forest dwellers from logging
activities.
While there is no denying that tropical forest do have a significant role in the
overall environmental perspective, the issue of tropical forest has largely been
exaggerated to the effect that tropical deforestation has been singled out as if
it were the be-all and end-all of all environmental ills. Northern
environmentalists and political interests have made it like a crusade to
"save the tropical rainforest". More fuel was added to the fire when
Bruno Manser, a Swiss environmentalist, created an international furore over the
"repression" of the Penans in Sarawak from logging activities and the
collolary to "saving the rainforest" is to save the Penans".
"Saving the rainforest" has become a strong selling point for NGO
environmental groups for their fund-raising campaigns and for Western
politicians to gain political mileage. The Western mass media readily gave space
and time to ventilate unfair accusations about the destruction of the tropical
rainforest, the irreparable loss of bio-diversity to humanity and the in
justices done to forest dwellers.
At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) i.e.
the Earth Summit held in Rio in June 1992, Malaysia and other Third World
countries were able to get the international community to take a more realistic,
balanced and holistic view of the entire gamut of global environmental problems
and not to just put the blame on developing countries. Where forest is concerned
all type of forest should be addressed rather than tropical forest being singled
out. The problems of environmental degradation and their resolution should be
looked at not only in the environmental context but also in relation to
development imperatives. The Rio Declaration also sets out international action
based on an equitable sharing of global responsibilities whereby the South has
to be accorded environmental space and assistance to achieve sustainable
development. In the UNCED Declaration on Forest Principles it was recognised :-
- That all types of forest i.e. tropical, temperate and boreal play
important roles in carbon sequestration, bio-diversity conservation,
protection of soil, water and other physical attributes of the environment.
- That deforestation has taken place not only in respect of tropical forest
but also temperate and boreal forests and that all countries should be
committed to a programme for the "greening of the world" through
reforestation, reafforestation and forest conservation.
- That all countries should commit to undertake sustainable forest
management taking into account internationally-agreed criteria and
standards.
- That in relation to the multiple uses of the forest, countries have the
sovereign rights to make use of their forest resources for national
development.
- That developed countries should assist tropical forest countries in
strengthening forest management through technology and financial transfers
and provide equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic
plant materials of tropical forest.
- That an open and supportive international trading environment be provided
for tropical timber products, especially processed, as well as non-timber
forest produce.
Although the aftermath to Rio has seen a more holistic approach to deal with
global environmental degradation and a widening of the perspective of the global
forest issue, still the focus of Northern environmentalist, politicians and the
mass media has continued to be directed at tropical forest and tropical timber.
Pressures continue to be exerted on Governments, the trade, architects and
consumers to exercise restrain and restriction in the usage of tropical timber.
On September 1st 1992, Austria enacted legislation for the marking of
tropical timber and timber products from sustainable forest management. In the
face of protests by Malaysia, ASEAN and other tropical timber exporting
countries that such a legislation was discriminatory and against the rules of
fair trade practices of GATT as well as being inconsistent with Austria's
commitment to Rio and the ITTA, the Austrian Government capitulated to revoke
this one sided piece of legislation. On June 25th 1993, the Netherlands came up
with the Netherlands Framework Agreement on Tropical Timber (NFATT) stipulating
that as from December 31st 1995 , the trade and use of tropical timber will be
limited to only tropical timber that originates from sources of
"sustainable production". The NFATT has been opposed by tropical
forest countries on similar grounds as the one for Austria and it is believed
that the Netherlands Government is having a re-look at this covenant.
In the meantime about 400 German Municipalities had issued their own
guidelines forbidding the usage of tropical timber in public projects. The usage
of tropical timber is only allowed if the contractor can claim that tropical
timber cannot be substituted by other timbers. A number of local authorities in
the Netherlands have also done likewise and so too certain local councils in the
U.K. and communes in Belgium .
In the U.S., legislative actions have been proposed in the states of New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Hawaii to prohibit the usage of tropical
timber for all state projects. A similar attempt at the U.S. congress and senate
has been successfully defeated.
On the trade side, 24 DIY stores and retailer stores in the U.K. have set up
'CLUB 1995' with the aim of marketing by the end of 1995 only timber products
that are certified as coming from well-managed forests.
Whilst Malaysia and other tropical timber exporting countries have managed to
get Western Governments not to proceed with discriminatory and unfair
legislative action against tropical timber, there is a tendency for national
governments of the North to claim that states, municipalities, local authorities
and local councils are outside their jurisdiction and they have no powers to
abrogate their decisions. This is a matter which developing countries will have
to take up in GATT and other fora to get Northern governments to accept their
full responsibilities in regard to all decisions and actions that are taken at
governmental or official level. This applies not only to discriminatory policies
and practices against tropical timber but in a number of other products where
exports from the South are similarly affected.
From the moves to restrict and boycott the use of tropical timber, the line
of approach by NGOs and governmental authorities in the North is now shifting,
more towards certification and eco-labelling.
Green consumerism in the North has already resulted in various consumer
products being given the "green label''. 'The Blue Angel programme, which
began in Germany in the late seventies, currently covers more than 3,600
products such as low pollutant varnishes and coatings, low emission gas burners,
products for waste water treatment and recycled paper. In the European Union,
committees are developing criteria for washing machines and dish washing
detergents, household cleaners, paint and varnishes, batteries, packaging and
building materials, refrigerators and hair sprays.
In the United States, two private sector groups Green Seal and Scientific
Certification Systems(SCS) formerly known as Green Cross, are working with
companies to issue the green label. In Canada, the Environmental Choice
Programme (ECP) jointly run by the Government and Canadian Standards Association
has signed up with various companies to provide labelling for reusable cloth
diaper services, re-refined motor oil, zinc air batteries, low solvent and low
pollution water-based paints and others. In Japan, the Japan Environment
Association, which is non-governmental, is managing the Eco Mark programme with
support from the-Environmental Protection Agency. While consumer sensitivity to
environmental issue especially solid waste is strong in Japan, it is reported
that department stores which set aside floor space for Eco Mark products have
found customer response to be weak.
In the area of timber products, the Initiative Tropenwald, founded in 1992 by
the timber trade union, timber processing industries and timber importers in
Germany is working on a certification system for the labelling of timber from
sustainably managed forest. The WWF initiated Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
has also established itself as an international accreditation body to accredit
"certifiers of forest products on the basis of their adherence to "FSC
Principles and Criteria and FSC Guidelines for Certifiers". In the
meantime, certain eco-labelling programmes are in train such as Rainforest
Alliance's " Smart Wood", Scientific Certification System's
"Green Cross" and the Institute of Sustainable Forestry's
"Pacific Certified Ecological Forest Products". In the U.K. two
private organisations i.e. the Soil Associations and SGS Silviconsult are
offering services for timber certification. In this connection SGS Silviconsult
has also provided for certification of Chindwell rubberwood doors which are
being marketed through a large DIY store in U.K.
While certification or green labelling of consumer products such as washing
machines and detergents are limited to certain environmental attributes such as
energy usage, effluent discharge and its bio-degradable quality, timber
labelling is a much more complex and difficult exercise. Hence the European
Commission acknowledged that the general assessment matrix for an E.C. eco-labelling
scheme is not likely to be adequate for the evaluation of environmental aspects
for forestry production.
The underlining rationale for timber certification/eco-labelling is to
provide consumers with the necessary information so that they can make educated
choices of products which are environmentally friendly or otherwise. The North
would also wish to use its market force to influence forest management in the
South. Notwithstanding that timber certification/eco-labelling is intended to be
used as a market-oriented tool, the final objective is to promote sustainable
forest management especially in tropical countries. Unfortunately, the present
rush by Northern environmentalists and other organisations to bring about a
"quick-fix" approach to timber certification /eco-labelling may
actually be counter-productive rather than helpful towards sustainable forest
management.
Firstly, the wrong impression has been created by Northern environmentalist
that timber certification/eco-labelling would provide the panacea to the
problems of tropical deforestation. The fact is that international trade has
very little to do with tropical deforestation. An FAO study estimates that of
all trees felled in Latin America and Asia , over 70°/o are used for fuel and
in Africa, almost 90%. Out of the balance that is not used for fuel, about 80%
are consumed within the producing countries themselves and only about 20% enters
into international trade. This means that out of the entire log production of
tropical countries, 5% or less goes into commercial production for the
international markets. Thus it is obvious that the problem of tropical
deforestation cannot be dealt with by focusing on the international trade of
tropical timber but rather to tackle the fundamental causes stemming from
poverty, debt, under-development and population pressure.
Secondly, the attempt of Northern environmentalists to relate certification/
eco-labelling largely to tropical timber would put tropical timber at a
disadvantage compared to substitutes like temperate and boreal timber, steel,
aluminium, cement and plastics. This takes into account that certification/eco-labelling
would entail additional cost and extraordinary procedural arrangements. Even for
general consumer items where green labelling is much easier to accomplish,
companies have complained that it is taking too much time and efforts to get the
needed evaluation done.
Thirdly, although there are attempts to do away with discrimination by
providing for certification/eco-labelling to cover all types of timber, the
tendency has been to assume that "Tropical timber is guilty unless proven
otherwise'' whereas temperate and boreal timbers from OECD countries are deemed
to be "environmentally acceptable unless it is shown otherwise". On
this basis, the criteria and standards would be more rigorous for tropical
timber than for temperate and boreal timbers.
Fourthly, even if the intention of' certification/eco-labelling is to have a
"level playing field'' for all timbers in practice such an arrangement
cannot as yet be implemented for temperate and boreal timbers given the fact
that there is as yet no internationally agreed criteria and standards which have
been formulated for sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests. In
the case of tropical timber, the FSC at least can claim that its criteria and
standards are based on internationally agreed guidelines for tropical forest
management of ITTO. On the other hand, the FSC has conveniently ignored the fact
that ITTO guidelines also stipulate very clearly that the target year for
achieving sustainable forest management in tropical countries is year 2000 and
not immediately.
Fifthly, NGOs and companies who are quick to cash in on
"certification" are themselves unclear as to what sustainable forest
management is all about, taking into account the differing types of forest and
even within the same type, the differing conditions and circumstances that are
applicable. In other words they are unclear how their scheme for certification
/eco-labelling would really help in promoting sustainable forest management in a
genuine manner.
Sixthly, no satisfactory scheme has yet been evolved to track a timber
product through all its various stages of handling and processing right down to
the forest source . This has to take into account that at each level of
processing, a processor may be using raw materials from various sources, species
and sizes, some of which are locally produced and others from overseas.
Monitoring and tracking would be difficult, more costly and more time consuming
as the timber product gets further downstream and where the mixture of raw
materials becomes more complex.
The above illustrates that while in theory and principle there is nothing
wrong with timber certification/eco-labelling as a market-oriented tool , in
practice there are still many questions and issues that have to be resolved
before timber certification /eco-labelling can be implemented effectively and if
it is not to be done at the expense of tropical timber and worse still at the
expense of tropical forest management. Failure to address tropical forest
management in its proper dimension and perspective would do more harm than good.
Given the wide ranging implications of timber certification/ eco-labelling to
the trade of tropical timber and non-tropical timber products, it is imperative
that a coordinated multilateral approach is needed. In this context, the world
Trade Organisation (WTO), the successor to GATT, could be the appropriate body
to handle this complex and difficult issue.
In the final analysis, Malaysia while taking steps to prepare for timber
certification /eco-labelling is concerned that the following principles should
be adhered to :
- Labelling must be applied not only to tropical timber but also temperate
and boreal timbers and substitute materials such as steel , aluminium cement
and plastic.
- Labelling must be based on internationally agreed standards and criteria
of sustainable forest management for all types of forest.
- Labelling must be based on a realistic time frame for the attainment of
sustainable forest management as an integral element of internationally
agreed standard and criteria.
- Labelling must not become a non-tariff trade barrier but rather should
serve as a trade incentive, whereby all restrictions against the use and
trade of tropical timber must be rescinded to enable consumers to exercise
their choices freely.
| |
Advertisement
|
MTC’s
