|
|
|
|
|
Saving What Remains LOGGING (continued) CORRECTIVE ACTIONS Although as much as 80% of tropical timber is consumed internally by producing nations, consumption of tropical timber by the US and other industrial countries plays a significant role in tropical deforestation. The US, with less than 5% of the world's population, consumes 17% of the world's output of timber and is the third largest importer of tropical timber, shelling out more than $800 million annually for 1-1.5 million cubic meters. The best actions to reduce the damage caused by logging activities are to impose strict restrictions, even banning, imports of certain tropical hardwoods; developing more sustainable means of extracting rainforest timber; certifying timber with regards to its origins and whether it was sustainably harvested; and beginning to use alternatives to tropical wood products. Restricting Timber Trade Restricting or banning the import of certain tropical woods that cannot reasonably be harvested without considerable damage to the rainforest, like mahogany, ceiba, ebony, etc, is a highly controversial issue. Usually the restriction of trade in certain species is established by listing the species on CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna). [Nov 17 2002 - Big-leaf mahogany, also known as American mahogany, is listed on Appendix II of CITES] The restriction of trade by listing certain species on CITES is controversial because the practice tends to discriminate against developing countries with little consequence to developed nations. Environmental advocates have encouraged the governments of industrialized countries to list a number of tropical timber species found in tropical countries. Critics validly argue "who has the right to determine which species are listed?" What are the rights of the affected country? What compensation is due to the affected country? Can we reasonably expect developing countries to absorb the economic costs imposed by industrialized countries? These questions should be addressed to ensure relative equality in the international market and to make the program viable. In addition, the listing of species on CITES is difficult because of a lack of adequate information on traded timber species. Few know how many individuals of a particular species exist in the wild and how that species is affected by trade. Furthermore, trade of particular species is poorly tracked and many harvested species are difficult to distinguish from one another. The aim of restricting trade of tropical tree species is to slow deforestation caused by the extraction of certain tree species. The hope is that listing a species will essentially take it off the open market, reducing forest clearing for its specific harvesting Though illegal logging and smuggling will thrive, total traffic in the species would probably decline significantly. The national response to slow the depletion of timber resources or increase revenue has been to restrict the export of raw logs and encourage the exports of value added products like sawnwood and furniture. The idea is that instead of exporting raw materials at a low profit, you can increase national revenue by exporting products that have a higher value and stimulate domestic industry. Burma (Myanmar) has recently decided to phase out log exports and foster the development of value-added product industries. A second national response to widespread logging is to issue a temporary moratorium on all logging operations so the government can assess the situation and regain control of logging operations. Suriname, Guyana, Papua New Guinea, and Brazil have all recently issued such moratoria is response to the accelerating inflow of foreign timber firms. However, such moratoria are difficult to uphold especially with understaffed forestry departments. Felling often continues and temporary export bans are easily bypassed with widespread smuggling often with conjunction with politicians or the military as in Thailand and Burma. Timber Certification International trade in forest products is affected by environmental concerns, though trade actions alone cannot ensure the sustainable management of forests. Timber certification operates on the assumption that consumers are willing to pay a premium on products harvested in a sustainable manner, by labeling such products with a "seal of approval." One of the better known timber certification agencies, is the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) which confirms that timber and other forest products are coming from sustainably managed forests. To date FSC has certified more than 15.5 million acres (6.3 million ha) of forest in 20 countries. In addition to timber certification, eco-labeling has the potential to discourage companies from unsustainable production processes. The international trade community has mandated that eco-labeling of all products must be implemented before 2000, a requirement that will cause problems for countries like Indonesia who rely heavily on rainforest decimation for their economy. With eco-labeling, customers will know if the product comes from sustainably managed forest, and will be able to make a choice. In recent years, the number of timber certification schemes has skyrocketed, although the impact on trade has been almost negligible to date. Only a small number of products are effectively included and certified timber products are only successful in certain environmentally-conscious markets like West Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. In order to be successful, there must be enough market demand to give incentive for producers to sustainably manage their resources. Otherwise, there will be no immediate economic justification for producers to seek eco-labeling. There are several challenges facing the certification movement, which will have an increasing impact over the next five years, including: a limited number of forests that can meet the strict requirements of certification, the lack of an adequate definition of what constitutes sustainable forestry, a limited consumer interest in products from sustainably managed forests, the ignorance of forest owners on how to meet certification standards, and increasingly hostile international relations between forest-product producer and consumer countries. Of these challenges, the last is probably the most significant. Critics and supporters alike realize that certification, like CITES, can act as a sort of non-tariff trade discrimination. Those countries (usually developing countries) which are unable or unwilling to manage forests in a sustainable way, will suffer in the international market place, while consumer countries and groups like the United States and Europe will be relatively unaffected. This trade barrier may exacerbate hostility to international trade and cause regions to polarize, with developing countries siding against industrialized countries. Already there is evidence of such alliances in the face of human rights issues: ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) admitted Burma to the union, an act that strained relations between the group, the European Community and the United States. Similarly, the recent downturn of Southeast Asian economies has triggered hostility between the region and the United States. Many tropical countries see such forestry management suggestions and schemes as a threat to their sovereign rights. One aspect that is usually overlooked in certification schemes is post-harvesting processing, energy use, waste disposal, and transport. All of these process can have a significant impact on the environment and should be considered in certification. Ending Subsidies Perhaps a more effective national response is to end subsidies that stimulate deforestation. By ending subsidies for saw mills and road construction, logging of tropical rainforests will become more accurately reflect the true costs of harvesting. For example, in several African countries extraction and production costs outpace revenues so that cash-poor governments end up essentially subsidizing the logging industry. In Indonesia, where ex-president Suharto's circle of wealthy friends in the timber and plantation industries get plenty of tax breaks, the government keeps pulp wood prices artificially low using subsidies to ensure that paper mills are profitable. These subsidies are not in the national interest, they benefit only a small group of individuals.
|
| what's new | tropical fish | help support the site | madagascar | search | about | contact |
Copyright Rhett Butler 1994-2005 |
