The key interests of both proponents and opponents of the forest convention is control of the timber market. The convention is driven by commercial interests
A farce on forests
BY THE time many world leaders come to
meet in the United Nations (UN) at the
special session on environment, key
decisions would have been taken by the
leaders of the Group of Seven most
powerful nations (G-7) at their meeting
in Denver, Colorado. This year, key
environmental items are on
the agenda of these leaders. In
particular, leaders will decide
the fate of the forest convention - a legal instrument to
manage the world's forests
(Down To Earth, Vol 6. No 1).
The other items are:
timetable for reducing green
house gas emissions and institutional restructuring of the
UN for environmental issues.
The UN General Assembly
Special Session to Review the
Implementation of Agenda 21
(UNGASS), which follows
Denver is also scheduled to be
a high profile event. US president Bill Clinton is expected
to attend, so is German
Chancellor Helmut Kohl and a
host of other world leaders.
The battlelines over the forest convention are firmly drawn. The US has changed it's stance from being a proponent at the time of the Rio summit, to being it's chief opponent. Canada,
Finland, Germany and The Netherlands
continue to be the frontline generals,
with Malaysia, Indonesia and China
providing the Southern flanks. India is
sitting on the fence and has been forgot
ten by all. While Brazil - with huge
Amazon interests - is the lone opponent from the South. The us position
has blocked the convention till date. No
agreement of any kind could be reached
on the subject at the commission for
sustainable development (CSD). Because
of this discord a menu of options has
been put to the UN General Assembly
Special Session to review implementation of Agenda-21 (UNGASS). The
options include propositions to set up
an intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC) immediately. Or to delay
the process. As yet, these are all bracketed (UN jargon for propositions not yet agreed upon) since there was no agreement in the CSD.
While the forest convention has
been the bugbear of many meetings,
little is known of the shape and form of
this creature. What is known, increasingly is that the key interests of both the opponents and proponents of the convention is the control of the global timber market. The convention is therefore,
driven by commercial interests. The lip
service to conservation is to get the same
timber industry certified as "green".
Therefore, it is vital for these timber ,
producers to develop a set of criteria
and indicators - known as C&I - to
define how "green" their wood is. The
convention would be used to legitimise
this green trade by setting global rules
and penalties for sustainable forest management.
Canada and Finland, who are the
most vocal advocates of the convention,
are both timber producing countries
who see the convention as facilitating an
expansion of their own timber markets.
The Finns have a trade problem with the
Canadians. They therefore, see the convention as a medium of setting global
standards and dealing with their arch
rival in the wood trade. At a recent meeting at the WTO in Geneva, the representatives of the Finland government privately confided that they need to "globalise" the concern over forests to get the
Canadians on the multilateral negotiating table which would be acceptable
under WTO rules. The Canadian Pulp
and Paper Association (CPPA) spokesperson, said at the same meeting, that the ecolabelling schemes which had been
established by the Europeans were
designed to keep wood from other
forests out of the European market.
The us came out with its opposition to
the convention only in 1995. It is difficult to gauge the reasons for its changed position, but it is clear that its timber
industry - already under pressure from
the spotted owl and the environmentalists - fears global sanctions. The US
timber industry is not so well organised
with its criteria and indicators for "sustainable" production.
The North has always controlled the
world timber market. With vast forest
areas, proximity to markets and ready
supply of capital which is needed in this
expensive business to turn trees into
paper, the temperate timber industry
has flourished - with a global annual
turnover of over us $330 billion in 1995.
US companies, International Paper and
Georgia Pacific and Kimberly-Clark are
the top three companies in the tree business. In 1995, their combined revenue was over us,50 billion annually. It is
also projected that the demand for
wood products is increasing and will
need up to us $200 billion of new capital
investment.
In the North, environmentalism is
taking a toll of this lucrative industry. A
private consultancy in the US has estimated that in 1990-1995, the forestry industry lost as much as a tenth of the
world's productive forest land to non-
industrial uses such as conservation and
recreation. On the other hand, the
Southern companies are making
inroads with an advantage of their own;
a climate in which trees grow faster.
Therefore, Northern companies want a
"level playing field" so that there are
environmental controls on forestry of
the tropical world. The true competitive
advantage of the South lies not in its
natural forests but in plantation
forestry. For instance, forests of Brazil
outstrip, in terms of productivity, the
forests of the us. Brazilian forests have
an annual growth of 40 cubic metres per
hectare. In comparison, US forests yield
only 10-20 cubic metres per hectare.
Malaysia, with its vast forest potential is keen to seize this opportunity. At Rio, it was under tremendous pressure
from environmentalists for resisting the
convention. Malaysian timber was
being boycotted. The country was seen
as an environmental criminal.
But by 1997, the Malaysian government had completely wooed over it's
detractors. It worked extensively with
the Canadians to develop a set of criteria
and indicators for 'green' wood. The
Malaysians are supremely confident
that these indicators will help them to
Missing in this concern for forests
is the human being. The
communities for whom forests are
habitats and not timber reserves
sell 'environmentally correct' wood.
The domestic pressure on Malaysian
companies is greatly reduced as they are
fast expanding their base into neighbouring tropical countries. This global
expansion game which Malaysia is
learning from the North will help it to
diffuse environmental pressure at home.
There is a smokescreen around the forest
convention issue because in NGO circuits, the key issue discussed in the context of the forest convention is forest
conservation, not trade in forest products. Yet, in governmental circles, the
instrument is the same, but the purpose
is different. Governments talk glibly
about conservation but the lobby which
is pushing the convention remains
keenly interested in utilisation and trade.
In Germany, the Ministry of
Environment has rejected the idea of a
forest convention. Even the government's high level advisory committee
on global environmental issues has not
supported the convention. The support
instead has come from the utilisers of
the forests, the Ministry of Agriculture
who, even officials in the foreign affairs
admit, are not the agency best suited for
the protection of forests. The Dutch
continue to have a curiously naive position. They remain fervent in their belief
that the convention is needed for the
conservation of forests across the world.
The tussle is between utilisation versus conservation of forests. The Finns privately admit that they want the convention as is it would be primarily aimed towards the "sustainable" management or in other words, "sustainable trade" of forests. They are worried that
if a separate convention is not agreed
upon, then the environmentalists will
lobby for a forest protocol under the
biodiversity convention. "This would be
primarily aimed towards conservation
of forests" explained a Finish delegate
who did not want to be named. She
added that another option is to include
a protocol under the framework convention on climate. "This would be primarily aimed at setting aside forests as
global carbon reservoirs and sinks" she
said. "Therefore, a use oriented global
convention is a must," she said.
The global NGO positions are also
dictated by this fact. NGO giant, Greenpeace, which had argued for a
convention in the Rio days, has changed
its position radically. It opposes the
convention saying it is "political tokenism" and is pushing for a forest
protocol under the biodiversity convention as it sees conservation as its primary objective.
What remains completely missing
in this concern for forests is the human
being. The vast numbers of communities for whom the forests are habitats
and not timber reserves, biodiversity
genepools or carbon sinks. But are their
subsistence base from which they get
fuel to cook, fodder of their livestock,
wood to build, thatch to roof, herbs for
medicines, resources to sell for their
livelihood. The global rules which are
being developed for "sustainable management" do not even begin to comprehend the extraordinary diversity of
users of forests across the world and the
rights of their poor users.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.