Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-159)
MR JOHN
WHITE, MR
ANDY ROBY
AND MR
PETER LATHAM
25 OCTOBER 2005
Q140 Mr Hurd: You said that you were
happy with the conclusions about the certification scheme, but,
if I understand your memo correctly, you are suggesting that there
should be a complaints procedure which enables certification schemes
to be removed if they fail to meet the standards set there. Is
failure to meet standards something which you envisage being a
problem?
Mr Roby: I think in any scheme,
particularly the international ones with broad, multiple members,
certification schemes and standards are bound to be challenged
under new situations. I think, without drawing attention to any
particular schemes, there are one or two that come to mind where
I think some severe sort of investigation is necessary to see
whether the complaints that have come to our attention are justified.
Q141 Mr Hurd: In terms of the new
helpline for procurers and contractors, is it a bit early to get
some feedback from your members on whether that is helpful or
not?
Mr Roby: I have not had any feedback,
I am afraid.
Mr White: No, none at all.
Q142 Mr Hurd: Can we move on to Category
B which is clearly very important in terms of the next stage.
Do you have any views on what the way forward should be for Category
B proof of legality and sustainability?
Mr Roby: I think in many of these
controversial countries we are looking at what exists in the current
legislation as proof. The country I know best is probably Cameroon
which I know has a concession allocation system where I would
ask to see evidence that concession has been allocated legally,
I would ask to see evidence that the taxes have been paid and
that there is some sort of tracking back according to the government
system, so three pieces of paper, and that, to me, would constitute
in the first instance Category B evidence of legality of timber
from Cameroon.
Q143 Mr Hurd: What about sustainability?
Mr Roby: That would have to be
certification schemes in the first instance, but since there are
not any, I think we are looking at alternatives, so I would expect
to see a copy of a forest management plan that has been authorised
by the Government in some way. Failing that, because governments
themselves do not always do their jobs properly of checking up
on plans, I would expect to see an independently audited management
plan and actually the same applies to legality certificates. I
think those can equally well be got in all sorts of nefarious
ways and there really ought to be some independent auditing even
of government structures in some countries.
Q144 Mr Hurd: Can you give us an
example of what kind of time you would like to see being covered
by Category B?
Mr Roby: I think most tropical
timbers would fall into that category, as far as I am concerned.
Wherever there is evidence out there in the public domain from
independent observers of high levels of illegal logging, any species
coming from that country should be covered by Category B evidence.
I think a supplier who is not prepared to seek that evidence is
a supplier that we would recommend not using in the future.
Q145 Mr Ainsworth: Can I go back
to the question of a ban because I am now a little confused. Mr
Latham, I think you said a minute or two ago that engagement was
probably more effective than a ban on imports into the EU, yet
in your memorandum you say, "We would like to see a broader
global response banning any illegal timber from Europe".
Mr Latham: Well, I think this
is a question of timing really.
Mr White: They are not mutually
exclusive.
Mr Latham: I was worried that
the impression that we had given, that John had given, was that
we were proposing a ban tomorrow.
Q146 Mr Ainsworth: And you are not?
Mr Latham: We are not.
Q147 Mr Ainsworth: Well, I am glad
we have cleared that up. The inference we drew from your memorandum
was that you probably were.
Mr White: I think Andy would like
to comment on that as well.
Mr Roby: Our concerns about the
ban, which I think we expressed at least in the annexes, is that
at the moment there is no way of discriminating legal from illegal
timber at the point of entry into the UK. You have got a CITES
certificate for endangered species, which can be traded under
certain circumstances, but there is no other labelling scheme
and we think that should be in place before a ban is implemented.
Mr White: The other thing is that
the ban does not stop you engaging with the countries and the
producers of timber and that, we believe, is the most effective
way of achieving change.
Q148 Mr Ainsworth: So you are relying
on those voluntary agreements, but we have had a representation
from Ghana, for whom Europe, as we have heard, is a very, very
big market. There were some Ghanaian MPs, as a matter of fact,
over here quite recently who felt that those producers who were
signed up to these voluntary agreements were immediately put at
a competitive disadvantage to those who were not because they
were obviously undercut in the market and, therefore, the system
of voluntary partnership schemes was not really for them.
Mr Roby: Perhaps I can answer
that, having been DFID's forestry adviser for Ghana for a number
of years and knowing the country well. They have some good standards
of forest management and rightly they should be proud of that,
but I think in terms of this voluntary partnership agreement,
they are yet to be convinced that the country is going to benefit
significantly from it in terms of stamping out illegal logging
and that is a communication problem because clearly a government
that raises revenue and sees other benefits from legalised timber
operations should be perceiving a benefit. Morally of course there
should be no question and they should support it, but I see the
market playing its crucial role in this respect and perhaps public
procurement policy and the CPET leadership on this is going to
be critical because that should effectively exclude any of these
other supplier countries that do not want to sign up to the VPAs
because that timber would be considered illegal and Category B
evidence would not be available.
Q149 Mr Ainsworth: But in the end,
as long as there is the ability to buy illegal timber at a cut
price, there is going to be a trade in illegal timber which is
why in the end a ban is really the only answer, is it not?
Mr White: Yes.
Q150 Mr Ainsworth: Can I just ask
you one other thing. You have notified your members and you have
put on your website a notice to do with, and here is another terrible
acronym, ENAFLEGMP, the Europe and North Asian Forest Law Enforcement
and Governance Ministerial Process, and you have urged your members
to get involved in this and to make representations in order,
"to balance NGO representation". In what way do you
think your interests are different from those of the NGOs who
are seeking to protect vulnerable forests?
Mr White: I think it is important
that you have different perspectives on all of these issues and
balance is very, very important and you will be getting a balanced
representation through the witnesses you will have interviewed
in your three sessions over the course of the next couple of weeks.
It is important that industry is represented, it is important
the NGOs are represented and it is important that—
Q151 Chairman: But how is that different
for the NGOs?
Mr White: Well, I think it is
about perspective rather than huge differences on some of these
issues. Again if I can talk a little bit more generally, my personal
experience coming to the trade is that I have been surprised at
how close the NGOs and the trade actually are on these issues.
When we collectively presented to the G8 ministerial meeting in
Derby, it was a joint statement from Greenpeace and the trade
and other NGOs as well.
Q152 Mr Ainsworth: So where is the
balance then?
Mr White: It is different perspectives.
I think you recognise—
Q153 Chairman: What is the difference
in perspective?
Mr White: The difference in perspective
there would be, I think in the China report, the call there for
immediate action to do certain things, whereas a more balanced
approach involving engagement would be the one that the Timber
Trade Federation would favour, but I think it is emphasis. Andy?
Mr Roby: Again I think Indonesia
is a good example. We were asked by Greenpeace to boycott Indonesia,
to stop buying altogether from Indonesia and if we had done that,
we would not have FSC plywood coming in from this mill.
Q154 Mr Ainsworth: You would not
like to consider that that response might be a little disingenuous
when we have heard already today that the majority of your members
have not signed up to the Responsible Purchasing Policy and that
some of those that have are in serious trouble with Greenpeace
for having allegedly supplied illegally logged timber? You do
not think perhaps that in inviting your members to get directly
involved in "a balance" to the representation of the
NGOs, you are inviting a very different sort of opinion?
Mr White: No, would be my simple
answer.
Mr Roby: In that specific case
of that meeting, we were told by the organisers that we should
encourage our industry to come to balance the numbers of NGOs
because—
Q155 Chairman: Told by whom?
Mr Roby: The organisers, the Forest
Dialogue, who were the convenors of this meeting as a neutral
forum because they had been overrun by requests from NGOs to attend
and they simply wanted a balanced representation, just as the
FSC has its three chambers to balance representation from different
segments of the economy and society. That was all that was behind
that. We work, as John said, very closely with the NGOs, particularly
WWF, and the producer groups. Greenpeace draw attention to problems
that we have with our supply chain and we respond to them as best
we can with the resources that are available to us and we welcome
that, as we have said in our responses to Greenpeace. We are not
in a position here based in London to check up on Papua New Guinea
and what is going on there, and the meetings we have had with
Greenpeace already have indicated that we have serious concerns
with that supplier country and we will be advising our members
accordingly.
Q156 Chairman: Perhaps we could just
move on to the situation with Indonesia and China. In the evidence
you have given us, you do talk about the changing circumstances
in respect of imports of plywood from Indonesia. Could you tell
us about the part that Chinese plywood is playing over the same
period?
Mr White: I am sorry?
Q157 Chairman: Where there has been
a decline in the amount of imports coming in from Indonesia, which
you have referred to in your evidence, can you see some corresponding
increase in the number of imports coming in from China, and presumably
they are not coming directly in from China, but they are coming
in through a third party, and what the implications of that are
in respect of that plywood in respect of the policy that it is
legal and sustainable?
Mr White: Yes, there has been
a shift of supply towards China. I think the Greenpeace report
has the volumes there which I do not think we dispute.
Mr Roby: No, they are quoted from
our statistics.
Mr White: No, we do not dispute
those! The nature of the plywood though, it is important to distinguish.
A lot of Asian and south-east Asian plywood, prior to China coming
on to the market in large numbers, was all hardwood. The Chinese
plywood that we have seen on the UK market is by and large plywood
with a poplar core and poplar is grown in China in plantations,
often on smallholdings and with small companies providing that,
and it is faced with a tropical hardwood. The one it is currently
faced with largely is bintangor, a species that you find in south-east
Asia and, in particular, in Papua New Guinea.
Mr Roby: We have noted that shift
from Indonesia to China. In fact it shifted to Malaysia in the
first instance and then Brazil for several reasons. Clearly there
are resource restraints now on Indonesia of being formerly a well-forested
nation which is now suffering restrictions of its log supply because
it is running out. Also the shift is due to some of our members
who stopped buying from Indonesia because of concerns about illegal
logging. The shift has been to Malaysia and to Brazil, but now
we have seen China coming up with a much lower cost base and an
extremely productive workforce. It is a very competitive material
and if 95% of it is plantation-grown and, therefore, sustainable,
we would very much like to see that last 5% coming from the same
sources and we will be discussing it and working out ways we can
source that last 5% from plantations or sustainably managed forests.
Q158 Chairman: I am still not absolutely
clear though because in the letter which I think you had published
in The Independent, you talked in figures there about Chinese
plywood being 94% to 96% poplar and that most Chinese plywood
is not made from potentially illegal logs, so I am not sure where
you are getting the figures from and which timbers they apply
to.
Mr White: The poplar core is not
illegal. That is sourced in China and is grown on plantations,
so 94% to 96% is not illegal in terms of the product itself and
that is what I am referring to.
Q159 Chairman: So you would take
issue with the figures which Greenpeace are suggesting in respect
of this?
Mr White: We may be talking at
cross purposes there. I am referring to the product itself. If
you take the poplar core, which is about 95 to 96% of the product,
that is legal from plantation sources. The potential illegality
is in the face veneer which is largely a species called bintangor,
but not all of that necessarily is illegal, but what Greenpeace
has identified is that there is a very high risk that a significant
proportion of it may be and that is what we have to get to the
bottom of.
| 
