Memorandum from Greenpeace
Greenpeace is an independent non-profit global
campaigning organisation that uses non-violent, creative confrontation
to expose global environmental problems and their causes. We research
the solutions and alternatives to help provide a path for a green
and peaceful future.
Greenpeace's ancient forest campaign is dedicated
to protecting the world's ancient forests and the plants, animals
and peoples that depend upon them. We investigate and expose the
trade in illegal and destructively logged timber. We support the
rights of forest peoples. We challenge governments and industry
to end their role in ancient forest destruction. We promote real
alternatives such as products certified by the Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC), which ensures that timber comes from environmentally
and socially responsible forest management.
"Short of a miraculous transformation in
the attitude of people and governments, the earth's remaining
forests and their associated biodiversity are destined to disappear
in the coming decades." Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director,
UNEP, May 2001
1. How useful has the work of CPET proved?
In July 2000 the UK Government introduced a
new policy for all central government departments and their agencies
requiring them to "actively seek" to buy timber from
legal and sustainable sources. Given that central government procurement
accounts for approximately 15% of timber used in the UK and that
the broader public sector may account for as much as 40% of UK
timber, Greenpeace believe that greening government procurement
has the potential to play a very positive role in increasing the
amount of timber from environmentally and socially responsible
sources in the UK market place.
Following a number of exposes by Greenpeace
(Cabinet Office—2002, Home Office—2003) showing that
the UK Government was still sourcing timber from illegal and unsustainable
sources, the Department of Food, Environment and Agriculture (DEFRA)
established the Central Point of Expertise on Timber (CPET) in
2004 to advise central government and its agencies on sourcing
timber from legal and sustainable sources.
To date CPET has accepted four certification
schemes as proof of legality and sustainability. These include
the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Canadian Standards Association
(CSA), the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and the Programme
for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). It
has also accepted the Malaysian Timber Certification Scheme (MTCC)
as proof of legality. Greenpeace believes that this advice is
having two key impacts:
1. By only accepting certified timber onto
government construction projects, CPET is helping to eliminate
the worst examples of illegal and uncertified timber from being
used in central government timber procurement.
2. By accepting the CSA, SFI and PEFC certification
schemes as evidence of legality and sustainability and MTCC as
evidence of legality, CPET is giving a veneer of respectability
to certification schemes that fail to recognise the rights of
indigenous people, to protect forests of critical importance that
have weak chain of custody tracing and no third party auditing.
It is, in effect, driving procurement officers to certification
schemes that certify timber from destructively logged sources.
Greenpeace believe that, at this time, the FSC
offers the best guarantee that timber products come from well
managed forests. The specific strengths of the FSC and weaknesses
of the other schemes are explored in more detail below.
We believe that CPET should only be supporting
best practise and consequently should only accept the FSC as evidence
of "legal and sustainable" timber procurement.
2. How should CPET's role develop to ensure
future progress on the issue of sustainable timber procurement?
Currently CPET has a number of structural flaws
that are hindering its ability to promote the growth of legal
and sustainable timber in the UK market place. To ensure future
progress on the issue of sustainable timber procurement CPET must:
Include social criteria within the CPET assessment
for sustainable forest management: In February 2005, FERN, Greenpeace
and Friends of the Earth sent a submission to the UK Environment
Audit Committee on this issue. This is enclosed for your information.
In addition, we enclose a summary of the submission below.
The UK Government's stated policy is to purchase
sustainably produced timber and timber products. Yet the Government's
criteria for sustainable forest management excludes social aspects
of sustainable forest management, such as protecting the rights,
health and livelihoods of people who live in or adjacent to and
who depend on forests. This is in contradiction to international
agreements to which the Government is a signatory and which the
Government cites in its advice to procurement authorities. It
is also in contradiction to planned procurement policies of other
EU member states, notably Denmark and the Netherlands.
The Government argues that the EU Procurement
Directives do not allow social aspects of sustainable forest management
to be taken into consideration in the procurement process because
they have no demonstrable bearing on the quality of the finished
product. In our opinion and contrary to that of the Government,
the EU Procurement Directives can and must be interpreted in such
a way as to provide as much scope for including social aspects
of sustainable forest management in public procurement practice
as there is for including environmental aspects. Several other
European Governments have or will interpret the Directives in
such a way that social aspects of sustainable forest management
must be included. FERN, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth agree
with these Governments: in our opinion there is no such thing
as sustainable forest management that does not include social
aspects. This has also been clearly stated in numerous international
conventions and declarations as early as 1992, to which the UK
is a signatory.
Furthermore, the Government's claim that social
aspects of sustainable forest management cannot be taken into
consideration is inconsistent with the Government's admittance
of environmental criteria. In our opinion, environmental matters
related to the way in which forests are managed have the same
demonstrable bearing on the quality of the finished product as
social matters. It is disingenuous to claim, for example, that
protection of a rare species is in some way more relevant to a
contract to supply timber than a similar criterion concerning
prevention of harm to forest dependent people or protecting indigenous
peoples' rights.
The UK Government, therefore, can and should
incorporate into its procurement procedures the social aspects
of sustainable forest management that are embedded in the international
principles to which it is a signatory.
Assess the schemes more critically against its
criteria: CPET judged each scheme against a simple scoring system
using a three-point scale against 26 criteria. In many instances
Greenpeace believe this system was leniently applied. For example,
Greenpeace and its NGO partners currently dispute 13 of the 26
criteria for PEFC and 18 of the 26 criteria for SFI.
Assess on the ground performances of each scheme:
CPET's assessment of the five certification schemes was a desk
based exercise using written documentation provided by the certification
schemes. This meant that when judging the schemes against the
CPET criteria, no research was carried out in the forest as to
whether the claims that each scheme are making are actually being
implemented on the ground.
All of these issues need to be dealt with as
part of the CPET 6 month review process.
As noted in the previous question we believe
that CPET has a responsibility to promote best practise in the
UK market place. If this occurs we believe that CPET should then
extend its remit to include private as well as broader public
sector timber procurement. It should be a requirement for any
company importing and selling timber in the UK to be using only
legal and sustainable timber.
3. How reliable are the certification schemes
for timber endorsed by CPET? Are there concerns regarding either
the legality or sustainability of any of them?
Greenpeace believes that the FSC is the only
internationally recognised forest certification scheme on the
market that can give rigorous and credible assurance that timber
products come from well managed forests. It is the only scheme
supported by major environmental groups (including Greenpeace,
Friends of the Earth and WWF) as well as progressive timber companies
and many indigenous peoples organisations. This is because all
products carrying the FSC logo must meet the FSC Principles and
Criteria of Forest Stewardship, which cover environmental, social
and economic issues. The FSC logo can only be used on products
whose chain of custody has been third party audited and monitored.
This requires that the timber be tracked through all stages of
processing—from the forest to the final labelled product.
Any FSC labelled product will have a Chain of Custody number and
this can be used to identify the certificate holder should any
questions arise.
We do not believe that any of the other schemes
endorsed are reliable:
Key weaknesses in the Canadian Standard Association
(CSA): The CSA system, which certifies logging operations in Canadian
forests, is currently facing heavy criticism from Canadian environmental
and indigenous peoples' groups. In October 2004, these groups
launched appeals against forestry operations covering over 13
million hectares of forest certified by the CSA. The appeals follow
a systematic review of how CSA certified companies are failing
to live up to the claims made within the standard.
Even when the CSA standard is being properly
adhered to, no major environmental group in Canada working on
certification believes that CSA can offer any real assurance that
the timber is from sustainably managed forests. Under the CSA
system, companies set their own forest management standards and
no consistent minimum standard is required by the CSA. The scheme
also fails to provide any reasonable measures to ensure that indigenous
peoples' rights are respected and it allows large scale clear
cutting of ancient forests.
Key weaknesses in the Program for the Endorsement
of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC): PEFC currently allows
logging in old growth and other ecologically valuable forest ecosystems,
like for example in Finland. Less than 5% of Finnish forests are
old growth but only 2.5% are protected—the unprotected areas
are currently being logged under the Finnish Forest Certification
Scheme (FFCS), endorsed by PEFC.
The PEFC in Finland has completely failed to
protect threatened species. The standard claims to protect demarcated
habitats of these species but it includes no system to map or
find the habitats of these species but it includes no system to
map or find the habitats. As a consequence, habitats of threatened
species are being destroyed as part of normal PEFC practice. A
recent investigation by Greenpeace, for example, found hundreds
of endangered mushrooms, including species strictly protected
under Finnish legislation in an area about to be logged under
PEFC certification.
Moreover, the minimum standard required to receive
PEFC certification is low and varies considerably from country
to country. Whilst some national standards do insist on some performance-based
criteria (ie setting specific targets to improve forest management
on the ground), this is not the case in others, for example in
France.
The PEFC scheme was solely developed and dominated
by the forest sector unlike the FSC, which was developed by social,
environmental as well as business groups. This means there is
totally inadequate stakeholder representation of environmental
organisations and indigenous groups. In Finland, for example,
indigenous Sami communities, who are dependent on the forests
for their traditional livelihood of reindeer herding, are in conflict
with the Government who logs the forests certified under the PEFC
scheme.
The PEFC chain of custody, which allows for
a percentage of non-certified wood fibre in PEFC-certified products,
is weak. Suppliers of raw materials need only provide a self-signed
declaration that the products do not contain any wood fibre from
controversial sources. In most PEFC national standards, "controversial
sources" are defined only as illegal timber: definitions
make no reference to logging of rare, old-growth high-conservation-value
forests.
We are concerned that the PEFC scheme is likely
to start certifying tropical forests in the near future. Given
the flaws set out above in the system, this could allow for illegal
and unsustainable tropical timber to start being used by the UK
Government.
Key weaknesses in the US Sustainable Forest
Initiative (SFI): Like PEFC, the SFI standard was developed and
approved largely for the industry by the industry, rather than
by a balance of environmental, social and economic interests.
Whilst the Sustainable Forestry Board (SFB), which has governed
most of the recent changes to the SFI standard, does include some
conservation groups, the forest industry still controls two-thirds
of the votes. The SFB does not include social interests.
The SFI standard does not address social issues,
particularly in terms of indigenous peoples' rights, and it is
also weak with regard to most ecological issues. Consequently,
SFI-certified companies continue to log old-growth and endangered
forests, destroy the habitat of rare and endangered species and
replace natural forest with plantations. The standard also allows
permanent conversion of forests to uses such as urban sprawl-
in one case certifying an operation where forest land is being
turned into a 1,000 home suburban development, with the timber
labeled as coming from sustainable forestry.
Any company wishing to become SFI-certified
has considerable influence over the certification process. For
example, the applicant company can work with the certification
body to tailor the scope, location and extent of the audit, the
composition of the audit team, the audit plan and the audit report
content. Participants also define their own corrective actions.
There is no stakeholder consultation in this process.
Normally, SFI does not require tracking of SFI-certified
wood from the forest through manufacturing to labeling and allows
uncertified timber from other plantations and forests to be labeled
as SFI-certified, as long as an independent third party checks
that the timber supplier has an SFI procurement system in place.
There are no requirements for certifiers to assess the actual
source or the chain of custody of such timber. This means that
up to 100% of an SFI-labeled product may come from forests which
do not meet the full SFI standard.
The "legal and sustainable" status
accorded by CPET applies only to a new percentage based claims
system created by the SFI. Currently no SFI certified company
is using this chain of custody system so it remains to be seen
how effective this system will be in terms of UK Government procurement.
Key flaws in the Malaysian Timber Certification
Council (MTCC): Several Malaysian social, environmental, and community-based
groups were involved in reviewing the MTCC scheme in 1999. Fourteen
of these NGOs, collectively named JOANGOHutan, withdrew from the
scheme in July 2001, when it became clear that it did not guarantee
legality and sustainable forest management, and did not respect
the basic rights of indigenous peoples, thereby fuelling human
rights conflicts. The serious flaws within the MTCC scheme include:
MTCC does not recognise the customary tenure
and user rights of indigenous peoples and local forest communities.
For example in May 2003, 14 villagers from a Temuan indigenous
community were arrested when they tried to stop a logging company
from carrying out its work on their ancestral land in Pahang.
This encroachment on indigenous land took place despite the fact
that Pahang has been certified by MTCC as "sustainably managed
forest" since 2001.
MTCC has also recently certified a concession
in Sarawak, despite an unresolved land claim by the indigenous
Penan people which is currently before the Malaysian courts. In
February of this year, 19 Penan leaders and 582 Penan from a remote
area of Sarawak demanded an immediate withdrawal of the MTCC certificate,
and called on the company to cease the destructive logging in
the area. Greenpeace has satellite images illustrating the extent
of destructive logging that we would be pleased to provide to
the committee if requested.
Additional concerns that Greenpeace have with
the MTCC include the following:
— MTCC criteria and indicators fail
to adequately safeguard social values and environmental conservation.
— MTCC certifies on the basis of whole
states in Peninsular Malaysia, thereby disregarding the variable
practices within concrete forest operations in a given Malaysian
state.
— MTCC lacks a well-defined performance
based standard.
— MTCC Chain-of-Custody procedures
and standards allow for up to 30% uncertified wood and fibre products
up to 70% with no adequate requirements on the uncertified material.
Thus the MTCC labeled products can be intermixed with illegally
acquired wood.
For example, it is clear that large amounts
of illegal timber are being trafficked from Indonesia to Malaysia.
Figures from the Malaysian Statistical office record log production
of one species, selangan batu, as 404,000 m3 in the year 2004;
yet record log exports of the species as 585,000 m3, and sawn
timber exports of the species as 210,000 m3. This means that legal
exports of selangan batu products from Sarawak are nearly double
legal production. Given that 30% of the timber being certified
as MTCC does not require chain of custody documentation from auditable
third party assessors, it is apparent there is a high risk illegal
timber could be entering the MTCC supply chain.
Our recent report, "Missing Links, Why
the Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC) certificate
doesn't prove that MTCC is legal and sustainable" is attached.
4. Is there sufficient data available to
determine where and how timber purchased by Government is sourced?
No. We believe that each time a government department
or its agencies procure timber they should be able to provide
documentation showing the chain of custody of the timber back
to its forest source. They should also be able to prove the certification
scheme under which the timber was procured. This information should
be publicly available.
5. How stringent are the EU proposals for
FLEGT? Will they be stringent enough to have significant impacts?
To address the problem of illegal logging, the
European Commission adopted an Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement,
Governance and Trade (FLEGt) in May 2003. Amongst other things,
the Action Plan recommended the development of Voluntary Partnership
Agreements (VPAs) with producer countries, which aim to improve
governance and management in the forestry sector and implementing
a system to ensure that only legal licensed timber will be exported
from signatory countries to the EU. It also recommends the development
of further legislative options that could include legislation
to prohibit the import of illegally logged timber products into
Europe.
Whilst VPAs could help reduce the amount of
illegal and unsustainable timber entering Europe, there are loopholes
in the voluntary mechanisms being proposed.
VPAs will only apply to timber producing countries
that agree to enter into such agreements and they will only cover
direct trade with Europe, not timber products imported via a third
party country, such as China. Plywood from China, for example,
comprised 50% of UK plywood imports in June 2005. More than half
of China's total timber imports come from Russia, Malaysia, and
Indonesia, with Papua New Guinea, Burma and Gabon also being significant
exporters. In all of these areas illegal and unsustainable logging
is rampant.
The voluntary approach also seriously undermines
the trade of legal and well managed timber by responsible companies
by implicitly condoning the trade in illegal timber.
Greenpeace believes that the voluntary approach
proposed by the Commission, will only have a limited impact unless
comprehensive legislation to stop the import of illegal timber
and promote sustainable forest management worldwide.
At the end of November 2004 Greenpeace, FERN
and the WWF circulated a draft law to governments of the EU Member
States, which outlined how legislation to stop the import of illegal
timber and promote environmentally and socially responsible forest
management could work. It is based on a three step approach, which
would be complementary to the voluntary FLEGT licensing scheme
as proposed by the European Commission (See attached). A legal
study commissioned by the Belgian Government has concluded that
such legislation is "legally and technically feasible"
and WTO compatible.
Over 180 Non Governmental Organisations and
70 progressive EU companies including B&Q, Homebase and Habitat
(UK), Castorama (France), IKEA and Skanska International (Sweden),
Unital (Union of Italian Industries of Wood Furniture), JYSK Nordic
(Denmark) and Puertas Luvipol (Spain), also called on the Commission
to introduce legislation that will lead to clear rules in Europe
for fair competition and sustainable markets. (See attached NGO
and Industry statement)
From April to July lobbying by Greenpeace and
allies led to the Parliament increasing pressure on the Commission
on this issue. It adopted a resolution calling on the Commission
to go beyond the proposed voluntary regime and put forward legislation
to ban the import of illegal wood products.
Greenpeace believes that the European Commission
must:
— Adopt legislation to halt the import
and marketing of illegally logged timber into Europe and promote
environmentally and socially responsible forest management worldwide.
Such a law should allow for the prosecution of individuals and
companies involved in the illegal trade of timber and timber products.
Ultimately such a law will ensure European consumers that only
timber products from legal and well managed forests are sold in
their marketplace.
— Develop strong Voluntary Partnership
Agreements (VPAs) between producer countries and the European
Union which will tackle corruption and weaknesses in the forest
governance of producer countries and that will fully involve a
broad range of stakeholders within those countries, leading to
sustainable forest management practises, such as those specified
under the principles and criteria of the Forest Stewardship Council
(FSC).
— "Green" their timber procurement
by introducing legal and sustainable purchasing criteria, so that
they no longer fuel illegal and destructive logging activities
using public money.
— Implement and enforce existing national
and European legislation on bribery and money laundering, which
are regularly linked to the trade in illegally logged timber.
— Provide sufficient funding for forest
conservation and sustainable forest management in timber producing
countries and ensure that EU subsidy programs do not fund or promote
forest destruction on the ground.
— Ensure the FLEGT licensing scheme
covers all wood products. For example, pulp, paper and furniture,
which represent 40% of total Indonesian exports are not currently
included in the scheme.
6. Is the use of certification schemes enough
to ensure that the timber requirements of the UK and EU countries
do not have detrimental impacts on forests and biodiversity in
developing countries? What other approaches should be used?
Greenpeace believe that FSC certification is
the best assurance, at this time, that timber products come from
legal and well managed sources. However, currently only a small
percentage of timber products comes from FSC certified sources
and masses of timber continues to flood onto the market from illegal
and destructive sources, which is having a devastating impact
in timber producing regions, like Indonesia, and the Amazon Basin.
Need for EU legislation to stop the import of illegal
timber
As mentioned above there is currently no legislation
in place to stop illegally logged timber entering Europe. At the
moment orang-utan habitat can be illegally logged in Indonesia,
shipped into the UK as garden furniture or as plywood for building
sites, with no legal sanction. Neither UK nor EU officials have
the legal power to seize such shipments of timber, even if they
know it is illegal. Greenpeace believe that comprehensive legislation
is critical to stop the import of illegal timber into Europe and
promote sustainable forest management worldwide.
Greenpeace is becoming increasingly frustrated
by the European Commission who seem unwilling to look beyond voluntary
mechanisms, despite the commitments made in the FLEGT Action Plan
to undertake an analysis of legislative options. In response to
an MEP question, Louis Michel, EU Commissioner for Development
stated:
"The [European] Commission is still of the
opinion that an approach on a voluntary basis is the best method
to combat illegal logging effectively. This serious problem can
only be solved with the full collaboration of the timber producing
countries."
This ignores the opinion of the European Parliament,
which called on the Commission in the motion that gained cross-party
support, to go beyond the voluntary regime proposed and put forward
legislation to criminalise the import of illegal wood and promote
sustainable forest management (see attached European Parliament,
Motion for a Resolution to speed up the implementation of the
FLEGT EU Action Plan).
Moreover, we are also very concerned that despite
strong language on illegal logging being a priority of the UK
government, we have yet to see strong action on this issue. On
26 May 2000 in a letter to Greenpeace Tony Blair stated:
"As you know, a report on the implementation
of the G8 Action Programme on Forests will be considered in July.
The UK will continue its efforts to tackle illegal logging, domestically,
bilaterally and multilaterally and will encourage our G8 partners
to do the same."
In May 2003, Michael Meacher, the then Environment
Minister stated in a letter to Greenpeace:
"The UK Government gives absolute priority
to combating the importation and use of illegally logged timber
in the UK."
Our concern is that the UK Government, like
the EU Commission, is unwilling to take action beyond voluntary
mechanisms. Given that the UK currently has the EU Presidency
and the clear need for strong political leadership on this issue
at this time, it is our belief that it is a moral obligation of
the UK government to propose legislation to the EU which will
ban this illegal trade.
Potential for national legislation
Given the lack of political will at the EU level
for comprehensive legislation to stop the import, sale and marketing
of illegal timber, Greenpeace UK is additionally exploring the
possibility of national legislation. This option is already being
explored in Germany—the Draft Virgin Forests Act—which
has been designed as an amendment to an existing nature conservation
act, allowing WTO trade rules to be avoided.
We believe that such an initiative would complement
and underpin a future EU law. Furthermore, such legislation would
be in line with the commitment made by the EU Member States in
conclusions in the Agriculture Council October 2003 "to promote
the Commission with relevant information regarding national legislation
which could be applied to address the illegal logging issue."
Greenpeace is also concerned by the mixed messages
that are coming from the UK Government on the role that the UK
can play on this issue. On the 20 July 2004 Minister Elliot Morely
welcomed progress being made by the Commission on illegal logging
by stating:
"This is an important step in international
efforts to combat illegal logging: the EU, including the UK, is
a significant importer of timber and shares responsibility with
timber-producing countries to tackle illegal logging and its associated
trade. We are determined to ensure we have effective legal powers
in the EU to deal with this."
However, in a letter to Mike Hancock MP (14
September 2005), he stated (see attached):
"The UK can not unilaterally enact legislation
that would stop imports of illegal timber. In addition, by itself,
the UK's timber consumption is insufficient to result in changes
in demand patterns that would significantly reduce the volume
of illegally harvested timber entering world trade."
Given the significant volume of illegal and
destructively sourced timber that is entering the UK market place
this is an abdication of responsibility by a Government that claims
to be seriously committed to the issue of illegal logging.
7. Should the social impact of forestry be
taken into account within certification schemes? Would it be legal
to do so?
Yes. This point is addressed in a previous question
above. Additionally please see previous submission to EAC.
8. How successful has the bilateral agreement
with Indonesia been in reducing the import of illegal timber into
the UK? What progress has there been on negotiating agreements
with further countries?
We believe there has been some reduction in
the amount of timber products from Indonesia coming into the UK.
However, it is our belief that this has been the result of market
pressure by Non Governmental Organisations on companies selling
Indonesian products in the UK, than a result of the MOU.
More worrying is that Indonesia still has the
highest rate of illegal logging in the world, 90% and one of the
longest list of endangered species in the world. This timber continues
to come into the EU and UK market place and will continue to do
so until we have comprehensive EU legislation in place to stop
the import of illegally logged timber and promote sustainable
forest management worldwide.
Attachments:
— Earlier submission to the Environmental
Audit Committee on social criteria.
— Industry statement on the need for
EU legislation.
— NGO statement on the need for EU
legislation.
— Climate Change and Environment Minister
Elliot Morley Letter to Mike Hancock MP 14 September 2005.
— Missing Links, Why the Malaysian
Timber Certification Council (MTCC) certificate doesn't prove
that MTCC is legal and sustainable.
— A possible European Union Trade Ban
on Illegally Sourced Timber and Timber Products.
— European Parliament, Motion for a
Resolution to speed up the implementation of the FLEGT EU Action
Plan.
September 2005
| 
