ENB:13:14
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT
Delegates discussed Programme Element IV on 18-19 March. J.E.K. Aggrey-Orleans of the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) introduced the SG's report (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/11), which includes: cooperation to enhance trade in forest products and services; developing methodologies for valuation and cost internalization; and voluntary certification for SFM.
The G-77/CHINA emphasized the Forest Principles, including: technology transfer; nondiscriminatory trade; reduced tariff barriers; integrated conservation and economic policies; and unilateral trade restrictions. Timber certification schemes should be a consequence of SFM. He underlined biodiversity and technology, particularly biotechnology, for SFM. The EU focused on: consistency between the WTO and trade for SFM; linkages with valuation and C&I; credible certification schemes, which are cost-effective, transparent, fair, and voluntary; trade in NTFPs; domestic sales; and competing land uses.
The US, supported by the REPUBLIC OF KOREA, INDONESIA, GERMANY and SWITZERLAND, stated that voluntary certification is potentially useful for SFM, while INDONESIA said certification should not be imposed unilaterally. NEW ZEALAND stated that certification may not necessarily lead to SFM. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA, NEW ZEALAND, BRAZIL, COLOMBIA, AUSTRALIA and IRAN cautioned against trade barriers, including tariff and non-tariff barriers.
ARGENTINA, SWITZERLAND, MALAYSIA, WWF, BULGARIA and the PHILIPPINES recognized trade-induced environmental impacts, while WWF also emphasized the impact of agricultural production. SWITZERLAND highlighted market access and cost internalization. MALAYSIA recognized: supportive economic climates; trends in trade; discrimination against tropical forest products; proliferating certification initiatives; and substitute products. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA said the document overemphasizes tropical timber.
MEXICO underlined market transparency and the need for different certification standards for different ecosystems. JAPAN stressed: full-cost internalization; transparency; credibility of certifying organizations; and cost-effectiveness. FRANCE cautioned against promoting non-environmentally sound substitutes. GABON cautioned against negotiating environmental issues and leaving everything else to the market.
AUSTRALIA stressed cost internalization and, with CANADA, trade and environmental services, and the work of other organizations, including the WTO.
The NETHERLANDS proposed: certification schemes involving industrial sectors overseen by governments and NGOs; avoiding proliferating labels; and tracing timber. THE GLOBAL FOREST POLICY PROJECT encouraged holistic consideration of trade for SFM. BRAZIL highlighted trade related to boreal and temperate forests, and lesser-used species.
NORWAY highlighted the work of other fora as a framework for discussions, and harmonized certification under national and regional objectives. The UN ASSOCIATION OF SWEDEN emphasized social concerns and consumer confidence regarding certification. The CITIZENS' ALLIANCE FOR SAVING EARTH AND ATMOSPHERE noted difficulties in objective certification, transparency and participation. ZIMBABWE, UGANDA and CHILE focused on local and domestic trade. ZIMBABWE highlighted ecotourism and the informal sector, and UGANDA highlighted NTFPs.
SWEDEN said certification should be market-driven and not directly implemented by governments. BULGARIA highlighted lesser-used species, market transparency and access. CHILE noted insufficient attention to production processes and national forest policy. The PHILIPPINES called for research on lesser-used species and on new products.
Delegates discussed the Co-Chairs' summary on 22 March. The summary recognizes the potential positive and negative effects on SFM of international trade in wood and NTFPs. It requests analysis of: market access and trade barriers; certification and labeling; full-cost internalization; market transparency; lesser used species; and financing and technology.
WWF highlighted: CBD and CITES; obstacles to certification; the role of incentives; and, in the paragraph on wood exports, NTFPs. The EU linked trade and environment to C&I and valuation. He called for preliminary work on a framework for credible timber certification, which should be efficient, cost-effective, voluntary, non-discriminatory, transparent and include all forests. The G-77/CHINA referred to: Agenda 21; purchasing power of developing countries; the impact of international trade on forests; tariff and non-tariff barriers; intellectual property rights vis-à-vis trade in forest products; proliferating certification schemes; certification of all forest products; technology needs; and subsidies with negative effects on rural populations and SFM.
AUSTRALIA highlighted the environmental impacts of trade and marketplace competitiveness of forest products. The NETHERLANDS emphasized tracing certified timber though the chain of custody. CANADA discussed certification and eco-labeling, including: market access and trade policy when accounting for production and processing methods; linkages between certification and international and national C&I; eco-labeling as an environmental policy instrument; and equivalency and mutual recognition including international guidelines.
The US and the PHILIPPINES emphasized consistency with the IPF's mandate. To the section on trade barriers, the US added "subsidies which distort trade in forest products." On certification, she called for clarification on scientific data and markets. She emphasized market transparency.
ZIMBABWE emphasized domestic trade, including informal trade, on market access and trade barriers. JAPAN underlined impact analysis of certification on importing and exporting countries, and questioned whether private property owners would be the unit of certification. BRAZIL included "the impact on existing social conditions, and on other alternative uses and products," to the paragraph analyzing cost internalization, and added the World Bank to a list of institutions reporting capacity building activities.