Ecolabeling to protect environment, trade<\/p>\n
By Ronald Nangoi<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Ecolabeling, or certification of timber
\nproducts, is part of the international community's effort to
\nprotect the global environment by fostering sustainable forest
\nmanagement.<\/p>\n
Ecolabeling also reflects the growing environmental awareness
\namong the world's traders. As we know, GATT recently included
\nenvironmental issues in its new borderless agenda. This is a
\ncomplicated matter, since one could argue that the environmental
\nefforts contradict economic development programs.<\/p>\n
World trade in timber products has increased due to the demand
\ncaused by population growth. Consequently, the supply of timber
\nis considered a major cause of deforestation, over 17 million
\nhectares per year. Deforestation is certainly one of the main
\nsources of the degradation of the environment, including air
\npollution, greenhouse gases and soil erosion. All these issues
\nhave been highlighted in the time since the Stockholm Conference
\non the environment in 1992. To stop deforestation, ecolabeling is
\nto be adopted to guarantee sustainable forest management.<\/p>\n
Despite international concerns, developing countries are
\nsuspicious of ecolabeling because they believe that it is in the
\ninterest of developed countries to threaten their trade in
\ntimber. Developed nations seem to only campaign to protect
\ntropical forests which are located mostly in developing
\ncountries, including Indonesia. Therefore, ecolabeling and other
\nmeasures to protect the environment have been seen as trade
\nbarriers. Countries with tropical forest resisted on the grounds
\nthat ecolabeling ran counter to a state's sovereign right to
\nmanage its own resources.<\/p>\n
Some highly environmentally aware countries have imposed
\nnational regulations on imports, like:<\/p>\n
1. The introduction of a bill by the U.S. Congress in 1991
\nthat all tropical timber imported bear a label indicating the
\ncountry of origin and the name of species. The label does not
\ninclude any consideration of the quality of forest management but
\ncould serve as a country certification scheme. Some basic
\nprovisions on reporting are included. Further legislation has
\nbeen introduced to the U.S. Congress to ban all imports of
\ntropical timber unless it can be verified, through a
\ncomprehensive, reliable and independent certification system that
\nthe wood originates from sustainable managed forests.<\/p>\n
2. Netherlands Framework Agreement on Tropical Timber (NFATT),
\nwhich only accepts imported timber that originates from
\nsustainable managed forest.<\/p>\n
Some argue that the trade of forest products is fiercely
\ncompetitive and threatens the developed countries timber
\nindustries and that ecolabeling and sustainable forest management
\nhas only been implemented to protect their domestic industries.
\nSome even view the forest management practices in several
\nindustrial nations as far from sustainable or environmentally
\nfriendly.<\/p>\n
However, sustainable forest management has not been objected
\nto in principle by developing countries. The inclusion of all
\nkinds of forests by WWF may have satisfied the tropical
\ncountries. Indonesia has a particularly strong commitment to
\nsustainable forest management and is active in national, regional
\nand international environmental conferences, including forest
\nmanagement. However, Indonesia has made it clear that it does not
\nwish to be dictated by developed countries.<\/p>\n
Understanding the benefits of sustainable forest management,
\nIndonesia implemented reforestation on its production forests (64
\nmillion hectares), protection and conservation forests (49
\nmillion hectares) and conversion forests (30 million hectares)
\nunder the Decree of the Indonesian Minister of Forestry No.
\n252\/Kpts II\/93 introduced on April 29 1993. This decree covers
\nthe sustainable natural production forests in Indonesia,
\nincluding all the legalities, funding and mechanisms. Indonesia
\nhas set up an ecolabeling preparation team which brings together
\nthe government, the private sector and NGOs and is led by Dr.
\nEmil Salim, former minister for environment and population. A
\nworking plan involving the Ministry of Forestry and the
\nIndonesian Forestry Community is being shaped and will be tried
\nin 1995.<\/p>\n
Indonesia's reliance on forest export products has forced the
\ncountry to show concern for forest management programs. The trade
\nwas worth US$6.5 billion in 1993 and is likely to reach $10
\nbillion by the year 2000. The country has launched a program to
\nstrengthen legal standing, boundary protection, matching
\nindustrial capacity to sustainable raw material supply, plus
\nevolving silvicultural systems. Based on estimates of production
\nareas, boundaries and staff levels, Indonesia reckons it will
\ncost about $1.00 per cubic meter of log production.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it is quite unreasonable for developed countries to
\ncondemn Indonesia regarding deforestation issues. Indonesia has
\ntaken the lead in being much more receptive to the idea of
\necolabeling and the World Forestry Conference in Bandung in
\nFebruary 1993 reaffirmed its intention of meeting ITTO's Target
\n2000.<\/p>\n
Supporting sustainable forest management is timely, since
\nIndonesia has a large share in the hardwood timber trade.
\nIndonesia and Malaysia account for 80 percent of the worldwide
\ntrade of approximately 68 million cubic meters of roundwood. A
\nnon-cooperative attitude may threaten Indonesian trade of wood or
\ntimber products.<\/p>\n
The inclusion of environmental issues in the world trade
\nsystems, such as GATT, should make it worth while for Indonesia
\nto be subject to ecolabeling or certification schemes. The
\ndevelopment of \"green economics\" could signal the development of
\nenvironmentally based economic policies. Once ecolabeling is
\nimplemented in the year 2000, other timber products will have no
\nworld market access.<\/p>\n
This will certainly have a great impact on the business sector
\nand means that environmental issues must be taken into serious
\naccount by companies, particularly timber companies, when
\nformulating corporate strategies. Even now they are expected to
\nrelinquish some of their profits to support the funding of
\nsustainable forest management, particularly through the Village
\nDevelopment schemes (HPH Bina Desa).<\/p>\n
At a microeconomic level, the change toward strategic and
\nsocietal marketing has been highlighted for quite a long time.
\nSocial, environmental and external variables should be considered
\nin the implementation of marketing management. It is therefore
\npointless for firms to be against the ecolabeling and
\ncertification programs.<\/p>\n
Environmental considerations in business policy may only
\nreflect a company's ability to adapt to economic, trade, and
\ncommercial changes for its long-term survival. It wouldn't be
\nwise if a company was concerned about the environment merely
\nbecause of boycott threats by developed countries.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at Tarumanagara University, Jakarta.<\/p>\n
Window: It is quite unreasonable for developed countries to condemn
\nIndonesia regarding deforestation issues.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/ecolabeling-to-protect-environment-trade-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}