Twin track for forest assurance

 
Snake Borneo has yielded a number of spectacular species finds, such as Kopstein's bronzeback snake

Although it usually happens by accident rather than design, the good cop/bad cop routine is perhaps one of the environment movement's most useful strategies.

A company's reputation is taking a battering from environmental group A, which is accusing it of doing illegal or rapacious things.

It wants to clean up its act - and it can turn best to environmental group B, which can show it the error of its ways - the good cop.

Or, a government wants to bring change but is worried that it'll take a pasting from green groups; so it brings one of those very groups inside the process of making change, in order to garner instead a bill of green health for itself.

The danger in these scenarios is that organisations working alongside the company or government compromise their principles in some way, or that they are less than 100% effective in scrutinising their partners.

Which is why the set-up also needs a bad cop - an independent organisation outside the set-up that can monitor and verify and investigate, able to hold both the company/government and the co-operating environment group to account.

Global Witness, which has a long tradition of going to investigate difficult situations on the ground at first hand, has just issued a fairly damning report on the Global Forest and Trade Network (GFTN), an initiative established 20 years ago by environment group WWF.

GFTN's aim is not merely to regulate trade in wood and other forest products, but to use it as a force for social and environmental good.

Companies signing up are supposed to eliminate illegal products from their operations over a period of time, and commit to gradually improving their record on certification, tracing their origins of their products, and so on.

Altogether, 284 companies are now in the scheme, encompassing producers in countries such as Indonesia and Brazil, and importers and retailers in Germany, the UK and such like.

Pencils on wooden table GFTN is supposed to certify legality and sustainability from forest to product

The Global Witness report centres on contentions that companies inside the scheme have been able to log illegally and trade illegal timber, despite their membership.

It says that one of the big Malaysian companies, Ta Ann Holdings Berhad, has been logging rainforest in Borneo in an area that overlaps with WWF's own Heart of Borneo initiative, seen as priority conservation area in which many new and exotic species have been discovered.

For Tom Picken, leader of the forest campaign at Global Witness: "When a landmark scheme created in the name of sustainability and conservation tolerates one of its member companies destroying orangutan habitat, something is going seriously wrong."

European companies are named in the report as well for continuing to trade in illegal timber after the five-year phase-out period permitted under GFTN rules; and there are wider concerns about the paucity of information provided by companies that are members of the scheme.

In Global Witness's eyes, this means that GFTN as currently constituted is not fit for purpose.

In one concrete sense, they have a point, in that laws in the EU and US have moved on so much in the last 20 years that they're now stricter than the GFTN code of practice when it comes to eliminating illegal products.

But the EU and US are not the world's only markets.

In some product areas, China is now the biggest consumer, with other major developing nations such as Brazil and India coming up on their shoulders.

How to improve standards in this trade is a huge issue - and it's probably no exaggeration to say that the health of West Africa's remaining virgin forest depends more on this than on any other single factor.

If initiatives such as GFTN can play a role, their continued existence and involvement could prove worthwhile, even if standards may sometimes fall lower than western campaigners might like.

WWF, for its part, denies some of Global Witness's contentions but says it "is taking the allegations seriously and... intends to examine Global Witness's recommendations in detail".

Ta Ann has also queried the allegations.

If forestry is to be made genuinely sustainable, it probably needs both actors in this drama to continue their involvement.

Criticism from the outside has done little on its own to change things, while the involvement of NGOs with the corporate sector has brought some real progress - most recently, on palm oil.

Organisations working with producers bring expertise and principles, which help companies to make conservation-positive decisions.

But others need to be watching to make sure everything's up to date, and that the relationship doesn't get too cosy - otherwise all the good intentions turn into mere greenwash.

 
Richard Black Article written by Richard Black Richard Black Former environment correspondent

Farewell and thanks for reading

This is my last entry for this page - I'm leaving the BBC to work, initially, on ocean conservation issues.

Read full article

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 23.

    we are almost at war with each other all the time and that's when i pose the question of who is right and who is wrong?
    so i read a bit of "resolving international conflict: the theory and practice of mediation" by Jacob Bercovitch..it may be more about armed forces but it can give a general idea of how humans have worked towards creating some kind of peace.. certain situations such as Cold War

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 22.

    There are pros and cons to every story and there are no exceptions to the rule. with this specific situation we have the company needs to meet their specific needs and environmentalist group that has their beliefs and the middle man being the government. Who are we to say "this or that" in the specific situation? is there any room for compromising. Is mediation far beyond this situation?

  • Comment number 21.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 20.

    Two days, 19 comments. Not much interest in this story of two self-serving Green extortionists squabbling over the spoils.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 19.

    Insider knowledge and transparency are continual problems in this day and age. No matter what the intensions of companies or NGO's we must remain vigilante as to the truth that they are proclaiming. With the rise of environmental organizations, and the different perceptions as to what is the best way to address environmental issues, these organizations offer an opportunity to monitor each other.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 18.

    Ouch! I seem to have cut my tongue on this can of worms! Saatchi, I hope you read Richard Blacks blog and take a look at the comments as I am sure your exhibition reflects these issues (or at least, that is how I have read it).

    Who judges the judges, who judge the judges, who judge the judges?

    I beg the question. Are we all culpable and deluded by 'dark forces' yanking our chains?

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 17.

    10. sensiblegrannie
    JunkkMale

    'The best we can do is look for little logos..'
    ----

    Speaking of labels...

    @grist Grist.org - Norway terrorist is a climate change denier - http://ow.ly/5N5jt

    Seems Dr. Jones was just saving us all in BBCland from dark forces, as well as the planet.

    Who judges the judges?

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 16.

    This is all very interesting, but it might be time to turn your attention to the animal rights industry, a group of companies that dastract attention and resources from real environmental issues. Companies like the Sea Shepherd Society, Humane Society of the United States, PETA, etc. The deceptive tactics of these companies would make a great expose piece, if you are brave enough.

  • Comment number 15.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 14.

    Global Witness is calling for independent & comprehensive evaluation of GFTN rules, transparency & impact. WWF must make membership conditional on companies following sustainable, ethical & legal practices; it must prevent any company from participating if it breaks destroys natural forest, trades in illegal timber, or is involved in human rights abuses. Rule breach should = SHUNNING.



  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 13.

    Thomas Picken, Forest Campaign Leader at Global Witness has said government grants, mean taxpayers are footing a large of the cost £4m [US$ 7m] budget; so, taxpayers must have the right to know how effectively their money is being utilized. Right now taxpayer money is being used to pay for greenwashing.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 12.

    Global Witness has found systemic problems with GFTN including:
    GFTN lacks transparency & accountability - little or no information available in public domain about individual companies, or even reports on its own impact; GFTN’s membership rules are inadequate; GFTN lacks proper monitoring, enforcement or sustainability mechanisms.


  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 11.

    Global Witness appears to pander to loggers, Malaysian logging company Ta Ann Holdings Berhad (paying member) has forest operations destroying rain forest at the equivalent rate of 20 football fields/day, including orangutan habitat within the boundaries of WWF’s own ‘Heart of Borneo’ project.



  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 10.

    JunkkMail
    OK, so who is up for it? Who out there is prepared to blow the whistle on the 5% or so who actively provide disinformation to get votes, or make unreasonable profits? What! No contenders? Survival in a predatory economic climate dampens most thoughts of rebellion by us wage slaves. The best we can do is look for little logos and sustainable assurances on our purchases.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 9.

    Governments are made up of individuals from the richest 5% of societies. This means that they have financial interest in business that overrides any in green affairs. What is needed is a grass roots rebellion on refusal to buy so the companies who will not clean up their acts suffer financially. Unfortunately I cannot see this happening.

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 8.

    '5. sensiblegrannie
    It is easy for consumers to put bad traders out of business, if they are informed of who the bad traders are'

    Of course, one might seek first a list of good traders in information on who the bad traders are, & so on. Otherwise, how to be sure?

    And, of course, as a consumer one needs the direct power to withdraw custom if informed and persuaded. That is not always the case.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 7.

    In my company I helped set up an Executive Environmental Stewardship Council. Our job is to put the required 'Green Spin' on everything we do. It's quite challenging to come up with the right spin for the right occasion. I can understand the problem here.

    Many grants, subsidies, tax breaks, community relations, product advertising etc. depend on getting the right 'Green Spin'.

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 6.

    The scientists lie & disregard scientific principals to further their careers.
    Environmental groups lie because they are the new social engineers.
    Business's lie to increase control & improve profits.
    Politicians lie because thats their job.
    The people lie for cheap consumable goods.
    If you deny the above you are either lying to yourself or have bought the con hook, line, & sinker.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 5.

    Can you link us to ethically sound and sustainable wood importers and manufacturers please. If we know who are 'sound' then we can choose them in preference to the other sort. It is easy for consumers to put bad traders out of business, if they are informed of who the bad traders are.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 4.

    "For more than two millennia, people had lamented that deforestation had resulted in rising temperatures"

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-First-Great-Global-Warming-Debate.html?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_campaign=20110718&utm_content=globalwarmingdebate

    An interesting read from the 16th century

 

Page 1 of 2

 

Features

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.