Are we ready for "Certified Green" lumber?
There is a movement afoot to "solve" the deforestation problem in the tropical areas of the globe. The idea is to create a centralized certification process, at least in Europe, and to force the purchasers of tropical hardwoods to verify that the wood that they use is certified "green". Sounds like a good idea, and probably the US will jump on the bandwagon soon as well. But, we ask, will this resolve the problem?
We do not think so!
This idea, like so many well intentioned ones that are thought up in ivory towers, far from where the chain saw meets the tree, is not workable. It's just another conscience salving effort on the part of consumers to feel good about something that they WANT to do, even when they know that it is wrong. It is akin to the much touted "solution" to the illegal drug problem of spraying the coca or poppy fields with a chemical defoliant. Reducing supply has never eliminated demand, it just raises prices, and in the case of drugs makes the user go to even greater lengths to feed his habit.
Now, let's look at some of the drawbacks to the solutions for deforestation being proposed:
1. Maintaining "On Site" Inspections
Keeping inspectors in the field will cost a great deal of money. Local governments rarely can dispose of the amounts involved (even when they want to!). Inspectors require transportation: in most cases these areas are reachable only by water or seasonal roads, sometimes only by air! Boats, 4x4s and airplanes are, in most of the places of the world where tropical hardwood grows, very expensive toys for the rich, not work tools for relatively low level government employees.
The inspectors are in constant danger - not just from environmental hazards - and need to be protected. Illegal logging is very profitable and it's operators are willing to go to great lengths to keep operating. Eliminating inspectors is not unheard of!
2. Vastness of the area involved
The remaining rain forest areas of the world are estimated to contain about 2.41 million square miles (6.24 million square kilometers). Just taking the Amazon basin we are talking about 1.3 million sq. mi. (3.37 million sq. km.) which includes parts of 6 countries. That is about 43 percent of the USA (ex Alaska), and about 1/3 of Europe (including Russia to the Urals)! How many inspectors would be needed to cover an area of this size? How many vehicles? How many armed guards?
3. Other Factors
Added to these two major difficulties involved in saving the forests there are other factors. We must remember that not all of the tropical hardwood is being "harvested" so that Europeans or Americans etc. can have nice floors and furniture. The bio-fuel revolution is crowding out traditional land use in many parts of the world. Pushing less profitable land uses further away from population and transportation centers - right into the forests! Some of the trees are not being specifically cut to send to Europe - they are being turned into charcoal, a few are just being left to rot where they fall!
The proposed certification system is unworkable!
Alternative Solution
There is another way. The problem is that it requires thought, discipline and maybe some patience - things that are in rare supply among politicians and "big business" NGOs.
First, we need to temporarily reduce the demand as much as is possible until a good system is put in place. Why not a 5 or 10 year moratorium on tropical hardwood imports into Europe, the US and any other concerned country interested in participating? This would go a long way toward removing the profit incentive in the forests. Sure, some big user companies will undoubtedly scream and holler, but we should not allow a selfish few to block the efforts to save such an important resource. This puts me in mind of the ivory ban and several other bans on endangered materials being traded. The Economist recently published an article on this subject. Briefly, bans imposed by CITES seem to work over short periods, while permanent bans seem to break down after a time. That is why we are proposing only a temporary ban.
Second, we need to spend a bit to set up a monitoring system to identify and track illegal cutting and shipping of tropical hardwood. With current satellite imagery and IT technology it would not be too difficult to do this. After all, we are talking about gigantic trees, big sawmills, 30 ton tractor-trailers and ocean going ships to cut, process and ship this material. It's not a couple of 'native porters' that are transporting this stuff - it is a huge operation.
Third, the monitors need to publicize illegal cutting, processing, shipping AND receiving. Those involved in these activities must be named. The land has owners, the equipment suppliers can be determined, ships are identifiable and ports of entry are well documented. How many of them would stand up to the light of day being shined on them for the world to see? You only have to break one link in the chain to stop the flow.
Fourth, we need to establish a program of genetic marking to positively identify wood that is legal. You can't depend on a stamp on a trunk or a piece of paper to determine if a log, or board, or piece of furniture is legal. All living things have DNA and it shouldn't be too much of a problem to create a database of genetic markers of legally grown tropical hardwoods. All wood from any source has to be positively identified as coming from a known, registered, source of legally grown and cut trees. If not, it can't get off the boat / truck or whatever!
As soon as this program is setup and working, the moratorium can be lifted - but only for legitimate sources of lumber.
Conclusion
We strongly believe that a program along the lines suggested above will allow for the preservation of tropical hardwoods and the forests they come from. It will require cooperation from Government (importers much more important than exporters) and "Big Business" NGO's, who need to worry more about saving the trees than they currently worry about raising the huge sums of money that they do.
The rest of us need to stop being fooled by high sounding programs that, in reality, will only serve to "green" the image of certain groups and individuals, not to preserve the vital rain forests that remain in the world.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
