[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

RATIFICATION OF THE ITTA



from Dawn Star, EuroBurmaNet, Paris
re timber, rainforest, teak, precious woods, indigenous peoples, 
ethnique peoples etc
metta, ds
> ,
> 
>        ___________________________________________________________
> 
>          THE NEW INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER AGREEMENT ITTA-94
>                             ENTERS INTO FORCE
>        ___________________________________________________________
> 
> The International Tropical Timber Organization comes onto a new
> stage with the entry into force of the new International
> Tropical Timber Agreement-1994.
> 
> The new agreement incorporates the YEAR 2000 OBJECTIVE,
> according  to which tropical timber in international trade must
> come from  well managed forests, by the year 2000. The concept
> of "well managed forests" refers to forests managed according
> to ITTO's GUIDELINES FOR THE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL
> TROPICAL FORESTS, and the ITTO'S GUIDELINES FOR THE
> ESTABLISHMENT AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF PLANTED TROPICAL
> FORESTS. National standards are expected to be developed, in
> compliance with these generic guidelines.
> 
> The original ITTA was signed in 1983, with a life span of 10
> years, and the specific mandate to foster the expansion and
> diversification of the international trade of tropical timber,
> based on sustainably managed forest resources. The achievement
> of such a mandate would take into account the projected
> increase in demand, the need for continuity of supplies, fair
> and remunerative prices, further processing in producing
> countries, and improvements in the access to international
> markets.
> 
> SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT
> 
> According to one of ITTO's own studies, less than one per cent
> [1%] of forests under industrial production in ITTO member
> countries were considered well managed by 1989 [1]. Although
> the findings of this report have been seriously disputed, the
> achievement of one of the fundamental objectives of the
> organization, to base the trade on sustainably managed forests,
> seems to have so far fallen considerably short from success.
> 
> ACCESS TO MARKETS
> 
> Tropical timber seems to face today more obstacles in
> international markets, both in number and effectiveness, than
> when the organization was created. The call for bans and
> boycotts against tropical timbers have become normal and
> widespread, as well as discriminatory conditionalities to the
> trade and use of tropical wood products in the main
> international markets.
> 
> Legislation demanding that tropical timbers be certified as
> coming from well managed sources is spreading throughout
> industrial nations. There are regulations in place in dozens of
> counties and cities of several European countries, such as
> Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland, limiting the
> use of tropical timber in public works. Proposals to extend
> these bans to all the European Community have been brought to
> the consideration of the European Parliament.
> Such regulations have been so far applied discriminatorily
> against tropical timbers only.
> 
> Four different ministries of the government of the Netherlands
> endorsed a Framework Agreement on Tropical Timber [2]. Starting
> in January of 1996, all imports of tropical timber would be
> exclusively limited to supplies guaranteed to be sustainably
> produced, according to a credible and reliable certificate.
> This regulation had the force of law, and applied only to
> tropical timber, not to timber products coming form industrial
> countries, which form the bulk of all imports of wood products
> into the Netherlands. The regulation was not only openly
> discriminatory against tropical timber. It was also in
> violation of existing international trade agreements, and
> contrary to the international commitments subscribed by the
> government of the Netherlands in ITTO. The government decided
> to withdraw its policy at the end of 1994.
> 
> Similar regulations exist in the North-American states of New
> York and Arizona. A bill was introduced in 1993 to the US
> Congress by Kostmeyer [HR-2854] to prohibit all imports of
> tropical timber to the USA, except products proven to come from
> well managed forests, according to an independent and reliable
> certification. The proposal applied discriminatorily only to
> tropical timber.
> 
> FURTHER PROCESSING
> 
> No significant increase in the level of processing has occurred
> in tropical countries, and therefore added value and the
> creation of jobs continue to be transferred to industrial
> countries, in a similar proportion as 12 years ago. The
> countries who have increased processing significantly during
> this time, such as Indonesia, have done so under national
> efforts largely disassociated of ITTO.
> 
> FAIR PRICES
> 
> Another ITTO study concluded that 90 per cent of the revenues
> from the trade of tropical timber was retained by traders and
> importers. Only 10 per cent found its way to the country of
> origin [3].
> 
> When measured with the same yardstick, in 1990 the value of the
> tropical timber exports to industrial countries was lower than
> in 1984, when the ITTA came into effect. During this period,
> the roundwood equivalent of exports to industrial countries
> increased from 30 to 38 million cubic meters per year. But when
> measured in constant terms (1984 dollars), the value of each
> cubic meter of tropical timber exported to industrial countries
> actually decreased during this period, despite rhetorical
> commitments to better value the resource.
> 
> Japan is the largest importer of tropical timbers. Between 1984
> and 1990, Japan's imports increased from 14.5 to 20.1 M3 of
> roundwood equivalents, But the price, in 1984 dollars, dropped
> from 2.4 to 2.2 billion dollars a year. In 1990 the value per
> roundwood equivalent was 33% lower than in 1984 in constant
> terms. A similar situation, although with a less pronounced
> decrease in value, was found for exports to both the USA and
> the European Community during the same period.
> 
> RESOURCES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE YEAR 2000 OBJECTIVE
> 
> ITTO has made several attempts at estimating the resources
> needed by tropical countries to achieve the Year 2000
> Objective. In September of 1995 an expert panel was convened to
> such an effect, providing an estimate of  about two billion
> dollars per year. The budget of the organization is only a
> fraction of this figure, although not all actions necessary to
> achieve the target need to be carried out within ITTO's
> framework. Nevertheless, it seems evident that cooperation must
> be significantly strengthened between producing and consuming
> countries, industry, trade and NGOs, is such a target is to be
> achieved. Actions need to be priorized, and a clear strategy
> implemented to ensure progress in this direction. The
> ratification of the agreement by all member countries would
> provide an indication of the commitment to achieve this
> fundamental and strategic goal. Cooperation from industry and
> NGOs also needs to be significantly improved.
> 
> RATIFICATIONS
> 
> The original ITTA was renegotiated between 1992 and 1994, the
> outcome being the new ITTA-1994. Many member countries have so
> far failed to ratify the agreement, including the USA, Germany,
> the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and all other
> members of the European Community, Finland, Russia, Brazil,
> Colombia, Venezuela, Cameroon, Cote D'Ivoire and the
> Philippines. Only 22 of the 53 members have done so.
> 
> COUNTRIES WHO HAD RATIFIED THE AGREEMENT BY SEPTEMBER 13, 1996
> 
> INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES
>      AUSTRALIA
>      CANADA
>      DENMARK
>      JAPAN
>      NEW ZEALAND
>      NORWAY
>      SWEDEN
>      SWITZERLAND
> 
> DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
> 
> ASIA CAMBODIA
>      CHINA
>      INDONESIA
>      MALAYSIA
>      MYANMAR
>      KOREA [S]
>      THAILAND
> 
> AFRICA
>      GHANA
>      LIBERIA
>      TOGO
> 
> LATIN AMERICA
>      ECUADOR
>      BOLIVIA
>      PANAMA
>      PERU
> 
> AMONG THE MEMBER COUNTRIES WHO HAD NOT RATIFIED THE AGREEMENT
> AS OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1996 ARE:
> 
> AUSTRIA
> BELGIUM/LUXEMBOURG
> EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
> FINLAND
> FRANCE
> GERMANY
> GREECE
> IRELAND
> ITALY
> NETHERLANDS
> PORTUGAL
> SPAIN
> UNITED KINGDOM
> UNITED STATES
> RUSSIA
> 
> BRAZIL
> COLOMBIA
> VENEZUELA
> HONDURAS
> CAMEROON
> CONGO
> COTE D'IVOIRE
> GABON
> EGYPT
> FIJI
> PAPUA NEW GUINEA
> PHILIPPINES
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> References
> 
> 1. Poore, D: No Timber Without Trees. A study for ITTO. 1989.
> 
> 2. Ministry for Foreign Trade, the State Secretary for
> Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, the Ministry for
> Development Cooperation, The Ministry of Housing, Physical
> Planning and Environment, The Netherlands Timber Trade
> Association, The Netherlands Trade Union Confederation, IUCN
> and WWF-NL:
> Netherlands Framework Agreement on Tropical Timber. The Hague,
> 1993.
> 
> 3. ITTO: Incentives in producer and consumer countries to
> promote sustainable development in tropical forests. Report by
> the Oxford Forestry Institute and TRADA for ITTO. 1991.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _____________________________
> JULIO CESAR CENTENO
> PO BOX 750
> MERIDA - VENEZUELA
> Tel:    Int+58-74-714576
> Fax:    Int+58-74-714576
> Email:  JCenteno@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> _____________________________