In many areas it’s all sweetness and light between Greenpeace and the timber trade.
We all want to preserve the world’s forests for the sake of the planet. We also all want to see more timber used because it’s the only truly renewable manufacturing and building material and because, if more is used that, in itself, will provide more encouragement to preserve the forests.
Where the greens and many in the industry differ is on definitions and details – but, having said that, they are fairly important definitions and details. For instance, Greenpeace maintains that FSC certification is the only acceptable proof of sustainable forest management. The trade feels different forms of certification suit different places and patterns of forest ownership.
The industry also opposes boycotts on wood from particular areas as it feels these would impact on the livelihood of local populations and increase their incentive to clear land for agriculture and construction. Greenpeace dismisses this in its support for boycotts on certain countries maintaining that few, if any, of the local peoples currently gain real benefit from forestry.
Of course, all parties should keep talking to find common ground and avoid further polarisation. But there are clearly points where there is not going to be agreement any time soon. On these, many feel, the industry should stop clashing heads with the greens and take its case more strongly to consumers, specifiers, end users and politicians.
The trade has already established effective links with the UK government and this clearly played a role in the latter’s acceptance of four certification schemes as proof of timber’s legality and sustainability .
Last week a European alliance of timber industry organisations took their case to the EU parliament building in Brussels, button-holing MEPs at a mini-exhibition strategically sited near the debating chamber. CEI-Bois, the organisers, said it was a success, with several hundred copies of a book entitled Tackle Climate Change: Use More Wood distributed to politicians and officials. The premise was that the timber industry should not just use its powerful arguments in reaction to environmentalist criticism, but also put them proactively to the public and policy makers.
