Special
Issue - 20 November 2004
IUCN
World Conservation Congress
Certification
for Sustainability
Certification
and labelling schemes, it was argued in the workshop on "Certification
for Sustainability", organised by IUCN's Environmental Law Center
on 19 November, are a difficult issue – as they try to merge two
potentially conflicting fields of concerns, business practices and the
environment, into one equation. In the attempt to include market externalities
in their product evaluation, certificates give consumers the choice of
paying more for the guarantee of certain product and production standards.
Thus, certificates or labels can be seen to function as a common language,
guaranteeing product quality independent of a company's brand name. However,
while good in intent, some critics point to potential adverse impacts
on trade as a result of increased production costs, which particularly
affect small and medium sized enterprises, and the possibility of misuse
as non-tariff barriers to trade. Furthermore, some quality factors are
very difficult to standardise, such as impact on biodiversity, and therefore
not appropriate for certificate schemes.
For
certification to work, mutual understanding is needed between business
on the one side, which must understand and help achieve sustainability
objectives, and NGOs on the other, which need to become aware of and accept
the need to provide tangible benefits to business. New initiatives are
already developing the certification-for-sustainability concept by applying
it on-the-ground with work in green markets, greening operations of other
markets and certification processes that target actors other than the
final consumers. However, the sheer number of standards can pose a problem,
raising the need for a better understanding of when standards are an effective
tool and when other mechanisms should be used.
Cutting
our losses – reducing illegal trade in natural resources
While
the illegal trade in natural resources is decimating biodiversity, ruining
peoples' livelihoods and contributing to conflict there are still many
ways to tackle the problem, participants concluded at the Cutting our
losses – reducing illegal trade in natural resources organised by
the International Institute for Sustainable Development and TRAFFIC on
19 November. The illegal trade in natural resources is a global problem
of huge scale; driving conflict, promoting corruption and rewarding criminals
while destroying biodiversity and undermining livelihoods. It is an issue
that intersects environment and development. The facts are stark. 8,500
water snakes are taken from Cambodia’s Tonle Sap lake each day, three
out of eight tiger species are already extinct and it is estimated that
approximately half of all tropical timber imported into the EU has been
logged illegally. Illegal trade is a problem of production methods and
consumption patterns. Cutting our losses from illegal trade requires that
solutions be found in both the developing and the developed worlds, requiring
political will and concerted effort, participants noted. The session explored
approaches available to the international
community, governments, aid donors, private sector and the civil society.
Regional trade arrangements must co-operate to tackle transboundary issues.
Governments need to control their borders and strengthen national legislation.
Aid
donors must support interventions throughout the trade chain from producer
to consumer and could link aid to better controls over illegal trade.
The private sector has greatest opportunities to reduce illegal trade.
However, in general, the commitment of companies to certification and
supply chain management is dismal. The Tropical Forest Trust is tackling
this by helping timber companies reach certification standards. Civil
society faces perhaps the greatest challenge. It has to ensure the others
meet their commitments as well as generating new ideas for combating illegal
trade.
What
Future For Asia’s Wildlife Trade
Biodiversity
loss, and wildlife trade’s impact on that loss, is not rating high
enough on government and donor political agendas to be allocated sufficient
priority funds and resource – despite the magnitude of Asia's consumer
footprint and the link to economic development agendas, participants noted
at the sponsored workshop "What Future for Asia's Wildlife Trade"
organised by TRAFFIC on 18 November. Although it would appear completely
logical for more institutions to
work together to achieve higher impact on illegal, unregulated and unsustainable
wildlife trade, this would require some strict definition of institutional
‘niches’ and the assemblage of a composite team(s) of expertise
to address large scale wildlife trade challenges in Asia. To 'make the
case' for the right kind of donor support, and catalyse the right kind
of partnerships between government agencies, NGOs and civil society, the
imperatives of dealing with Asia's Wildlife Trade
need to be articulated in a clear and unambiguous format. A strategy for
addressing Asia's Wildlife Trade should be developed as a matter of urgency
to convene the key players needed to deal with several priority components
of the trade chain (source – market – end consumer). The need
for better legislation, and better law enforcement, should be combined
with appropriate incentives for community participation in managing resources
from which they receive tangible benefits. To deal with the persistent
demand for animal- and plant-derived products, more emphasis should be
placed on understanding "why consumer's consume" to guide innovative
interventions (including campaigns) to change consumption patterns. Increased
scientific assessments and information flows are also needed to measure
trade demand
against wild population status.
Social
Justice and Equity in Conservation
IUCN
and the development organisation CARE International initiated a discussion
on ways towards making conservation work for poverty alleviation with
a sponsored workshop on "Social Justice and Equity in Conservation"
on 18 November. Noting that equity was not a defined concept, Maria Fernanda
Espinosa, IUCN, proposed to use a wide approach, including cultural, economic,
social and political aspects. Phil Franks, CARE International, however,
questioned the
achievability of the fulfillment of universal human/environmental rights
through access and benefit-sharing (ABS). Using examples from Uganda,
he showed how protected areas face serious difficulties to contribute
to sustainable livelihoods and poverty alleviation and how they can lead
to local welfare loss and huge international gains. Calling for a rebalancing
of this trend, he claimed that there was a right to fair reward for stewardship
and accordingly an obligation for international agencies to make this
happen.
While
the Convention on Biological Diversity's provisions only call for "fair
and equitable benefit-sharing" related to genetic resources, a study
by the German Development Agency GTZ showed that current ABS arrangements
have positive effects on poverty alleviation, though the (long-term) financial
gains so far remained limited. However, processes requiring prior informed
consent were crucial in facilitating empowerment of local and traditional
communities, the study concludes. The study examined which level of clear
guidance negotiators of ABS agreements need to achieve those benefits.
According
to Kirsten Neumann from the United Nations University, the negotiations
on an international regime on benefit sharing related to genetic resources
– as mandated by the WSSD – present an opportunity to clarify
the scope of the concept 'equitable sharing' and to promote a more holistic
view on the conservation of biological diversity while producing capacity
for national and regional implementation However, all participants agreed,
ABS is no universal
remedy: It can and has to be supported by other actions towards poverty
alleviation and biodiversity conservation.
|
