[asia-apec 1727] Please endorse APEC forest trade letter

[A. Paige Fischer]

[The deadline for endorsements for this letter has been extended until 
February 9.  Please sign on if you haven't already.]

Dear Asia-Pacific activists:

The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) has targeted numerous forest 
protections as trade barriers in its recent "Study of Non-Tariff Measures 
(NTMs) in the Forest Sector."  Examples of NTMs listed in the study include 
logging bans, forest certification, raw log export bans and protections 
against invasive species in such countries as Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua 
New Guinea, Chile, Australia, New Zealand and the USA.  The study implies 
that these forest protection measures may be eliminated in pending forest 
liberalization discussions.

Please endorse the following letter, written by Pacific Environment, Sierra 
Club, Friends of the Earth and others, demanding that the US Trade 
Representative halt trade negotiations that threaten forest protections and 
conduct environmental reviews and consult citizens on forest trade proposals.

By Friday, February 9 please:

1)  Read the following letter that US environmental groups submitted in 
response to a request for comment from the US Trade Representative (USTR).

2)  Send your name, title, organization and contact information to Paige 
Fischer <perc at igc.org> 510-251-8838 (fax).  We will add your name to the 
list of endorsers and resubmit the letter on Friday, February 9.  We will 
also let you know of any responses we receive.

Thank you for your support!

Paige Fischer
perc at igc.org


February 9, 2001

Barbara Norton, Director of Information Industry and Chemical Industry 
Trade Policy
Office of the US Trade Representative
600 17th Street N.W.
Washington D.C.  20508
Fax:  202-395-9674

RE:  Comments from Interested Parties on the APEC Study of Non-Tariff 
Measures in the Forest Sector.

Dear Ms. Norton:

The Pacific Environment and Resources Center and the other undersigned 
groups thank the USTR for providing an opportunity for interested parties 
to comment on the "APEC Study of Non-Tariff Measures in the Forest Sector" 
as stated in an October 30 memorandum from Acting Assistant US Trade 
Representative, Dominic Bianchi.

The undersigned # organization from # countries submit their views to you 
on the content of the APEC NTM study and the process that the USTR is 
following in its work on Non-Tariff Measures.  The study offers an alarming 
"laundry list" of potential trade barriers, many of which we consider to be 
legitimate environmental safeguards.  However, the study does not refer to 
any specific proposed actions upon which to comment, leaving us to assume 
that the measures identified as NTMs may actually be considered for 
elimination in APEC.  We hope our comments will impact the course of NTM 
discussions at APEC and other trade fora.

COMMENTS ON PROCESS

In our view the APEC NTM study's listing of a large number of forest 
conservation and sustainable management measures as trade barriers warrants 
a re-evaluation based on US Government environmental objectives and a 
closer consultation with stakeholders.  We call on the USTR to reconcile 
the APEC NTM initiative with its publicly stated commitment (December 2, 
1999) to opposing trade liberalization that threatens legitimate forest 
protection measures.  We also would like to know how the USTR plans to 
follow the guidelines for environmental reviews of trade initiatives in 
natural resource sectors under Executive Order 13141.

We would like to provide comments on the study but also want to understand 
how to make our comments as pertinent and useful as possible.  In our 
August 29 letter to USTR, some of the undersigned groups sought 
clarification on the purpose and process for the NTM study review.  We 
requested more information about any US proposals regarding NTMs and the 
forestry experts group and the USTR's plans for incorporating public 
comment into NTM discussions. The USTR has neither acted on our August 29 
recommendations nor met our requests for more information.

We feel that public consultation on the APEC NTM study has been less than 
adequate. For example, less than half of the seven organizations that 
signed the August 29th letter received the October 30th notification about 
the comment period on the study.  We hope that USTR will correct lapses in 
the notification process and ensure that the public has full opportunity to 
comment on trade liberalization initiatives, especially in matters of 
environmental protection and natural resource management.  We also urge the 
USTR to follow through with its September 13 commitment, in a letter to 
Pacific Environment and Resources Center, to "consulting carefully with 
interested stakeholders to take fully into account the environmental 
implications - whether positive or negative - of particular NTMs here at 
home and in other countries."

The undersigned groups ask that the USTR provide us with information about 
mechanisms for public dialogue and how interested parties can participate 
in discussions about NTMs at APEC and other fora.  We would like 
information about the proposed forestry experts group, how it relates to 
NTM identification and liberalization, and how it will pursue the 
environmental objectives of the US Government and its constituents.


COMMENTS ON CONTENT

We are extremely concerned about the potential implications of the study, 
especially the listing of a large number of forest conservation and 
sustainable management measures as NTMs and the suggestion that they are 
unacceptable impediments to trade.  The study also implies an increase in 
the volume of traded forest products, underscoring the need for adopting - 
not eliminating - environmental safeguards to mitigate forest 
destruction.  We are concerned in particular with the study's listing of 
certification and recycled content policies, logging bans, raw log export 
restrictions and phytosanitary standards as NTMs that might potentially 
face removal.  It is clear that the elimination of many of these important 
safeguards by APEC or any other trade forum will negatively impact forests 
in the US and around the world.

We also find to be problematic the ambiguous and often contradictory way in 
which NTMs are defined because it results in the inclusion of a number of 
environmental measures that should not be in the purview of trade 
negotiators.  The study has sought to describe and analyze a large number 
of policies that may have an impact on trade. This could conceivably 
include the universe of governmental as well as private sector policies, 
all of which could theoretically present some impediment to trade. The 
focus on "socially and environmentally motivated NTMs" is contradictory. On 
the one hand, the authors find that "environmental NTMs are not technically 
trade impediments" and on the other hand define NTMs as "restrictions which 
act as [trade] impediments."  Included in the list of "NTMs" are legitimate 
environmental policies and initiatives such as certification and recycled 
content policies, logging bans, raw log export restrictions and 
phytosanitary standards. Inclusion under the rubric of "NTM" implies that 
all these measures are categorically trade-restrictive policies and that 
increasing the volume of trade has de facto priority over a country's 
domestic environmental goals.

We find the inclusion of the following categories and specific forest 
protection measures for potential liberalization unacceptable.  We propose 
that the categories and examples of forest protection measures listed below 
be removed entirely from any list of NTMs that the US will consider for 
potential elimination.  We also may contest the inclusion of other 
environmental protections in subsequent NTM lists and negotiations.

Environmental Protections that should not be listed as NTMs:

LOGGING BANS AND HARVEST RESTRICTIONS: The authors themselves have pointed 
to logging bans that had the desired effect of curbing massive 
deforestation, erosion and flooding.  A number of bans in place in the US 
and elsewhere are legitimate measures to protect habitat for endangered 
species.  Examples listed in the study include the logging ban that China 
instituted to curb massive deforestation that has led to erosion and 
flooding, the US Endangered Species Act which restricts logging in certain 
areas to conserve habitat and New Zealand's Forest Amendment Action which 
prohibits natural forest logging without an approved sustainable management 
plan.

SUBSIDIES AND INCENTIVES FOR AFFORESTATION: When applied in the appropriate 
context, these are important incentives for reclamation of degraded lands 
and protection of natural forestlands.  They also have the potential to 
stimulate local communities towards sustainable development.  Examples 
listed in the study include the financial incentives that China, the 
Republic of Korea and the US provide for reforestation and afforestation, 
and Thailand's government funded tree planting schemes for community forestry.

RECYCLING AND EMISSION CONTROL POLICIES: Measures are in place in the US 
and other APEC member countries that reduce the use of toxic chemicals and 
prevent non-recycled paper from out-competing recycled paper. Examples 
listed in the study include Japan's restrictions on formaldehyde emissions 
from building products and limits on brightness in paper that prevent 
non-recycled paper from out-competing recycled paper, the US' minimum 
standards for waste paper content in newsprint, and the Republic of Korea's 
ban on imports of wood preservative chemicals and wood treated with such 
chemicals.

PROCUREMENT AND USAGE POLICIES: Local and national procurement policies, 
especially requirements for recycled content, can have a significant 
positive effect on forest conservation. Examples cited in the study include 
state and local governments' environmental specifications for wood products 
used in public projects, the US federal minimum recycled content law of 40% 
and the measures that the Government of Japan is taking to significantly 
reduce wasteful plywood use within three years.

CERTIFICATION AND ECO-LABELLING INITIATIVES:  Certification and 
eco-labeling are natural market responses to the demand for more 
environmentally responsible products. Such programs do not belong in the 
study or in any list of NTMs to be negotiated, particularly if they are 
private, voluntary efforts to promote use of eco-friendly products, such as 
the US Certified Forest Products Council, the UK 1995+ Group, Green Seal, 
and the Forest Stewardship Council.

LOG EXPORT BANS: When applied alongside domestic conservation measures, 
export bans or limits, both in the US and in the Asia-Pacific region, can 
stimulate more efficient use of raw materials and help take the pressure 
off of the national forest estate.  Examples listed in the study include 
restrictions in the US, Indonesia, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea on the export 
of unprocessed wood such as raw logs to stimulate local and more efficient 
processing and to reduce volume of wood extracted from forests.

PROTECTIONS AGAINST EXOTIC PESTS AND DISEASES:  Phytosanitary measures have 
been imposed by several APEC member countries to control transmission of 
pests and disease. Where there has been shown to be a real danger, such 
policies have been recognised as legitimate defenses. Examples listed in 
the study include phytosanitary measures in Australia that require kiln 
drying and restrict imports of sawn timber containing bark, measures in 
Japan that require inspection and fumigation of logs under all 
circumstances, measures in Mexico that require all US sawn timber to be 
certified to have come from pest-free areas, and measures in the US to 
require that solid wood packing material from China be heat treated or 
fumigated.

The study's quantitative analysis projects an increase in volume of traded 
forest products, which only underscores the need for maintaining or 
enhancing - not eliminating - environmental safeguards to prevent forest 
degradation or destruction.  It is clear that the potential elimination of 
many of these important safeguards by APEC or any other trade forum will 
negatively impact forests in the US and around the world.  Unfortunately 
neither APEC nor the USTR have taken any visible steps toward reviewing the 
potential environmental impacts of such actions.


Projections that would significantly increase pressure on forests:

REMOVING ALL EXPORT AND IMPORT TARIFFS AND SUBSIDIES would increase output 
of forest products of $2 billion, implying an increased impact on forests.

REMOVING INDONESIA'S LOG EXPORT RESTRICTION would increase exports from $60 
million to $900 million, implying an increased impact on already overcut 
forests.  This would depress global log prices and increase global wood, 
pulp and paper production by $80 - $90 million.

REMOVING THE CANADA-US SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT, which attempts to rectify 
the unfair advantage Canada's forest sector has over the US due to its 
subsidies, would increase Canada's lumber exports to the USA by 7.5% to 10% 
and Canada's lumber exports to all APEC countries by 4.6% to 6.2%, 
resulting in additional environmental impacts on Canada's forests.

ELIMINATING OR PROHIBITING THE USE OF FOREST CERTIFICATION and labeling 
mechanisms would increase forest product exports from many countries with 
already heavily impacted forests and poor environmental safeguards.


Recommendations:

The APEC Study of Non-Tariff Measures in the Forest Sector portends a 
potentially dangerous turn in trade liberalization.  It is of great concern 
to us that the USTR and APEC may negotiate a trade initiative that would 
increase the amount of wood harvested and traded from our planet's 
dwindling forests at the same time that it takes away the important 
protections and fair trade tools that citizens need to protect these 
forests.  In order to prevent the improper treatment of legitimate national 
policies as items for negotiation in trade talks, we recommend that the 
USTR take the following actions:

1. Demonstrate its commitment to its December 2nd statement to oppose trade 
liberalization that threatens legitimate environmental protections and 
ultimately withdraw from all negotiations that include elimination of the 
above listed forest protection measures;

2. Conduct a thorough environmental review before proceeding with any 
forest sector NTM negotiations in accordance with Executive Order #13141;

3. Solicit informed and meaningful comments on the APEC study and any 
follow-up actions from a broad sector of civil society in the US and 
internationally;

4. Clarify its plan for discussing forest sector NTMs in other trade fora 
besides APEC, such as WTO, FTAA and bilateral negotiations;

5. Make available the following information to the undersigned groups and 
the general public so we can make more informed comments:
* Proposal and timeframe for discussing NTMs at APEC,
* Proposal for the forestry experts group,
* Plan for incorporating public comment into the US position on the APEC study.


We hope the USTR will view our comments as recommendations for how to 
proceed further with USG and APEC treatment of environmental policies in 
the trade arena.  The USTR must follow through with its commitment to 
safeguarding environmental measures and communicate this position 
effectively to the APEC members, in bilateral and multilateral negotiations 
as well as future studies.  Thank you for your consideration of this 
matter.  We look forward to your response.  Please do not hesitate to 
contact us if you have any questions.


Sincerely,


Paige Fischer, Forest and Trade Program Director, and Doug Norlen, Policy 
Director
Pacific Environment

Michael Brune, Forest Campaigner
Rainforest Action Network, California

Jim Jontz, Executive Director
American Lands Alliance

Mike Leahy, Natural Resources Counsel, and Carroll Muffett, International 
Counsel
Defenders of Wildlife

Bill Mankin, Director, and Jennifer McLean, Policy Analyst
Global Forestry Policy Project

Michael Marx, Executive Director
ForestEthics, California

Victor Menotti, Environment Program Director
International Forum on Globalization, California

Joe Scott, Conservation Director
Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, Washington

Dan Seligman, Director of Just Trade Campaign
Sierra Club

Allan Thornton, Executive Director
Environmental Investigation Agency, Washington DC

David Waskow,
Friends of the Earth, US


Elizabeth Ellis
The Certified Wood Products Website, Washington

Tim Hermach
Native Forest Council, Oregon

Rachel Martin
Allegheny Defense Project, Pennsylvania

Bob Mueller
Virginians for Wilderness, Virginia

Rick Steiner
The Coastal Coalition, Alaska

Doug Cornett
Northwoods Wilderness Recovery, Michigan

Jen Creasy
Shenandoah Ecosystems Defense Group, Virginia

Tracy Davids
Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, North Carolina

Mary Byrd Davis
Yggdrasil Institute, Kentucky

Christina Wulf
Virginia Forest Watch, Virginia

Colleen McCrory
Valhalla Wilderness Society, British Columbia, Canada

Tyhson Banighen, Executive Director
TIES - Turtle Island Earth Stewards, British Columbia, Canada

AnnaMaria Valastro
Peaceful Parks Coalition, Ontario, Canada

James Tweedie
Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition, Alberta, Canada

W. O. Pruitt
Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, Manitoba,Canada

Philip Thomas
International Conifer Conservation Programme, Royal Botanic Garden 
Edinburgh, Scotland

Melissa Rengananthan
Malaysia Nature Society, Malaysia

Adelbert Gangai
Conservation Melanesia, Papua New Guinea

Fiodor Vladimirovich Kronikovsky
Taiga Ecological Group, Russia

Anatoly Lebedev
Bureau for Regional Oriental Campaigns (BROC), Russia

Valentin Zabortsev,
Krasnoyarsk Regional "Angara-Enisei Rescue ( Rehabilitaton)"Association, Russia

Tanty S. Thamrin
Wallace Forest Ecological Protection, Indonesia

Yasar Ozturk
Arkadas Çevre Grubu (Friends Environmental Group), Turkey

Umit Öztürk
Greenscreen, England

Chantal Marijnissen,
FERN, England

Mihoko Shimamoto
Faculty of Social Sciences, Hosei University, JAPAN

Takahiro Kohama
Japan Tropical Forest Action Network (JATAN), Japan

Toyoyuki Kawakami
APEC Monitor NGO Network, Japan

Patricia Vera Osses
Defensores del Bosque Chileno, Chile







cc:  Frank Loy, Department of State
        Ian Bowles, Council on Environmental Quality
        David Sandalow, Department of State
        Mary Latimer, Office of the USTR
        Barbara Weisel, Office of the USTR