By The Examiner
Created Mar 15 2011 - 7:05pm
Second of a three-part series
Green groups often criticize big business, blaming commercial activity for environmental ills. But in reality environmentalists have lots of big businesses they love. They will even do dirty work for them to help squash competition.
Consider something called the Forest Stewardship Council. You may not know its name, but if you've ever purchased a cup of Starbucks coffee or used a paper shopping bag at Whole Foods, you've used a product that has been shaped by that organization's malign influence.
The FSC was established at the behest of green groups in 1993. The groups raised concerns over deforestation resulting from the global trade in forestry products, such as timber, pulp and paper.
It is funded by European Union grants and other green nongovernmental organizations, including the World Wildlife Fund, Foundation for Ecological Research in the Northeast, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and the National Wildlife Federation in the United States.
The purpose of the FSC was to establish a globally recognized scheme for monitoring "responsible" forest management. Products would be certified with a FSC seal of approval if they met the groups' criteria for being sustainably sourced.
Very quickly, however, the FSC became a vehicle for European timber and paper companies to dominate the market and fend off competition. These commercial interests worked hand in glove with environmental organizations to write the standards. They made sure the criteria were easy for Europeans to meet but difficult or impossible for competitors in Asia, Africa, and Latin America to achieve.
Here's how they rigged the system. Certification is denied to operations undertaken on land that was converted from forests after November 1994. Developed countries -- where such conversion was undertaken decades ago as their economies grew -- are obviously greatly advantaged by this.
Giant retail companies such as Carrefour have been complicit in the dominance of FSC-certified products. Under pressure from green groups and European governments, they establish sourcing policies that demand that packaging, paper and timber be certified by the FSC. Multilateral organizations such as the World Bank have also been directly involved with promoting FSC certification.
What this means in practice is that poor countries in the developing world are penalized in the marketplace. Green groups don't care about the fate of the people in these countries. And the greens' business partners in Europe's forestry and paper industries are laughing all the way to the bank.
The results are not pretty.
Simply put, FSC certification raises the costs of almost, well, everything. In addition to coffee cups and grocery bags, paper products are a basic material used widely by just about every industry you can imagine. Globalization as we know it isn't possible without abundant paper goods made for packing and transporting.
By adding an additional layer of regulation, and by distorting the global trade in paper products, consumer goods are more expensive than they otherwise would be. The high-cost producer, Europe, is favored over the low-cost entrepreneurs in developing countries. The economic benefits that find their way to consumers when low cost providers are able to serve open markets are deliberately thwarted by this system.
The greatest harm is to poor men and women in developing countries. Trade in global markets is their lifeline and their best chance for raising living standards to those we in wealthy countries enjoy. But unfair schemes like FSC make the rise from poverty that much harder.
For this reason, the World Bank's support of FSC is particularly egregious. One can understand why green groups, who are nothing really but old-school communists, would support an additional burden on trade and commerce.
And one can certainly understand why European agri-business and lawmakers would want to game the system this way. But the World Bank is supposed to help the developing world to grow and prosper. Support for FSC undermines that goal
The good news is some on Capitol Hill are starting to take notice at this appalling system that harms the poor.
This past summer, a group of 79 members of Congress sent a letter to the U.S. Green Building Council to end Forest Stewardship Council's monopoly on Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design credits for certified wood. FSC is the only certification scheme that the U.S. Green Building Council recognizes and FSC's market monopoly purposely prevents other producers from participating in the program.
These congressmen know that this green monopoly is harming American taxpayers, raising consumers costs and thwarting the dreams of aspiring nations around the world. And now you know, too.
Niger Innis is spokesman of the Congress of Racial Equality.
Green groups often criticize big business, blaming commercial activity for environmental ills. But in reality environmentalists have lots of big businesses they love. They will even do dirty work for them to help squash competition.
Consider something called the Forest Stewardship Council. You may not know its name, but if you've ever purchased a cup of Starbucks coffee or used a paper shopping bag at Whole Foods, you've used a product that has been shaped by that organization's malign influence.
The FSC was established at the behest of green groups in 1993. The groups raised concerns over deforestation resulting from the global trade in forestry products, such as timber, pulp and paper.
It is funded by European Union grants and other green nongovernmental organizations, including the World Wildlife Fund, Foundation for Ecological Research in the Northeast, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and the National Wildlife Federation in the United States.
The purpose of the FSC was to establish a globally recognized scheme for monitoring "responsible" forest management. Products would be certified with a FSC seal of approval if they met the groups' criteria for being sustainably sourced.
Very quickly, however, the FSC became a vehicle for European timber and paper companies to dominate the market and fend off competition. These commercial interests worked hand in glove with environmental organizations to write the standards. They made sure the criteria were easy for Europeans to meet but difficult or impossible for competitors in Asia, Africa, and Latin America to achieve.
Here's how they rigged the system. Certification is denied to operations undertaken on land that was converted from forests after November 1994. Developed countries -- where such conversion was undertaken decades ago as their economies grew -- are obviously greatly advantaged by this.
Giant retail companies such as Carrefour have been complicit in the dominance of FSC-certified products. Under pressure from green groups and European governments, they establish sourcing policies that demand that packaging, paper and timber be certified by the FSC. Multilateral organizations such as the World Bank have also been directly involved with promoting FSC certification.
What this means in practice is that poor countries in the developing world are penalized in the marketplace. Green groups don't care about the fate of the people in these countries. And the greens' business partners in Europe's forestry and paper industries are laughing all the way to the bank.
The results are not pretty.
Simply put, FSC certification raises the costs of almost, well, everything. In addition to coffee cups and grocery bags, paper products are a basic material used widely by just about every industry you can imagine. Globalization as we know it isn't possible without abundant paper goods made for packing and transporting.
By adding an additional layer of regulation, and by distorting the global trade in paper products, consumer goods are more expensive than they otherwise would be. The high-cost producer, Europe, is favored over the low-cost entrepreneurs in developing countries. The economic benefits that find their way to consumers when low cost providers are able to serve open markets are deliberately thwarted by this system.
The greatest harm is to poor men and women in developing countries. Trade in global markets is their lifeline and their best chance for raising living standards to those we in wealthy countries enjoy. But unfair schemes like FSC make the rise from poverty that much harder.
For this reason, the World Bank's support of FSC is particularly egregious. One can understand why green groups, who are nothing really but old-school communists, would support an additional burden on trade and commerce.
And one can certainly understand why European agri-business and lawmakers would want to game the system this way. But the World Bank is supposed to help the developing world to grow and prosper. Support for FSC undermines that goal
The good news is some on Capitol Hill are starting to take notice at this appalling system that harms the poor.
This past summer, a group of 79 members of Congress sent a letter to the U.S. Green Building Council to end Forest Stewardship Council's monopoly on Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design credits for certified wood. FSC is the only certification scheme that the U.S. Green Building Council recognizes and FSC's market monopoly purposely prevents other producers from participating in the program.
These congressmen know that this green monopoly is harming American taxpayers, raising consumers costs and thwarting the dreams of aspiring nations around the world. And now you know, too.
Niger Innis is spokesman of the Congress of Racial Equality.
No comments:
Post a Comment