Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB

considerable patience as such options are not easy or
cheap to implement. However, the payback in public
relations and corporate social responsibility are often
deemed worth the risk.
PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR GREEN MARKETS
In April 2009, the European Commission issued a
Communication signalling its strong support for
the Fair Trade movement (EC 2009). It applauded
private sector initiative in this area although stopping
short of mandating any action. Fair Trade focuses on
social rather than environmental criteria but EU support
is a positive development for the certification industry
in general. Individual governments can also support biodiversity-friendly
products and services through green public
procurement policies and practices (see Section 5.6).
Several international institutions recognise the value of
encouraging products and services that take biodiversity
and ecosystems into account. The CBD,
UNCTAD, CITES and a growing number of countries
support BioTrade activities for the promotion of
goods and services derived from native biodiversity
under strict sustainable development criteria.
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS
AND GREEN MARKETS
REWARDING BENEFITS THROUGH PAYMENTS AND MARKETS
NGOs have played a significant role in developing voluntary
environmental standards for a range of products
and services. WWF worked in partnership with Unilever
to establish the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) for
the certification of sustainably produced marine products
(see Box 5.24) and has helped catalyse demand
for certified timber. International NGOs such as Conservation
International and WWF are currently involved in
various fora addressing biofuel production e.g. the
Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil.
Since the mid-1990s, several non-profit organisations
have been established to assess the sustainability of
selected commodities and services against emerging
standards on biodiversity-friendly production. These
programmes are increasingly formalised through independent
certification and assurance mechanisms, with
both NGOs and private firms competing to offer verification
and audit services (see below).
CERTIFICATION OF FORESTRY PRODUCTS
The International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO),
established under UN auspices to administer a trade
agreement between producers and consumers of tropical
timber, describes sustainable forest management as
forest-related activities that do “not damage the forest to
the extent that its capacity to deliver products and services
– such as timber, water and biodiversity conservation
– is significantly reduced. Forest management should
also aim to balance the needs of different forest users so
that its benefits and costs are shared equitably” 28 .
Several certification schemes now exist for forest management,
of which two are responsible for the majority
of forest certification (see Box 5.23).
Between 2001 and 2005, global coverage of certified
forests expanded by about 50 million hectares per year,
mainly due to a rapid increase in certified forest area in
North America (Figure 5.12). By 2009, 325.2 million
hectares worldwide had been certified under various
schemes (8.3% of total forest area: UNECE/FAO 2009).
In terms of global roundwood production (i.e. sections
of timber in raw unmanufactured state), approximately
26% was harvested from certified forests between May
2008 and May 2009. However, the rate of expansion
has decreased over the last three years. Between May
2008 and May 2009, the rate of increase did not exceed
four million hectares (Table 5.3).
This reduction in the rate of expansion of certified
forests may reflect the fact that, in the developed world
at least, most of the larger forest areas are already certified.
Certifying forests in developing countries presents
continuing challenges linked to lack of capacity,
resources and incentives to participate as a significant
proportion of forest areas are owned by smaller
non-industrial and communal sectors. The geographical
bias of certified forests towards the northern hemisphere
inevitably limits the effectiveness of certification
as an instrument for protecting biodiversity (see
Table 5.3 and Section 5.5.2 below).
TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 5: PAGE 46