Build on the Positive Trends - next steps in the global effort for sustainable production and consumption
6 Initiatives in the red box: production and consumption to be phased out
The modern environmental struggle has lasted four decades. One lesson of this long-standing effort is that certain types of production and consumption are so damaging to nature and human beings, or carry such risks, that the activity needs to stop altogether. Among the examples are the use of ozone-depleting substances and a range of other chemicals, products made of endangered species of animals and plants, and nuclear power.
Fortunately, the world community has developed international rules and forums of cooperation which take care of some of the most problematic, i.e. highly unsustainable products and activities.
However, regulations can still be circumvented, not least due to a trend in rich countries to worry only about ‘their own’ environment. In some instances, rich-country authorities have long ago intervened to halt harmful production, but have been unconcerned about how to help other countries get rid of the same problem. In other cases, production and consumption in rich countries are based upon raw materials or other inputs from developing countries which are produced in highly problematic ways.
In the coming ten years, international regulation should be expanded. PIC and POP conventions must be put into force; the number of substances which are regulated in the conventions should be increased; and the rules for integration of new substances in the conventions should be made more flexible. The use of mercury and other heavy metals should be regulated in an international environmental convention.
Other initiatives exists, which international organisations could and should take immediately. Among the most obvious next steps are the following three.
Proposal 11: Global information system on nationally-banned goods (UNEP, WTO)
Most rich countries have built comprehensive systems enabling bans on chemicals and other products deemed to be harmful, for instance by posing risks to the environment, health or accidents. Such bans are often informed by a national tunnel vision.
The most blinkered national outlook is when the country only takes steps to stop the domestic use of a product, but still permits extensive exports. A milder form is when the authorities fail to inform their counterparts in other countries about the reasons behind the ban, the expected consequences and alternatives to the product.
The issue of nationally-banned products has previously been raised by developing countries at the WTO. Moreover, under the auspices of the UN, a relatively manual, low-tech information system has been functioning.
It seems natural to draw on modern information technology to ensure rapid and effective information to all countries about bans on chemicals and other products. It will probably be most appropriate to leave the United Nations Environmental Programme, UNEP, in charge of the work to collect and disseminate data. Cooperation with the WTO should be agreed, since member countries are obliged to notify technical trade barriers, such as import bans to the WTO.
Proposal 12: Global effort against illegal logging (EU and others)
Illegal logging is a major problem in many timber-producing countries, and one of the main reasons of deforestation. Unauthorised felling of wild trees is widespread in tropical countries as well as in Russia and Eastern Europe. It is estimated that up to half the wood imported into the EU is of illegal origin.18 At present, there is only very limited regulation of international trade in timber. In practice, it only covers the tree species contemplated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Illegal logging is a broad concept, covering a wide range of activities in connection with forestry: (1) illegal conversion of forest for other purposes; (2) illegal activities inside the forest by the forest owner or concession holder; (3) theft and smuggling of timber; and (4) corrupt practices in the logging business.
It is estimated that 90% of the world’s 1.2 billion poorest people are directly affected by the adverse impact of deforestation, and that the world’s timber-producing countries lose a combined sum in the order of US$ 15 billion a year as a result of illegal logging.19
It is imperative to put an effective stop to the international trade in wood and wood products originating from illegal logging. These should be the aims:
 | Timber-importing countries reject wood and wood produce which cannot be proved to come from legal forestry. |
| Foreign assistance targets better enforcement of forest legislation in timber-producing countries, enabling developing countries to uphold their own laws on logging. |
The EU Commission is currently working on an action plan aimed at shoring up the enforcement of forest legislation, promoting efficient forestry, and curbing international trade in illegal wood. Steps should be taken to ensure that this action plan leads to consistent EU rules, which effectively put paid to the import of all wood that is not guaranteed legal. National governments should lead by example by demanding that all timber used in the public sector can be proved to originate from legal forestry.
An EU intervention would be a direct extension of the decision at the Johannesburg summit to take immediate action against illegal trade in forestry produce, and to further the enforcement of forest legislation.20 International forums such as the Biodiversity Convention, the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO), and the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) should also follow up with a special effort against illegal logging.
Proposal 13: International hearings on harmful products or technologies (CSD)
Prevention is better than cure. This applies to sustainable development as well. It is often difficult to act against a technology or product, once vast sums have been invested in production, jobs have been created, and the end product possibly spread to numerous markets. Consequently, an effort should be made to establish a more proactive, global intervention practice.
The UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) should play a key role in this context. The CSD’s long-standing record of involving stakeholders from the private sector as well as popular organisations makes up a good foundation for turning the commission into a centre of hearings on problematic types of consumption and production.
It should thus become an integral part of the CSD’s work to conducts hearings on products and technologies, which some members of the commission find so harmful that the activity ought to stop altogether. The hearing should be followed by debates on the appropriateness of expanding international cooperation in the area concerned.
One subject suitable for a CSD hearing is, for example, the terminator technology. The biotechnological industry is inserting genes into plants in order to make them sterile, i.e. hindering their reproduction. This would make it impossible for farmers to get next year’s seeds from this year’s harvest.
The issue is whether the use of such technology is in the interest of anyone other than the biotechnological industry. This technology does not provide any agricultural advantages, but it can be used to protect seed companies in the developing countries. 15-20% of the World’s foodstuffs are cultivated by peasants that save seeds for next year. These peasants provide 1,400 million people with food.21