§ Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South)If one asks Members of Parliament which aspect of the political agenda gives them the greatest trouble when they visit schools, the reply will almost certainly be, "the environment." That is a tribute to teachers, to television for reminding us what a small planet we live on, and to campaign groups such as Friends of the Earth, which are putting out a new message: the personal is the political is the environmental.
Schoolchildren are likely to challenge us on subjects such as tuna/dolphin netting, the overfishing of the seas, overcropping the land, the excessive use of pesticides or the destruction of the rain forests. It is hard to come away without feeling that our children know a great deal more than we do about the responsibilities that we carry for the future.
It should come as no surprise, then, that there is continued pressure on the United Kingdom to tackle the serious problem of illegally and unsustainably logged Brazilian mahogany—the species known as Swietenia Macrophylla. That is the subject of Friends of the Earth's campaign launched in 1993 under the title "Mahogany is Murder". The three questions that I shall address in this debate are "Why Britain?", "Why intervene?" and "Why now?"
On the first question, Britain is the second largest importer of Brazilian mahogany in the world. We are exceeded only by the United States. With that exception, Britain imports six times more Brazilian mahogany than any other country. Our share constitutes 30 per cent. of Brazilian mahogany exports. The 18,000 cu m of Brazilian mahogany that we import each year is a sizeable part of that world trade. Given such a role, Britain cannot disconnect itself from the questions of how mahogany is logged and what damage is done both to the sustainable environment in which it grows and to the lives of the Amazonian Indians in whose reserves it is mainly found.
The second question is why is there a case for intervening. The world has long ignored the devastation that has taken place in central and south America through the logging of Brazilian mahogany, much of which lies in the protected Indian reserves. Logging in those reserves is illegal under the Brazilian constitution, which guarantees the rights of Indians to occupy and exclusively use their ancestral lands. Sadly, those rights exist in theory rather than in practice.
The illegal logging of Brazilian mahogany has been accompanied by murder, bribery, intimidation and, albeit unwittingly, disease. In the past 15 years, since coming into contact with loggers from the world outside, the population of the Uru Eu Wau Wau tribe has been halved. Every month 4,000 to 5,000 trucks of illegally logged mahogany come out of the Guayayara area of Brazil. Every mahogany sawmill in Brazil creates a further 500 km of new roads into the reserves and rainforests each year to extract that one species.
In 1993, a furore was caused when the Brazilian Government ordered the main logging companies to remove their equipment from the tribal reserves in Pará state and to pay compensation. In addition, the tribes and environmental campaigners in Brazil put out a cry for 997 international help. That was the background to the Friends of the Earth campaign, "Mahogany is Murder". It also gave rise to a gentlemen's agreement between UK timber importers and the timber exporters based in Brazil. Since that time, however, a series of studies and protests have made it clear that illegal exploitation continues on a large scale.
In May this year the Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme brought home to us how extensive that is. The programme documented the continuing intrusion into tribal lands, the widespread illegal logging that continues and the well developed network that exports the illegally and unsustainably logged Brazilian mahogany to Britain. We know that 10 out of the 14 Indian reserves in Pará state are involved in illegal logging by timber export companies.
The third question, "Why now?", focuses on what action Britain has already taken and what action we must take in the immediate future. It would be wrong to suggest that people in Britain are indifferent to what is happening to the Brazilian rain forests. As a result of considerable campaigning, five of the major DIY stores in Britain—Sainsbury's Homebase, B and Q, Do It All, Great Mills and Texas—have all ceased to sell Brazilian mahogany. They do not want to stop selling it completely; they want a framework in which they can sell it legitimately, in the knowledge that that mahogany has been legally and sustainably produced. They ask that, in addition to the individual and company responses in Britain, there should be a publicly led response from the UK Government.
The Government have a window of opportunity. In July next year there will be a meeting of an international body known as the Conference of Parties. That particular meeting is referred to as COP 10. At the last conference Britain supported a proposal that Brazilian mahogany should be listed on appendix II of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species—CITES. The proposal was narrowly defeated. It would have required the production of a non-detriment document by timber exporting companies and countries, which would show proof of sustainable growth in both the forestry and cutting policies.
The proposal would require clear monitoring policies and international access to open information for verification purposes. The motion was narrowly defeated, but it has a chance of success in the next round. However, there is one big "but" that we must address: will the proposal be on the agenda of the next conference?
The deadline for submitting a proposal is 10 January next year, and the current campaign seeks a commitment from the United Kingdom Government that they will put down such a proposal. They could do so in their own right or in conjunction with other countries. If we do not submit that proposal, we shall allow the illegal and unsustainable trade in Brazilian mahogany to continue. That is all that I and the current campaign ask: we urge the United Kingdom Government to make that commitment.
The Government have expressed their continuing concern about the illegal and unsustainable logging of Brazilian mahogany. However, concern is not enough. There are some wonderful lines in a song by Tracy Chapman that say:
A love declared for days to come is as good as none".998 That sentiment applies to the Government in this case. It is not enough for us simply to be concerned: we must grasp the opportunity to put the proposal on the agenda of the next COP 10 conference. I recognise that that does not guarantee its success; I understand that the case must be made at the conference and that the arguments must be won. Other countries—particularly those who export mahogany—will have to be convinced that that is the only basis upon which future trade in endangered species will be allowed in a sustainable world economy.The Government must not duck the issue: we must address it now. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to confirm that, at the forthcoming conference, the United Kingdom will propose that Brazilian mahogany be listed on appendix II of CITES. I ask him for that assurance today.
§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)We must be grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) for raising this important subject in the House today. I declare my special interest as chairman of the all-party British-Brazilian parliamentary group. We are talking about a significant industry in the Amazon basin, which covers an area of 1.5 million sq km—six times the size of the United Kingdom. It is estimated that 20 million cu m of mahogany are growing in the basin. To put the matter in perspective, 250,000 cu m of mahogany—or one eightieth of the total—were harvested over a two-year period earlier in the decade.
The problem is how to control the unreasonable ripping out of mahogany from the Amazon jungle. The Brazilian institute IBAMA deals with such matters and tries its best, under very difficult circumstances, to enforce strict controls. It is interesting to note that some 70 per cent. of logging operations granted management plan status have had their plans cancelled or suspended following inspection. The IBAMA is making increasing progress in this area, thanks to the rapid development of air-borne sensors and photography which enables it to observe what is occurring in that vast area. It recently confiscated some 48,000 cu m of illegally harvested mahogany and the proceeds of its official sale have released considerable sums for projects promoting the self-sustainability of Amazon basin tribes, such as the Kayapó.
How can we help the Brazilian Government—and particularly their agency, IBAMA—to control mahogany harvesting? We should not kill the trade entirely by controlling exports. Thousands of jobs in the Amazon basin depend on legal hardwood harvesting. It is significant that the United Kingdom provides overseas aid to projects that attempt to sustain the livelihoods of inhabitants of the basin. We should remember that more than 50 per cent. of the mahogany harvested in the Amazon basin is consumed within Brazil, and therefore would not be subject to Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species listing.
Inclusion of Brazilian mahogany in appendix II of the convention must depend on scientific evidence that the species is near extinction. There is no such evidence at present, despite much discussion about the matter. A decision should not be made on the basis of politics or emotion. Britain can assist with the scientific and technical side of detection and support the Brazilians in their efforts. We can also help by researching alternative 999 employment prospects within the Amazon basin, as is occurring at Kew gardens and the Edinburgh Forestry Institute. We must not give in to emotion and repress the trade. That would send it underground and the price of mahogany would decrease, making it more affordable for the Brazilian population and resulting in increased mahogany extraction.
If Brazilian mahogany were listed, it would be subject to European Union quotas—that organisation is quite capable of enforcing a zero quota—which would have a devastating effect on legal mahogany extraction, which is controlled, and foster the illegal extraction of cheap wood for sale in Brazil. That would have the opposite effect to that which the hon. Gentleman and I desire.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison)The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) has raised an issue of great interest to the House and beyond. I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on the Government's approach to the subject. I shall answer in detail the hon. Gentleman's question about our attitude toward the listing of Brazilian mahogany under appendix II of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species.
It may be helpful if I begin by reminding the House that CITES provides a framework for regulating international trade in wild plants and animals. The convention has been agreed by more than 130 countries and levels of control differ according to the degree of threat to the species. Commercial trade in more than 800 species is banned and trade in a further 25,000 species is subject to licensing procedures. The convention has three levels of controls on the international trade in endangered species. Broadly speaking, those listed on appendix I may not be traded; those listed on appendix II—to which the hon. Gentleman referred—may be traded only when both the exporting and the importing states agree that the shipment would not harm the conservation status of the species; while appendix III species are subject to monitoring at the request of the state or states for which they are listed.
The hon Gentleman has asked the Government to submit a proposal to the conference to list Brazilian mahogany on appendix II of the convention. International trade in Brazilian mahogany has been monitored under CITES since November last year, when the species was added to appendix III. Provisional figures show that some 25,500 cu m were imported into the United Kingdom in the 12 months since then. Adding the species to appendix II of the convention would not, in itself, ban imports into the United Kingdom or anywhere else but it would place an obligation on the exporting countries to ensure that timber was logged sustainably.
A proposal to list the species on appendix II failed to secure the necessary two-thirds majority vote at the last CITES conference, in 1994, despite support from the United Kingdom and other members of the European Union. If a new proposal is put before the next conference, we will consider it carefully in the light of the scientific evidence and current circumstances. I cannot anticipate the Government's position on possible future 1000 proposals at this stage, although it is a matter of record that we have twice supported CITES controls on Brazilian mahogany, but I can say, in response to the hon. Gentleman's concern, that we are not persuaded that the United Kingdom should take the initiative and submit a proposal to the conference. I shall tell him why.
We believe that CITES listing proposals should generally be made by the range states for the species concerned. If that is not possible, there should at least be close consultation with them. Like all international agreements, CITES depends on co-operation between the member countries for its success. That does not mean consensus. There will be differences of opinion, and sometimes the evidence demands that species be protected even if some range states disagree, but no debate will be productive if the starting point is one country seeming to tell another what to do with its natural resources.
The House will have listened with interest to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) in that regard, particularly to what he said about help that this country gives to assist sustainable development in Brazil. In addition to the help to which he referred, the Overseas Development Administration is providing £19 million of aid to assist Brazil with sustainable forest projects.
CITES exists because some conservation problems require global solutions. Sometimes, range states make listing proposals themselves. Sometimes they may lack the capacity to do so alone. On other occasions they may feel that CITES controls are unnecessary. Whatever the circumstances, pre-conference consultation is a prerequisite of informed discussion. The CITES parties endorsed that principle four years ago when they agreed that draft proposals should be circulated to range states well in advance of the deadline for final submission.
It is very late for the United Kingdom to begin consultations on a Brazilian mahogany proposal for the next CITES conference when final documents have to be submitted, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, South rightly said, by 10 January 1997. We would be in breach of the agreed way of working if we went ahead without any consultation.
That does not mean that we shall take a back seat at the conference. The United Kingdom has always been active in promoting international action through CITES. In preparation for next year's conference, we are heavily engaged in a major initiative on the impact of traditional east Asian medicines on a wide range of animals and plants, some of them critically endangered. This is in addition to our responsibilities as vice-chair of the convention's standing committee. We shall also take a close interest in the outcome of the international working group on timber, which was established following the UK's initiative at the 1994 conference.
§ Mr. SimpsonThe UK was involved in last month's conference in Puerto Rico, particularly with regard to Brazilian mahogany being at risk as an endangered species. What are the prospects of the conference's findings being fed into the next round, the COP 10 round? Following the "Dispatches" programme, in what way will the knowledge that the UK has about members of the Brazilian Timber Exporters Federation being actively involved in illegal and unsustainable logging and 1001 exporting to the UK form part of the representations that the United Kingdom is making and the action that the United Kingdom plans to take?
§ Mr. ClappisonWe will, of course, reflect on the content of the conference, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in our approach towards next year's conference. We will be governed as well by the principles, which I have just outlined, in the approach we take. They are valuable principles if we are to achieve international co-operation. We will seek information on the subject and will reflect carefully on it. I will deal with the important issue of private loggers in due course. The hon. Gentleman might be aware that I dealt with that subject at length in an Adjournment debate earlier this year.
I shall put the matter into context, because many of the concerns expressed about the species are as much to do with forest management in the producer countries as the effects of international trade. The vast majority of timber logged in the Amazon is used domestically. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham adverted to that when he said that up to 50 per cent. of it was used within Brazil. CITES recognises that the prime responsibility for managing wildlife lies with the countries concerned. The convention's controls provide an additional and essential safeguard for species that qualify for listing, but that does not take away the responsibility of individual countries to manage their own resources sustainably.
I now deal with the internal situation in Brazil. I understand that, shortly after the previous Adjournment debate on mahogany in July this year, the Brazilian Government announced new measures to regulate timber extraction in the Amazon basin. Private landowners were to be restricted to clearing 20 per cent. of forests on their land rather than the previously allowed 50 per cent. A two-year moratorium was proposed on the granting of new authorisations for the commercial exploitation of mahogany and other timber species. Where logging continued, management plans and practices would be inspected by the responsible Government agency. There would be an extra US$6 million for new facilities and equipment. Monitoring rates of deforestation would be intensified. Those measures were confirmed at a recent meeting of the International Tropical Timber Organisation.
I shall touch briefly on some of the actions that the UK is taking to help preserve and enhance the world's forests. I have already mentioned the funds that have been made available from the ODA. I can tell the House that current projects cover basic scientific research, biodiversity conservation and trials of sustainable land management approaches. The UK is also committed to supporting the objectives of a large multi-donor pilot programme to conserve the Brazilian rain forest.
Many other international initiatives on forest management concerned with conservation and sustainable use are in progress. The first international consensus in that sphere was a statement of principles on the sustainable management of the world's forests, agreed at the Earth summit in Rio. The UK played a leading role in securing that agreement. The UK also played a major role in establishing the UN intergovernmental panel on forests, 1002 which will report to the Commission on Sustainable Development in 1997 with specific proposals to follow up the principles agreed in Rio.
§ Mr. Chris Davies (Littleborough and Saddleworth)Will the Minister give way?
§ Mr. ClappisonI should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would restrain himself for a minute. I will make a little more progress, if I may.
We hope that the panel will produce agreement on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management on the basis of national plans, and devise a mechanism for periodic international review of the forestry sector.
European countries followed up Rio with a commitment to the Helsinki guidelines for sustainable forest management. Thirty-eight European countries are now committed to implementing them. In 1994, we published "Sustainable Forestry: The UK Programme", which details UK action for sustainable forestry management at home.
CITES has been the focus of the debate. We acknowledge that it has a role to play in all this activity. It is one of the oldest of the international wildlife agreements. It offers practical safeguards for species threatened by over-intensive international trade. As an importing country, we must do our best to satisfy ourselves that the timber that we buy from other countries has been logged without endangering forest biodiversity, which is so very precious for the world. We must also recognise that, in many cases, conservation of the world's forests depends on sustainable harvesting. Import bans are not a sensible option for species such as Brazilian mahogany.
Controlled monitoring under CITES might be a useful addition to the forestry management measures that the Brazilian Government are taking. We do not believe that it would be helpful for the UK to take upon itself the responsibility of sponsoring a listing, but we have supported proposals in the past to list mahogany on appendix II and so provide further safeguards. I can reassure the House that we will look carefully at any proposal that meets the agreed criteria.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South mentioned internal activities in Brazil and the relationship between United Kingdom companies involved in this trade and Brazilian producers. He knows of discussions that have taken place. I shall certainly take a close interest in those discussions and will write to him, giving details of the outcome. That will interest the hon. Gentleman who will know that many United Kingdom firms adopt a responsible approach to this matter and have been concerned to have full discussions with Brazilian producers.
I hope that I have outlined the Government's responsible course and that I have satisfied the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies). I do not have time for interventions but if the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me on any of the subjects that I have raised in the debate I shall be happy to deal with it in correspondence. I think that I have satisfied the House that we are taking a responsible approach on the issue of mahogany through CITES and that we are playing our full part in international efforts to conserve valuable forests, and especially mahogany forests.