§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
§ 10.4 pm
§ Mr. Bill Etherington (Sunderland, North)If am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce tonight's Adjournment debate. In the pre-Jopling days, it was always a pleasure to raise such debates towards the end of the Session. To some degree that opportunity has been lost, although we have some additional debates on Wednesday mornings.
First, I am not a spokesman for Friends of the Earth. I do not belong to that organisation and I do not agree with it in every respect, however I entirely agree with its stance on the importation of mahogany into Britain, which is based on a shameful trade that does no credit to the Brazilian Government or the British Government.
As hon. Members will be aware, most mahogany comes from Brazil. We are the second largest importer of Brazilian mahogany. Only the United States imports more. I consider what is taking place in Brazil to be deeply shocking and quite disgraceful. I hope that the Government will use their best endeavours within the European Union and in conjunction with the United States to redress the wrongs that have been perpetrated on the people of Brazil, especially the Indian population.
We have heard much about voluntary arrangements. My view is that voluntary arrangements involving Governments and private enterprise are totally unsatisfactory. The only arrangements that have a semblance of working properly are those with the backing of statutory powers. The carnage that takes place in Brazil in order to obtain mahogany is one of the worst examples of voluntary arrangements that anyone could imagine.
Accessible areas are already heavily depleted and, as the wood becomes harder to reach, vast tracts of the countryside are being despoiled to make roadways into more remote areas. Timber is even being procured from reserves that were originally set aside for the indigenous people and the wildlife. Unfortunately, it appears that the British Government are prepared to put all the blame on the Brazilian Government. Although that is true in a superficial sense, it does not alter the fact that we should do much more to redeem that deplorable state of affairs.
There have been clashes between the indigenous population and the logging fraternity, often resulting in fatalities. That is completely unacceptable. If the price of mahogany coming to Britain is the death of people in Brazil, I do not want Britain to import mahogany. I expect that most people would agree with that, but the Government do not see it that way.
Friends of the Earth has joined forces with more than 100 environmental and human rights groups in Brazil. I would have thought that would have had some impact. However, the 100 groups that are working together in Brazil receive no help whatsoever from the British Government.
It is appalling that although fairly recently it almost became possible, with the help of the British Government, to place mahogany in a different category, in which it would have received full protection, the attempt failed because the measure could not achieve a two-thirds majority of the countries involved.
256 Both the Brazilian and the British Governments, like all those involved in the timber industry, have known for many years that beyond doubt illegal mahogany trading takes place. However, as always under the Conservative Government, the interests of industry are paramount and humanitarian factors take second place. The Government have steadfastly resisted calls for regulation. I shall not repeat what I have said about self-regulation, because everyone with any sense knows that that is a dead duck.
In 1993, following pressure from environmentalists, some logging companies in the Brazilian state of Para and the United Kingdom National Hardwood Association signed an agreement known as the AIMEX agreement. That was all very laudable. The only problem is that it does not work. Only legally obtained mahogany is supposed to be traded, but nothing has changed. The illegal trade is as bad as ever.
Many timber companies hide behind that agreement, citing their support for the AIMEX accord to allay public concern about the illegal mahogany trade. The accord hides the fact that the wood continues to be stolen from Indian lands, often with terrible consequences.
Information has been obtained from the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Natural Resources—IBAMA—from the Brazilian National Indian Foundation—FUNAI—and from the district attorney's office, and the proof is there beyond doubt. No one denies it, but still there is no action.
It seems that the IBAMA, the regulatory body involved—if we can call it regulatory; monitoring body sounds more appropriate—has withheld information on the illegal activities. Logging in indigenous reserves contravenes the Brazilian constitution, which makes commercial activities in those reserves illegal. Still this country imports timber, knowing full well that it has been illegally gained.
The violence against the Indians is perhaps the most appalling feature. There have been five murders and numerous cases of aggression, with people being battered and damage to Indian property. Still it goes on. I have not heard a whimper from the Government about it.
What makes things worse is the fact that the Brazilian Government are content to go along with the situation. Prosecutions for illegal timber trading have been few and far between. Friends of the Earth has obtained an appalling detailed document about the carnage that takes place.
The Brazilian Ministry of Justice has been involved, and has been informed that there were 300 invaders in the Sarare indigenous area, including 30 logging companies that were taking timber illegally. That seems almost like a form of land piracy—the sort of thing that occurred in years gone by when people were attacked on the high seas and their goods seized and illicitly disposed of. What is going on has all the hallmarks of that type of activity. The position is now desperate.
The FUNAI president sent a memo asking for 15 agents of the Brazilian Government to be sent to the Kayapó area to help the Indians evict the loggers. But it seems that the Brazilian Government have neither the political will nor the resources to put their own house in order.
257 That does not excuse the United Kingdom Government, who willingly comply with the situation and continue to allow the imports. In a country that prides itself on being civilised and talks about being environmentally responsible, the British citizenry have every right to expect a more forthright attitude.
Why cannot the British Government consult the United States and see if they can do something? At one time, the United States objected to the trade, but unfortunately—a bit like in Britain—once a few multinationals put pressure on the Government, the will to do something seems to evaporate. I would like to think that my country is prepared to stand up and do something about it, but that seems to be wishful thinking on my behalf at the moment.
I could go on at great length about the deaths and murders and the fact that ill-protected Indians living in fairly primitive conditions are being treated in a disgraceful manner by the loggers—that is the term that is used for those people.The situation is deplorable.
As recently as tonight, I received a letter from another group—Earth Care—asking me what I am prepared to do about a similar situation in central Africa. What am I supposed to do? I am just a humble Back Bencher. I look to the Government—not one I have a lot of faith in—to do something about the problem, but action does not seem to be forthcoming. It is about time that a little more emphasis was placed on the Government combining with the European Union, which is the most powerful trading organisation on earth, to bring some pressure to bear on the Brazilian Government and coerce them into fulfilling their responsibilities.
If Conservative central office is to be believed, which is always questionable, I understand that it will not be too long before Brazil overtakes this country in terms of prosperity. If that is the case, we need to act quickly. Once it has overtaken us, we will be listened to even less.
Obviously, the management plans of the Brazilian Government are not working. They need a little moral support and pressure. Among this pile of information here, I have a deplorable letter from the Overseas Development Agency, which virtually states that there is nothing to be done. I do not underestimate the fact that, in specific terms and speaking constitutionally, the Government have raised some fairly half-hearted objections. I have here a copy of a reply from the ODA to Friends of the Earth, dated 17 July, which makes grim and depressing reading. As always, the Government share the concerns about the environment, but once again, the letter states that they
continue to believe that primary responsibility for ensuring that mahogany extraction is carried out lawfully rests of course with the Government of Brazil.That seems to mean that nothing much will be done.The only encouraging thing in the letter is that there appears to have been a change of Ministers in Brazil and the new man is prepared "to revamp" the situation and
crack down on illegal trading in natural resources, including mahogany.258 I hope that the United Kingdom Government will give him some encouragement in his quest.The letter to Friends of the Earth is from John Moncrieff of the environment policy department of the ODA. He states that it would be useless to go to the European Community. It would be because it has been wound up for quite a long time—it is now the European Union and I am surprised that official Government documentation still talks about the European Community.
There is one little bit of brightness on the horizon. The letter also states
The Government does however share your concern about this species and will continue to monitor trade and take action if necessary.Although the whole affair is a catalogue of depression and disaster, I do not want to be too carping and take away from the United Kingdom Government the fact they have gone through some fairly half-hearted motions and have agreed in writing that something should be done. The Government say that they agree that something should be done. I want the Minister to give me some reassurance that this country will try some action.The Government told us that sanctions would not work in South Africa but they worked very well. The same people who were lauding Nelson Mandela when he was here recently were saying not so long ago that nothing could be done about South Africa by Britain because it was an internal matter and sanctions would not work. I hope that we will get something more positive and forthright on this issue.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison)It is important that timber extraction should be carried out lawfully, with conservation safeguards and full regard to the interests of the people living in the forest. Before I come to the Government's policies on that, I shall deal briefly with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) about the agreements entered into by the National Hardwood Association.
To supplement Brazilian Government controls over timber extraction and export, the NHA signed an agreement with the exporters' association of the region from which most of the UK's imports of Brazilian mahogany originate. Checks and documentation aim to provide NHA members with assurances that the timber that they buy has been logged in accordance with Brazilian laws. The NHA has a formal procedure to deal with complaints about alleged illegal activities. I understand that it is examining several such allegations. In addition, I understand that an NHA delegation is in Brazil for talks with its Government and exporters about the mahogany trade. It is visiting logging areas and will report on its findings.
The UK timber trade is right to take allegations of illegal activity seriously, but the primary responsibility for enforcing Brazilian national legislation must lie with the Brazilian Government. Unilateral action by the United Kingdom outside the framework of international agreements would be damaging to the co-operation on which those agreements depend and to the advancement of global measures to promote environmental action.
259 There is already an agreed framework for regulating international trade in wild plants and animals: CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, which has been ratified by more than 130 countries, including the United Kingdom and Brazil. Under CITES, commercial trade in more than 800 species is banned and a further 25,000 commercially traded species are subject to checks and licensing procedures. As the hon. Gentleman said, application of the controls requires the consent of two thirds of the CITES parties.
At the last conference in 1994, a proposal to regulate, but not ban, trade in Brazilian mahogany was defeated. The United Kingdom supported the proposal on the basis of the scientific evidence but the conference took a different view. There was extensive discussion and various options were examined by a working group that met over two days. Finally, the conference decided that CITES should not intervene in the mahogany trade.
It would be wrong to accept only those conference decisions that we fully support and ignore the rest. Stricter import measures by EU member states normally apply only to species that a CITES conference has already agreed to add to the convention. That is not so in this case. International agreements will not work without the support of the countries that sign up to them. A European Community ban on imports of Brazilian mahogany after a conference decision to reject less severe measures would dangerously strain a convention that recognises that major decisions should reflect the will of the parties. That would be a setback for conservation, not an advance.
As far as possible, we must work within CITES. The last conference endorsed a United Kingdom initiative to establish a international working group to examine CITES-related timber issues. The group made good progress at its last meeting in London at the end of last year and will meet again in September before reporting to the next CITES conference 11 months from now. That conference may also have before it fresh proposals to add Brazilian mahogany to CITES. If so, we will decide our position after reviewing the evidence, including any factors that may have changed. In the meantime, a more limited CITES monitoring scheme for Brazilian mahogany came into effect November last year. We hope that that will yield useful additional data in due course.
More direct Government involvement with forest management in Brazil is being pursued following the signing of a memorandum of understanding on environmental co-operation with the Brazilian Government. Under this accord, the Overseas Development Administration has funded £19 million-worth of projects, mainly on forestry. The aim is to promote sustainable forest management and strengthen environmental institutions.
We also aim to advance wider international discussion on improving forest management. At the earth summit in Rio in 1992, the United Kingdom played a leading role in ensuring the agreement of a statement of principles on the sustainable management of the world's forests. That was the first international consensus on the need to conserve the world's forests.
European countries followed up Rio with a commitment to the Helsinki guidelines for sustainable forest management. Thirty eight European countries are now committed to implementation of those guidelines. In 1994, we published "Sustainable Forestry: The UK Programme", which details United Kingdom action to 260 pursue sustainable forest management at home, and promote the conservation and sustainable development of all the world's forests.
The United Kingdom has also played a major role in establishing the United Nations intergovernmental panel on forests, which will report to the Commission on Sustainable Development in 1997 with specific proposals to follow up the principles agreed at Rio. 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.
Improving the management of the world's forests requires international co-operation rather than confrontation. Of course we must do our best to ensure that the timber that we import, from whichever country, has been harvested legally. I believe that the United Kingdom timber trade is acting responsibly through its discussions with the Brazilian authorities, through the formal agreement it has signed with exporting companies, and by its willingness to investigate complaints about alleged wrongdoings.
One has to ask whether driving exports of mahogany away from the United Kingdom to other places where importers might take their responsibilities less seriously would best serve the interests of conservation. I doubt that it would, and I do not favour a unilateral ban on imports of Brazilian mahogany into the United Kingdom or the European Community as a whole.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)I had the good fortune to go to Altamira on the Xingu river in 1989, where the Kayapó put forward a number of proposals for the safeguarding of their forest. I listened carefully to what the Minister said and I should like to put three points to him.
First, what recommendations made at the intergovernmental conference are being pursued for 1997?
Secondly, on the issue of the Kayapó, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) raised, it has been reported in the press that Pai-Kan and others have brought various complaints about the infringement of their lands to the notice of the Brazilian Government. Has that been discussed with the Brazilian Government? I took Pai-Kan to see Mr. Speaker Weatherill on a previous occasion. He was my guest in the House, as he had been Ghillean Prance's guest at Kew.
The third point is about long-term financial help to the Brazilian Government. Many Brazilians argue that, if the Amazonian rain forest is really the lung of the world, the world has certain responsibilities in helping us keep it. I wonder whether the Minister, in the short time that he has, will comment on what I hope were those constructive points.
§ Mr. ClappisonI will deal with the three points in the order in which the hon. Gentleman raised them. On the point about our international commitments and the report back to the relevant international conventions, I think that I made it clear that we are approaching this by upholding the principle of sustainable management of forests and encouraging each country to draw up national plans for sustainable management. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman, with his interest in the subject, well knows, we played a leading part in the Rio convention and in the important commitments that were made on forestry there.
261 The hon. Gentleman's second point about the gentleman and the specific area related to detailed matters, which I shall look into in the light of his comments.
The hon. Gentleman's third point was interesting. As I said in my speech, the Overseas Development Administration has entered into a memorandum of 262 understanding with the Brazilian Government for £19 million worth of sustainable projects in Brazil. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a fairly substantial amount to commit to an important project.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.