Britain鈥檚 first timber dealer to be given an ecological seal of approval
this week accused the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) of selling out its
cause in efforts to sign up the mainstream timber trade to a 鈥榞reen鈥� labelling
system for wood.
Donald Dennis, director of Milland Fine Timber, accused the WWF of abandoning
its mission to preserve the biological diversity of the world鈥檚 rainforests.
In a letter sent in January to Francis Sullivan of WWF, Dennis says this
鈥榗onsigns an enormous genetic diversity in extensive forest areas of the
planet to the bin of extinction鈥�.
As a protest, Dennis has withdrawn from the WWF鈥檚 鈥�1995 list鈥� of
companies committed to meeting agreed standards of sustainable forestry
by 1995. He says the list has become 鈥榓 PR exercise for the trade. . .
It is not worth being on.鈥�
Advertisement
The condemnation is embarrassing for the WWF because 10 months ago the
fund was citing Milland and its main supplier, the Ecological Trading Company,
as a model for others to follow. Ecological Trading collaborated with the
WWF on a Peruvian experiment in 鈥榮ustainable forestry鈥�. The company鈥檚
director, Chris Cox, says that, whatever the failings of other companies
on the list, he has no intention of leaving.
The core of the argument is how far the expressed desire of the international
timber trade to move towards 鈥榮ustainable yield鈥� of timber in forests meets
the demands of environmentalists, who want to preserve the biological richness
of natural forests as well as their timber.
Dennis claims that the WWF has 鈥榮old its soul鈥� by failing to address
this issue. 鈥榃ise harvesting can happen,鈥� he says, 鈥榓nd it has been shown
to be economical, but it requires a different ethic.鈥�
At a meeting organised by the WWF last December, called Forests Are
Your Business, British timber purchasers such as B&Q and Sainsbury鈥檚
Homebase pledged publicly to buy wood only from sustainably managed forests
by 1995. But during the meeting, says Dennis, industry representatives made
it clear that their commitment was only to maintain the extent of forests,
not their biodiversity. They argued that biodiversity should be preserved
primarily inside forest reserves where logging did not take place. Dennis
claims that the WWF has not challenged this definition.
Clare Barden, from the WWF鈥檚 forest unit, replies: 鈥楾he standards for
forests are being written on our terms. We are not compromising at all to
keep the timber trade on board. Only the very best managed forests will
辩耻补濒颈蹿测.鈥�
Cox defends this position. 鈥楾o say WWF doesn鈥檛 care about biodiversity
is patent nonsense,鈥� he says. 鈥楾hey are deeply concerned. But they鈥檙e playing
their part in the practical middle ground. If they can prevent some forests
from being turned into cattle pasture, they鈥檒l have done a great service.鈥�
