AKU, Germany; ARA, Germany; The Bellona Foundation, Norway; BREN, UK; BROC, Russia;

Biodiversity Conservation Centre,Russia; Bruno Manser Fund, Switzerland; Consumer Council,

Norway; Down to Earth, UK; Earthlink, Germany; EUCC, the Netherlands; EIA, UK; Friends of the Earth, England, Wales and Northern Ireland/ Estonia/ France/ Germany (BUND)/ the Netherlands/ Norway/ Slovakia; FERN, Brussels/UK; FANC, Finland; Forests Monitor, UK; FPP, UK; FIOH, Norway; Global Witness, UK; Greenpeace International/ Germany/ Central and Eastern Europe/ Italy; GTA, Brazil; IFAW, Brussels; International Sociological Union, Russia; Just Forests, Ireland;

Nature and Youth, Norway; NCIV, the Netherlands; Netherlands Committee for IUCN;  Pro Regenwald, Germany; Rainforest Foundation, UK/Norway; Robin Wood, Germany; Stichting Reservaten Przewalski Paard, the Netherlands; SME Milieu-Adviseurs, the Netherlands; Swedish Society for Nature Conservation; Telapak, Indonesia; Urgewald, Germany; Worldforests, Scotland

 

 

 

NGOs reject Malaysia’s attempts to whitewash its timber practices.

26 May 2003

 

This week the Malaysian Minister for Primary Industries Dr Lim Keng Yaik accompanied by senior officials of the Malaysian timber sector will be visiting Europe with a view to sell Malaysian timber and promote the Malaysian Timber Certification Council’s (MTCC) certification scheme to the European market. The delegation will also inform the European audience of its ‘good’ forest management practices[1].

 

Problems with forest management in Malaysia

Logging in Malaysia is problematic. Malaysia does not give adequate legal recognition of indigenous peoples rights. Logging in most of the country is done without any prior information and acceptance from the local communities and indigenous peoples who are dependent on the forest for their survival. Some of Malaysia’s social, environmental, and community-based groups therefore call for a moratorium on logging in primary forest areas and in areas where indigenous peoples are asserting their native rights. [2]

 

Furthermore, in the past twelve, months Malaysia’s role in the smuggling of illegally sourced timber from Indonesia has been clearly exposed. The trade in illegally sourced timber to European markets from Malaysia has been well documented.[3] Two weeks ago an investigation revealed that Indonesian timber listed on CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species), was being smuggled into the port of Batu Pahat in Peninsular Malaysia. As well as disregard for CITES, the evidence proved that Malaysia’s own import ban of Indonesian logs was being ignored: in the period of one hour 32 Indonesian vessels loaded with illegal logs arrived at the port of Muar in Peninsular Malaysia. [4]

 

Logging in Malaysia has gone far beyond the level of sustainability, and most of its forests are today seriously degraded. According to the FAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organisation), the country lost 13,4% of its natural forest during the 1990s.[5] Furthermore Malaysia’s wood-based industry is dependent on illegal timber to sustain its activity. It is estimated that in 2001 39% of the timber used by the Malaysian timber industry was illegally imported or logged inside Malaysia. [6]

 

Problems with the MTCC certification scheme

Despite these problems most of Malaysia’s forests are today certified as ‘sustainably managed’ by the MTCC. Forest certification can be an important tool to improve forest management. Therefore the interest shown by the Malaysian government and Malaysian companies in certification is encouraging. However environmental and social NGOs and community based groups in Malaysia and abroad have denounced the Malaysian Certification Scheme as not credible.[7]

 

Several Malaysian social, environmental, and community-based groups were invited to participate in the process of developing the MTCC scheme. The fact that their concerns were ignored during the process has led most of them to withdraw from the scheme in July 2001[8]. The longest involved environmental NGO in the MTCC scheme, WWF Malaysia, has declared it could not share in the responsibility for the scheme in its current form. WWF Malaysia states the MTCC scheme “is not an adequate mechanism to improve forest management, encourage conservation of biodiversity, solve social conflict or provide a credible guarantee of good forest management”. [9]

 

There are many different problems with the MTCC scheme, but the main concerns are:

 

We, the undersigned, support the rejection by the Malaysian NGOs of the MTCC scheme. We agree with the Malaysian NGO demands that the land rights of forest dependent communities must be addressed satisfactorily and conclusively before any certification scheme can be deemed credible.

 

We therefore deplore the fact that the MTCC scheme continues to be promoted when the Malaysian government knows that fundamental issues concerning land rights and other matters are yet to be addressed and the concerns put on the table by the social and environmental NGOs have repeatedly been ignored.

 

Signed

 

 

 

 

 


[1] Jakarta Post, Wednesday May 14th : ” the visit is... aimed at promoting Malaysia’s newly implemented timber certification scheme under the MTCC and possible recognition of the scheme by the governments and local councils of the countries...Another  important issue is the allegation by some environmental NGOs that oil palm cultivation leads to the destruction of rain forests. “In this particular case, we will inform them about Malaysia’s good track record in undertaking prudent land management and conservation of its natural forests,” added the Ministry.

[2] September 2001. Statement Joangohutan. Joangohutam concists of POASM, SPNS, Komuniti Orang Asli Daerah Slim river, COAC, PACOS, KERUAN, BRIMAS, SILOP, IPDC, IDEAL, SACCESS, SAM, SOS Selangor, SUARAM.

[3] Environmental investigators Expose Laundering of Illegal Indonesian Timber by Malaysia and Singapore.     EIA/Telapak  15th May, 2003.

[4] Research carried out by the Indonesian NGO Telapak, jointly with the UK-based NGO Environmental Investigation Agency.

[5] UN Food and Agriculture Organization, www.fao.org

[6] Dr. David Brown: Estimate of Malaysian consumption of illegal timber, September 2002

[7] Environmental and social NGOs reject the Malaysian Timber Certification Council’s scheme. 1 June 2002. Available at www.fern.org

[8] July 2001. Statement Joangohutan.

[9] WWF Malaysia position on statement on MTCC, 19 March 2002

[10] In the development of an internationally credible certification scheme, it is imperative that there is a transparent multistakeholder process with equal participation from groups representing social, economic and environmental aspects of sustainale development.