At the Third World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference, held in November 1999, the parties represented failed launch a new round of multilateral trade negotiations to continue the work of the Uruguay Round. Besides failing to reach consensus among the governments (partly owing to opposition from developing countries), the WTO encountered opposition from NGOs who feared that the globalization of economies would expand the gaps between rich and poor and accelerate the deterioration of the global environment.

A decision was made, therefore, to postpone attempts for a new round until the Fourth Ministerial Conference in November 2001. Reports from a variety of perspectives on forest products, trade and "trade and the environment were presented by various organizations, including the U.S. Trade Representative, the WTO Secretariat and non-governmental organizations,* suggesting that environmental and forest products issues might be among the main topics of the next round.

A close look at international discussions since the Uruguay Round reveals two areas of consensus between players who hold significantly different positions.

This paper examines how players involved in Japanese forestry can contribute to the international community based on those points of consensus.

The GATT Uruguay Round, concluded after eight years of discussions conducted between1986 and 1994, was literally a comprehensive round of trade negotiations, in which 22 individual agreements and understandings were made, and which resulted in the establishment of the WTO.

It has been pointed out, however, that this Round postponed discussions on trade and environment issues, although the WTO committee on 鍍rade and the environment did start at the same time as the establishment of the WTO itself.

The background for this postponement was protests by environmentalists (mainly consumer groups and environmental groups based in developed countries with the support of the United States, which offered such support for domestic reasons*) who asserted that the proponents of free trade were ignoring the burdens imposed on the environment and local communities.

In response, the proponents of free trade (including the WTO Secretariat, which takes pride in having supported the multilateral trade system, and developing countries that give priority to development) took the stance that economic development through free trade is essential to protect the environment of developing countries, and that free trade is compatible with environmental protection.

This argument has been advanced at such forums as the WTO, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the United Nations.

This paper does not address the overall picture of the process but focuses rather on the point of agreement between groups that otherwise have with significantly differing opinions. The point of agreement is this: the liberalization of trade is environmentally friendly when environmental policy functions well but aggravates problems when it fails.

The fourth WTO "Special Studies report, entitled Trade and Environment,* published in the autumn of 1999 to clarify issues relating to trade and the environment prior to the next round of negotiations, states that trade liberalization will unambiguously improve welfare if proper environmental policies are in place.

The paper also states, however, that trade liberalization could exacerbate the consequences of poor environmental policies; for instance, global market demand may encourage unsustainable logging if proper forest management schemes are not in place.

Meanwhile, the World Resources Institute (WRI), an international environmental NGO that has been a forerunner in this debate, commented in a report, entitled Tree trade: Liberalization of international commerce in forest products: risks and opportunities, that while international trade itself is not directly a threat to forests, when trade expands without improved forest management and environmental safeguards, trade-related deforestation and forest degradation can occur.

Indeed, this statement appears to reflect a unanimous view among the participants taking part in discussions on trade and the environment.

We must now ask the question, "Is international forest management being done at an appropriate level? /p>

Efforts to improve the management of tropical forests have been made ever since assessments published in the early 1980s, warned that tropical forests were diminishing at a rate of more than 10 million hectares a year.

Some of the innumerable efforts by governments and official agencies include(1) the Tropical Forestry Action Plan, under which plans for tropical forestry in 70 countries were formulated through an appeal by the Food and Agriculture Organization; (2) the ITTO 2000 target proposed by the International Tropical Timber Organization, with the goal of making all traded timber originate from sustainable forests by the year 2000; (3) work towards formulating a forest convention and a statement of forest principles at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992; and (4) as a follow-up to that UN meeting, international technical meetings held to define the sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests, and efforts by the UN'Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) in connection with forests.

To summarize, over the past 20 years, forest issues have evolved to be seen as global environmental issues, and the focus has broadened from tropical to cover all forests, including temperate and boreal.

It is now widely recognized that forest management standards need to be improved, guided by the concept of sustainable forest management.". Policy-oriented efforts are being made, but as described below, a situation in which forest management can improve has yet to be realized.

According to the FAO痴 Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, the depletion of natural forests is continuing at more or less the same rate as before, with the net area of depleted tropical forests amounting to 12.3 million hectares per year (after adjusting for increases due to afforestation).

Meanwhile, the 28^th Session of the International Tropical Timber Council, which evaluated the ITTO痴 Year 2000 Objective, concluded this: 溺any countries have developed new strategies for forestry. However, there is not yet any strong evidence that the strategies are being acted upon. /p>

In addition, illegal logging has surfaced as an international issue and in response the implementation of the 敵8 Action Program on Forests, including measures against illegal logging, was agreed upon at the summit held in Birmingham in 1998.*

The conclusion that can be easily derived from the two points of consensus described above is that the promotion of the liberalization of trade in forest products at present will accelerate the destruction of forests, by providing incentives for illegal logging and inappropriate forest exploitation.

The forest management standards of exporting countries are first and foremost an issue affecting the people who live in the local watersheds, and benefit from the forest functions.

Meanwhile, the standards also affect the international community because the distribution in the global market of timber produced at unrealistically low prices (ignoring environmental costs) will have a negative impact on forest management in the importing countries. In addition, forests affect the entire Earth through their role as carbon sinks.

At the new round of WTO negotiations, parties in Japan who are involved in forestry could justifiably argue預s parties likely to be negatively affected by the liberalization of the forest products trade葉hat what needs to be discussed right now through international cooperation is this: Not the liberalization of trade but the drafting of a legally-binding convention to raise the global standards of forest management, as soon as possible.

The forest convention that has been discussed for the past 10 years aims at regulating the domestic resources of producing countries, but has reached a deadlock due to opposition from developing countries that own forest resources.

We should not miss precious opportunities, such as the new WTO round, where importing countries have a strong card to play.

I conclude by quoting from the last section of the WTO Report.

"The issue (of fundamental solutions to global environmental problems) is how to reinvent environmental policies in an ever more integrated world economy so as to ensure that we live within ecological limits.

The way forward, it would seem to us, is to strengthen the mechanisms and institutions for multilateral environmental cooperation just like countries 50 years ago decided that it was to their own benefit to cooperate on trade matters.

That is a message to people in the forestry industry from the WTO "afia that flatters itself as being the driving force of the postwar integration of the global economy.

* The original materials of the cited references can be found at the following address.

"study Room on Policy Measures for Realization of Sustainable Forest Management by Takashi Fujiwara