Title: Certification as a tool to enhanced forest management.
Lecture notes: prepared for the occasion of the symposium
"New development relations between North and South".
Venue: University of Twenthe, Enschede, The Netherlands
Date: April 18, 1996.
Author: Paul Romeijn
Original language: Dutch
Status: Dutch version in print
Full Copyright and Translation: Treemail
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Introduction and terminology
Preamble ;)
Reciprocity, equivalence and sustainable development are
established key-expressions in Dutch development jargon.
Recently, the Dutch also introduced you to the ill-defined
terms 'ontschotting' and 'milieugebruiksruimte'.
At a time when I had not the slightest clue as to what the
expression 'milieugebruiksruimte' could possibly mean, I was
informed that this was something to be 'filled-in'. I was
astonished and consulted with my neighbor. As a civil servant
of the Ministry of Environment, he could be expected to be
knowledgeable on a subject like this. He informed me that
'Milieugebruiksruimte' is the discrepancy between
environmental stress and the environmental carrying capacity.
"Good heavens", I replied, "is this determined for each
individual substance, and for different media such as water,
soil and air?" His reply was negative, thus creating problems
which the Ministry has not yet worked out how to deal with
successfully. It was, however, his dubious pleasure to be able
to inform me that the 'milieugebruiksruimte' of the entire
Netherlands is in the process of being mapped for posterity at
the Ministry.
Every once in a while the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Aid, DGIS,
translates its policy documents into English (A World of
Dispute, December 1993) in order to profile The Netherlands as
a 'guiding country' within the framework of globalization. On
these occasions, the expressions 'ontschotting' and
'milieugebruiksruimte' read as follows:
'decompartmentalisation of policy' and 'environmental space'.
The expression on the faces of my English colleagues, when
asked about the possible meaning of these terms, can only be
described as utter bewilderment.
Let us now take a closer look at how The Netherlands supports
certification initiatives in order to 'fill-in' the available
'environmental space' of forests in general, and of tropical
forests in particular.
Certification of forest management and forest products
In 1991, the Dutch Parliament approved of the Government's
Position Paper on Tropical Rainforests (RTR, 1991). Within the
goals outlined in this Position Paper, international efforts
to coordinate the establishment of a certification system for
forest management and forest products feature prominently.
To a large extent, the issue of certification in forestry
stems from the perceived need for sustainable forest
management. In turn, the current interest in sustainable
forest management stems from broad-felt concern over depletion
of the forest resource and is part of a growing need for
global resource management (Clark and Munn, 1987).
The concept of sustainable management finds its origin in
German forestry where, in 1713, Hans Carl von Carlowitz
introduced the expression in his Sylvicultura Oeconomica. In
the course of all the centuries that have since elapsed, the
expression has been redefined many times over. The emphasis on
what should be managed in a sustainable manner has shifted
accordingly. Production, stock, production factors, economic
output are but a few of the many items that have, at one time,
been perceived as the key factor in defining the
sustainability of forest management (Oldeman, 1994; Romeijn,
1996). From this it can be deduced that the term
sustainability cannot be regarded as an operational criterion,
until we have established precisely what the term refers to
(Oldeman, 1994; Romeijn, 1996). The ongoing international
discussions on certification of sustainably managed forest
have, as yet, not produced a definition that is operational
for professional forest managers (Palmer, 1996; Romeijn,
1996).
Another aspect of the introduction of certification is costs.
Both within and outside The Netherlands, there are some
indications that the consumer is indeed prepared to pay a
surcharge for responsibly produced timber (Greenpeace, no
date; ISF, 1995; WNF, 1995). The surcharges for consumers are
thought to lie somewhere between 3 and 5% . Understandably -at
least to those who comprehend the considerable sums of money
these percentages represent (for estimates from WWF-NL see
Ozinga, 1995)- we are witnessing a worldwide proliferation of
timber-labels and certifying agencies (Intermediair, 1996;
WNF, 1995). This development is further fuelled by rumors
within the International Timber Trade Agreement, ITTA, that
all forest management worldwide will have to be 'sustainable'
by the year 2000. For years The Netherlands has lobbied for
such a ruling to apply to tropical countries only. However,
The Netherlands was forced to take a step back, mainly because
a ruling like this would violate the Dutch supported GATT
free-trade rules (also see Kolk, 1995).
There is also a dangerous side to the introduction of shaky or
ill-founded certification of forest management or forest
products. To illustrate this point, albeit at the danger of
oversimplification of this complex subject matter, consider
the following risks:
1) the surcharges on timber related products are used to
finance corruption that surrounds the issue of certificates
2) trade and exploitation continue on a business-as-usual
basis
3) the Dutch Government is contented that it has conveyed a
clear 'green message' to its citizens, so they have the
'feeling' that something has indeed been achieved.
Unfortunately, these risks are not illusory. In the tropics,
few countries are sufficiently well organized to merely
collect their stumpage-fees; this is a simple form of tax
levied as a fixed sum per transported log. Moreover,
throughout the tropics there are only marginal examples that
can truly boast sustainable management (Poore, 1989). But
above all, within and outside of the tropics there is
insufficient human capacity -in quality and in quantity- to
carry out sustainable forestry (Gregersen et al, 1990; IUCN,
1992; Romeijn, 1993). Given these conditions, the increase of
corruption would not be hypothetical, whether in the producing
countries at the issue of certificates, or at the EU customs
services and on a worldwide scale with forged bills of lading.
Who can effectively determine the species and check the
sustainability aspects of, for example, timber sourced from
Cameroon, which supplied with a certificate and a new bill of
lading in Liberia, had entered the EU at the port of Genoa
from where it can freely be transported to The Netherlands
according to EU regulations? Nobody.
Where do we stand?
The process of reassessment ('herijking') taking place in
Dutch foreign policy at present, directs its Ministry of
Foreign Aid, DGIS, to forge closer links with private
enterprise. Meanwhile, time is running out because The
Netherlands set the stakes high with its Policy Paper on
Tropical Rainforests, RTR, and with its stiff opposition
against timber producing countries at several international
fora (see also Kolk, 1995). The moment had arrived for us to
match all the good intentions with practical success. Two such
opportunities appeared to present themselves: the FSC and the
Dutch teak investment funds.
The Forest Stewardship Council, FSC, was founded in 1993 and
was granted its corporate personalty on October 25, 1995, with
major and continued financial support from both the WWF-NL and
DGIS. The FSC was founded to create order for the consumer,
who is confused by the aforementioned proliferation of
certification initiatives. FSC's main goal was and is to
facilitate enhanced forest management practices by its
accreditation of reliable certification institutions
worldwide. Forest products may in the future carry the uniform
FSC label, regardless of their origin (RTL-4 television,
February 22, 1996).
The year 1993 also saw the breakthrough for Dutch private
investment in tropical forestry. By then, WWF-NL had attached
its name to the 'Teakwood' initiative from the Costa Rican
company Flor y Fauna, and the Dutch Insurance company OHRA
started to sell teak investment policies ('Teakwood
Rendementpolissen') to the general public (OHRA, 1993). At
present, showing a development similar to the proliferation of
timber labels, a multitude of teak investment schemes has
sprung up in The Netherlands. The investment schemes are quite
diverse, but have two factors in common, they operate on the
margin of the Decree on the Supervision of Investment
Institutions, WTB (spokeswoman for the Dutch National Bank in
NOVA television broadcast, November 23, 1995), and they
conjure-up visions of great gains (Consumenten-Geldgids,
January 1996; FEM, 1995; OneWorld Online, 1996). Estimates on
the total sum invested remains difficult in the absence of
reliable reports, but it appears that the amount invested in
these schemes surpasses 500 million Dutch Guilders (FEM, 1995;
USD 1 = approx NLG 1.7).
The time had come for the Ministries of Agriculture and DGIS
to match their good intentions with action. The WWF-NL vouched
for Teakwood's environmental friendliness (WNF-NL Director
Woldhek in NOVA, November 23, 1995), and on top of this came a
certification for the plantation by the USA based Rainforest
Alliance (Bos Info, 1995). The DGIS explored how funding could
be channeled to support the expansion of the Teakwood base to
many other countries, and - if we are to believe an interview
with Flor y Fauna's Director in 'Het Financieele Dagblad' (The
Netherlands' leading financial daily newspaper) of April 9,
1996 - these plans had already reached an advanced stage.
In 1993 however, a hick-up threatened the success of this
project. A WWF-NL commissioned report on the economic aspects
of the Teakwood programme produced undesirable results. The
internationally renowned forestry expert, Professor Dr. Julio
Cesar Centeno, awarded with the highest WWF honor of the
Golden Arc by H.R.H. Prins Bernhard of The Netherlands for his
long standing efforts in nature conservation, did not shy away
from using the words "possible fraud" when describing the
Teakwood project (Centeno, 1993). This report was not
published and remained confidential. Teakwood subsequently
sent a Dutch court bailiff Costa Rica to measure height and
diameter of a few teak trees on the plantation. Observers form
both the Ministry of Agriculture and DGIS were present to
observe the Dutch bailiff at work as he attempted to refute
the Professor's criticism. The bailiff came, measured and
conquered. He reported that, in his opinion, the trees were
well pruned and that the plantation conveyed an orderly
impression. Subsequently, an official report by the Ministry
of Agriculture was carefully constructed around the bailiff's
record without showing the measurements taken (Oldeman, 1996).
In this way the Ministry of Agriculture could draw the
conclusion that the yield projections made by Flor y Fauna for
the Teakwood plantation were not impossible (LNV, 1993). Well,
as we all know, nothing is impossible ... and peace was
restored, or was it?
And then there was NOVA
In November 1995, a Dutch television programme called NOVA
presented an elaborate feature on the Teakwood project. The
journalists had obtained a copy of Professor Centeno's WWF-NL
report and gave him the opportunity to speak. He had retained
his original criticisms which, up to that moment, for reasons
of confidentiality, he had been unable to voice publicly. The
television programme also featured a spokeswoman from the
Dutch Central Bank who advised the Dutch public to be wary of
these type of schemes and let it be known that potential
investors should consider the lack of information they are
provided with as ominous writing on the wall.
The news hit like a bomb-shell (WUB, March 14, 1996) and a
continued stream of publications followed (see annex).
Questions were raised in Parliament and Ministerial answers
were given, even more questions were raised in Parliament and
more answers followed. On April 16, 1996, AVRO's Televizier
Magazine broadcast that yet more questions were to be raised
in Parliament. The Dutch Consumers Association reviewed all
teak investment schemes and published a uniform and scathing
judgement in its authoritative magazine 'Consumers Money
Guide' in January 1996 (Consumenten-Geldgids, 1996). A
discussion was started over the Internet, mainly on the United
Nations- and professional forestry- related mailing lists.
These discussions resulted in more than 3,000 letters from
concerned colleagues to Professor Centeno, an unprecedented
event in the habitually tranquil world of international
forestry.
And what was the result of all this? The DGIS and the Ministry
of Agriculture eavesdropped on the Internet, but remained
conspicuously silent, not only on the Internet, but also about
the repeated use in several Courts of Law of a Ministerial
report (LNV, 1993), although the report clearly stipulates (on
page 2) that it was meant strictly for internal use by the
Ministry of Agriculture. In April 1996, Minister's answers to
questions in Parliament showed that the DGIS had cancelled a
workshop that it had already commissioned the BOS Foundation
to organize. One of the main goals of the workshop was to
sound out opportunities for the DGIS co-finance teak projects.
The DGIS also cancelled publication of Teak 2000 by Dr.
Raymond M. Keogh, a proposal that was meant to help separate
the wheat from the chaff among the Dutch teak investment
schemes. Flor y Fauna immediately sued one of those
interviewed in the NOVA programme for reputed libel (De
Telegraaf, 29 december 1996) and demanded a stiff
compensation, but Flor y Fauna suffered a humiliating defeat
before judge Van Delden in The Hague (GPD, 1995; "Judge chops
down teak claim"). Critics of the Teakwood programme were
invariably depicted as conservatives, henchmen of the timber
trade (Alerta, 1996), people with no notion of forestry,
muckrakers (Het Financieele Dagblad, February 22, 1996), or
more recently, as having fiddled with their own reports (WNF,
March 20, 1996). Left and right an array of organizations and
individuals (eg De Telegraaf, February 13, 1996), including
Professor Centeno (eg Het Financieele Dagblad, February 7,
1996) were threatened with legal action. More often than not,
these threats were accompanied with an appeal for compensation
for supposed loss in turnover.
And yet, somehow it all went wrong. Even if the final outcome
of this saga is far from clear, one thing is certain, the
Dutch investor has made up his mind about Teakwood, he will no
longer invest in the programme. And yet more has gone wrong.
The floor was wiped with the bailiff's report once and for all
(WUB, March 14, 1996) and is, to my knowledge, no longer taken
serious by anyone. And still more is bound to go wrong. The
author of the Ministry of Agriculture's official report
appears to be the President of Flor y Fauna's scientific
advisory board (eg see WUB, March 28, 1996) and the
Ministerial report had lost its pretence of independence. The
fact of this collaboration was not declared when the author
presented his declarations of support of the Teakwood
programme before several courts. And even more remains to go
wrong. According to WWF-NL, their research established that
not a single claim was ever made for certification by the FSC
of Flor y Fauna's plantations (WNF, January 31, 1996). And yet
this is precisely what they had done. It actually happened
more than 1.5 million times in advertisements and the like
(OHRA, 1996), and even more if we count WWF-NL's own
publication (WNF, 1995). One should bear in mind that this is
taking place at a time when FSC has not progressed
sufficiently to authorize any plantation, anywhere in the
world, even to claim any kind of accreditation by the FSC, and
at a time when FSC has voiced this repeatedly, publicly and
with emphasis (eg FSC, March 11, 1996; FSC, April 1996). All
of this cannot serve to bolster WWF-NL's credibility.
I cite Prof. Dr. Ir. R. A. A. Oldeman, chair of Sylviculture
and Forest Ecology at the Agricultural University of
Wageningen, as he provides the best summary, as far as I am
aware, to describe the interests that have suffered as a
result of the bailiff's report: "In conclusion, I point out
the substantial damage to the national and international
reputation of Dutch forestry and nature conservation, to the
credibility of the Dutch civil service as an instrument of
policy-, certification-, and project- making, and to the
investors who have been lured towards teak policies through
the media; all of this brought about by the OHRA/Flor y Fauna
teak affair. The most impacting long-term damage of all will
hit the tropical forests. As a result, their preservation will
be taken far less serious (Oldeman, 1996)."
When viewed from a professional point of view, the entire
OHRA/WWF-NL/Flor y Fauna discussion can be seen to center
around two main questions that pertain to mid-level
management: at what rate do teak trees grow, and were the
yield projections presented to the public in a misleading
fashion? The fact that this is the root cause of so much
discussion in The Netherlands remains incomprehensible to many
outsiders, all the more so in view of the numerous ways that
were employed in order to dodge and obscure answering these
two basic questions in an honest and straight forward way.
Because of this, The Netherlands is rapidly disqualifying
itself internationally in its self-proclaimed role as 'guiding
country' in the far more complex subject-matter of 'global
resource management'.
What now?
It would seem that the time for reconsideration is nigh. At
the very moment that the Dutch profession has had to answer
practical questions in public (because of the private
investments that were at stake), it all went wrong. The
Ministries that formulate and execute The Netherlands tropical
forest policies had entered a field where not only the
expenditure of their own budgets was at play. Perhaps they
were ill prepared for this novel situation. Because private
investors interests were also at stake, other players joined
the stage and these players brought their own set of rules.
These players include the Dutch Central Bank (eg NOVA,
November 23, 1996), the Dutch Consumers Organization (eg
Beleggers-Belangen, February 1996); and the rules include the
Decree on the Supervision of Investment Institutions, WTB.
Finally, the Ministries were unprepared for a world famous
Professor from the South who -all of a sudden- could be
ignored no longer. He made very effective use of the medium
Internet.
At a time when the Dutch 'filling in' of the expression
participation mainly occurs at the level of development
projects and when DGIS funds are employed to show Walt
Disney's Pocahontas video's to Andean Indians (Ir. M.
Vervoort, personal communication, January 1996), it appears
high time for a -mind you- Venezuelan Professor to addresses
Dutch forestry's professional ethics (WUB, March 14, 1996).
Professor Oldeman has recently inaugurated a large training
and research project without a single cent of support from
DGIS funds, as the proud Rector Magnificus of the Agricultural
University of Wageningen informed us (Karssen, 1996). In the
mean time countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Canada
produce thoroughly considered documents on certification of
forest management and forest products, and it seems these
documents carry more weight internationally than anything that
has been produced by the Dutch Think Tank. How things can
change.
Reconsideration could be centered around increasing contention
with small steps, but steps that are related to present day
realities. The Teakwood affair calls for clarity and swift
measures, possibly through arbitration, if only to contain
further damage to The Netherlands' international position.
Global resources and environmental problems are all discussed
in the international arena, and these subjects are complex,
highly complex. In fact, they are far too complex to be
disposed of with a mere agreement or the formulation of an
idealized picture. In heaven, no doubt, we shall all agree.
Rather, day to day problems call for solutions by way of
tangible actions and measures. In view of the innumerable
international discussions that finally resulted in the
establishment of the FSC, it seems incomprehensible that the
current FSC office is manned by only 4-5 technicians with some
administrative support. We have already gained ample
experience in mounting ineffective mini-secretariats equipped
with operational powers that in no way match the problems at
hand. Before this audience I need only to mention only one
example, the Tropical Forestry Action Plan.
A tree can be chopped down only once but when we decide to do
it, we are called upon to make optimal use of it. In an
imperfect world it is not the perfection of our intentions
that counts. Rather, we should perhaps realize that we are
doomed to live with one another on this planet. Let us attempt
to strike a balance between what is real and what is
desirable, and take present reality as point of departure.
-end-
A few references:
Alerta; 1996. "Teakbeleggers spiegelen te hoge Rendementen
voor". by Rik Bulten. Alerta, Het andere nieuws over Latijns
Amerika en de Cariben, Vol. 22, nr. 222, Maarch 1996. p 12-14.
Quote: "On Radio 1 in January 1996, Huesmann (President of the
Board of OHRA; author's note) suggested that Centeno and his
people were unpayed employees of the timber trade, which has
no interest in sustainably produced timber."
Beleggers Belangen; February 9, 1996. Beleggersbrief.
Editorial by B. Izaks. p 3.
Bos Info, October 1995. Teakwood Plantage Flor y Fauna
gecertificeerd. Informatie van het Wereld Natuur Fonds (WNF)
en het Nederlands Comit‚ voor IUCN, Tweede jaargang nummer 3.
Centeno, Julio Cesar; December 22, 1993. Economic Analysis of
Flor y Fauna Teak Plantations in Costa Rica. Final Report.
Merida.
Clark, W.C. en Munn, R.E. (eds.); 1987. Sustainable
Development of the Biosphere. IIASA, Press Syndicate of the
University of Cambridge. 491p.
Consumenten-Geldgids, January 1996. Rendement Teakprojecten
Slag in de Lucht. Kwartaaluitgave van de Consumentenbond. p 4-
8.
FEM; 1995. Groen en Geel. Steeds meer Concurrentie onder de
Houtfondsen. Dat maakt de aanbieders ook steeds brutaler. by
Tino Bakker. FEM, November 25, 1995. p 60.
Financieele Dagblad, Het; February 7, 1996. OHRA overweegt
Stappen tegen Hoogleraar.
Financieele Dagblad, Het; February 22, 1996. Teakboompjes
groeien niet langer tot in de Hemel. by E. Basant. Statement:
"muck slinging" by drs. B.J.J.M. Huesmann, President of the
Board of OHRA.
Financieele Dagblad, Het; April 9, 1996. "Critici van
Teakhoutplantages verdwijnen vanzelf". by F. Gunnink
FSC; February 21, 1996. FSC announces Accreditation of first
four Certification Bodies. Press release. Also released by
WWF-International, Gland-CH.
FSC; March 11, 1996. FSC Notice. Board of Director's
clarification on specific issues which have arisen most
recently in The Netherlands, Oaxaca, Mexico.
FSC; April 1996. Update on the Flor y Fauna Case. Verslag van
de achtste FSC-Board Meeting van begin februari 1996.
Distributed in The Netherlands by the FSC-NL office.
GPD; December 29, 1995. Rechter hakt Teak-Klacht aan
Spaanders. Zoals verschenen in De Gooi- en Eemlander.
Gregersen, Hans M.; Lundgren, Allen L.; Bengston, David N.
1990. Planning and Managing Forestry Research: Guidelines for
Managers. FAO Forestry Paper No. 96. FAO, Rome.
Greenpeace; no date. Ecoforestry on the Way. Published in:
Clearcut Free? Just did it (a Greenpeace Report). Page 3-4.
Intermediair; March 1, 1996, Vlo. 32, No. 9. by Jan Maarten
Deurvoorst and Ingrid Smit. Duurzaam Hout: veel vraag, weinig
aanbod. Quote: "Worldwide, there exist some six hundred
documents, stickers, certificates and labels that claim to
guarantee sustainable forest management."
Internet Forest. Mailing List on Forest Research and Forest
Studies. For information on index and downloading the files
from the Finnish server send a message containing only the
command 'INDEX FOREST' to <listserv@listserv.funet.fi>.
ISF, 1995. ISF Press Release, November 28, 1995.
IUCN; 1992. IUCN Forest Conservation Programme Newsletter.
Statement on World Leadership. January, p 3.
Karssen, C.M.; 1996. Hutan Lestari/Duurzaam Bos. In: Wagenings
Alumniblad, Vol 3, nr. 1, March 28, 1996. p 2.
Kolk, Ans; 1995. De smalle Marges van het Nederlandse
Regenwoudbeleid. Internationale Spectator, January 1995, -
xlix-1. Instituut voor internationale betrekkingen
'Clingendael'. English language readers are also refered to:
Kolk, Ans; 1996. The limited Returns of Dutch Rainforest
Policy. International Environmental Affairs, a journal for
research and policy, Vol. 8, No. 1, Winter 1996. p 41-49.
LNV (Dutch Ministry of Agriculture); 1993. De Teak-Plantages
van Flor y Fauna S.A. in Costa Rica (verslag van een
monitoring-missie 21-28 november 1993), 28-12-93. By A.J.M.
Wouters/LNV.
Mater Engineering Ltd.; October 1995. Survey of Manufacturer
and Retail Buyer Interest in Certified Wood and Wood Products.
OHRA, 1993. Het Groene Goud: Wereld Natuur Fonds steunt unieke
Belegging in Teakhout. Published in OHRA's 'Vast en Zeker',
Summer 1993, p 22-23.
OHRA, 1996. Internal memo from PR manager to Adjunct-Directeur
dd 01/02/96 on Teakwood, made public by submission to Reclame
Code Commissie dd March 26, 1996.
Oldeman R.A.A.; 1994. Durable Ecocomplexity: beyond the
threshold of a new century. In: P.C. Struik et al (eds.),
Plant Production on the Threshold of a New Century: 151-158.
Kluwer publ., Dordrecht, Boston, London.
Oldeman, R.A.A.; 1996. Aantekeningen over de gevolgde
Meetprocedure 'Huizinga & Groot'. February 17, 1996.
Translation: Treemail.
OneWorld Online; February 5, 1996. WWF endorsed Teakwood
Scandal hits Tropical Timber Industry. by Mark Lynas. URL
http://www.oneworld.org/ (available under index
news/Europe/The Netherlands).
Ozinga, S.; March 1995. Production and Consumption of Timber
and Timber Products. Wereld Natuur Fonds, Zeist. 33p.
Palmer, J.R.; 1996. Certification Standards: what has CIFOR
found? Woodmark News, Vol.2, Issue 1, Spring 1996.
Poore, Duncan (Editor); 1989. No Timber without Trees:
Sustainability in the Tropical Forest. Earthscan, London,
252p.
Romeijn, P.; October 1993. A Global University: Developing a
Worldwide Forestry Community. Journal of Forestry, Vol. 91,
No. 10, October 1993, p31-33. ISSN 0022-1201. Reprinted in:
BOS Newsletter, no. 28, vol 13 (1), 1994, p36-41. Also
reprinted in: IUSF Newsletter, no. 36, May 1994, p4-5.
Romeijn, P.; December 1995. Certification: the Chain of
Command from Forest to Final Product. Invited paper at the
workshop on certification of forests and forest products;
European Parliament, Espace Leopold room 01 C47, Brussels
18-19 December 1995. In print.
RTL-4; February 22, 1996. Eavening news, 19.30 hrs, interview
with Tim Synnott, Executive Director FSC.
RTR; 1991. Regeringsstandpunt Tropisch Regenwoud, vergaderjaar
1990-1991, 21517, blz. 45.
Telegraaf, De; December 28, 1995. Ohra eist Boete bij Nieuwe
'Laster' over Teakhoutpolis.
Telegraaf, De; February 13, 1996. Ohra dreigt met Stappen
tegen Critici Teakpolis. by Martin van Putten.
WNF; 1995 (no date given). Naar een Houtbare Wereld; Hoe de
Nederlandse Houtmarkt zich opmaakt voor FSC-hout. Zeist, ISBN
90-74595-07-3.
WNF; January 31, 1996. Letter from WWF-NL 'Director of
Conservation' Braakhekke to Prof. Centeno (ref. WB/96.22),
copied to Minister Pronk of DGIS, WNF President Nijpels, Flor
y Fauna, OHRA, FSC en Rainforest Alliance, made public by
submission to Reclame Code Commissie dd March 26, 1996.
WNF; March 20, 1996. Brief van WNF Directeur Woldhek (ref.
96F250/JEK) aan Ekelmans den Hollander (advocaten van OHRA),
made public by submission to Reclame Code Commissie dd March
26, 1996.
WUB (Official Wageningen University Paper); March 14, 1996.
Luchtkastelen van Teakhout. by Laurens Vogelezang. Statement:
"One is confronted with one's ethical limits ..." by Ir. K.F.
Wiersum, lecturer at the Department of Forestry. Quote:
"Foresters slowly unite the counter forces, as quiet diplomacy
has had little effect."
WUB; March 28, 1996. Gekrakeel over Teakhout bereikt
Hoofdgebouw LUW. by Laurens Vogelezang.
ANNEX
And then there was NOVA ...
... and a stream of publications followed
[Note: Treemail accepts no responsibility whatsoever for the
following list of publications that have appeared in The
Netherlands since the NOVA broadcast on Teak investments. This
list has been prepared with care, Treemail does not claim the
list is complete. The list runs until early April 1996.]
23-11-1995 NOVA Broadcast
24-11-1995 NRC Handelsblad; 25-11 Drentse Courant, Groninger
Courant, Friesch Dagblad; 30-11 Het Verzekeringsblad; 08-12
Beleggings Expres; 23-12 Leeuwarder Courant; 28-12 De
Telegraaf, De Gooi- en Eemlander, Haagsche Courant; 29-12
Arnhemse Courant, Deventer Dagblad, Gelders Dagblad,
Overijssels Dagblad, Haagsche Courant, Nieuws van de Dag, De
Telegraaf, De Gelderlander, De Stem, De Gooi- en Eemlander,
Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, Het Financieele Dagblad; 5-01-1996
Beleggers Belangen; 7(?)-01 Houtwereld; 11-01 De Telegraaf;
18-01 Consumenten-Geldgids; 19-01 NRC Handelsblad; 29-01
Goudsche Courant, Haagsche Courant, Leeuwarder Courant,
Dagblad Rivierenland, Utrechts Nieuwsblad, Veluws Dagblad,
Apeldoorns Dagblad, Arnhemse Courant, Deventer Dagblad,
Gelders Dagblad, Overijssels Dagblad, Twentsche Courant,
Dagblad van Almere, De Gooi- en Eemlander, De Stem, De
Volkskrant, Dagblad Tubantia, Drentsche Courant, Groninger
Dagblad, Haagsche Courant; 02-02 Het Financieele Dagblad; 07-
02 Brabants Dagblad, De Gelderlander, Het Financieele Dagblad,
Arnhemse Courant, Leeuwarder Courant, Reformatorisch Dagblad,
Drentse Courant, Groninger Dagblad, Apeldoornse Courant,
Arnhemse Courant, Deventer Dagblad, Gelders Dagblad,
Overijssels Dagblad, Goudsche Courant, Haagsche Courant; 9-02
Beleggers Belangen, Brabants Dagblad, De Gelderlander, Het
Financieele Dagblad; 13-02 De Telegraaf, Nieuws van de Dag;
14-02 Arnhemse Koerier; 17-02 Elzevier; 22-02 Het Financieele
Dagblad; 23-02 Assurantie Magazine; 1-03 Intermediair; 05-03
Haarlems Dagblad, Leidsch Dagblad, IJmuider Courant, Limburgs
Dagblad, Dagblad van Almere, Amersfoortse Courant, Dagblad
Rivierenland, Utrechts Nieuwsblad, Veluws Dagblad, Nieuwsblad
van het Noorden, Friesch Dagblad, De Stem, Algemeen Dagblad,
De Dortenaar, Dagblad Tubantia, De Limburger, Leeuwarder
Courant, De Gelderlander, Het Financieele Dagblad, Het
Financieele Dagblad, Haagsche Courant, NRC Handelsblad, De
Telegraaf, Nieuws van de Dag, De Volkskrant, Arnhemse Courant;
7-03 WUB; 8-03 Beleggers Belangen; 14-03 WUB; 15-03 Stichting
Bos en Hout, Alerta; 21-03 WUB; 26-03 Het Financieele Dagblad,
Het Financieele Dagblad, Trouw; 27-03 Het Financieele Dagblad,
Het Financieele Dagblad, Het Parool, Brabants Dagblad; 28-03
WUB; 3-04 Het Financieele Dagblad, Houtwereld.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0