Having read a thread prompted by a photo of Brian Barber's exquisite Walnut cabinet I thought I'd open up a new splinter thread on the potentially thorny topic of hardwoods and the environment. Woodworkers probably get more pleasure per board foot than any other users of timber, and I propose that we therefore value sustainability as much if not more than anyone else.
As a small scale supplier of hardwoods I am concerned about the environmental impact that the process of harvesting timber can have if not done correctly, and therefore try to stock as responsibly as possible. We carry Australian hardwoods which are subject to strict governmental controls, burrs which are removed without damaging the tree, also Ancient Kauri, which is 50 thousand years old and has to be dug up out of the ground - so no deforestation there either. I am also trying to get into recycled timber from demolition, storm damage etc.
When buying harvested timber I make every effort to only buy supplies that come from managed forests, which I understand to mean that the land does not change use after the timber is cut - so the roots stay in the ground and over time the trees will grow back. Coppicing stimulates vigorous regrowth and can actually extend the life of a tree by hundreds of years. What I actively seek to avoid is timber that comes from wholesale 'roots and all' deforestation where the conversion of forested land to agriculture, mining or other industries follows the cropping.
As you can imagine this is not easy to do, especially as organisations like the FSC don't cover any of the exotic species and once a tree has been felled and logged, it is virtually impossible to trace its origin. In some cases the best that I can do is select suppliers who share my philosophies about sustainability and hope that they in turn will do the same.
I don't feel that we should refrain from using a particular species because by doing so we artificially narrow demand and that does nothing to incentivise those growers that do re-plant to maintain the diversity of their forests. I don't believe that responsible forestry is damaging to the planet, indeed many of the ancient forests and woodlands of Britain and Europe have been continuously logged for centuries and remain healthy and vibrant. The environmental problem comes from change of land use, but how can we do anything more to affect it?
It's a massive topic but I think it is an important one to discuss, even if only to raise awareness and make people think.
I tought that the governing bodies of our little world had clamped down on illegal logging. Plus advances in presure treated timber and man made materials are saving our hardwood forests witch are the lungs of the world. Every timber merchant I go to have signs up saying all their timber comes from substainably managed forests witch is backed up by an EU stamp on the bale. I understand how forests are still under threat from expanding towns, cities etc.
Are their timbers coming in to England from illegal sources?
I usually only buy hardwoods from sustainable sources, and then I only buy what I need. The other week I bought some american black walnut and american ash, both species came from sustainable sources.
I totally agree with you matthew, we should only use sustainable timber, and where possible reclaimed timber. Unfortunately by the time that an exotic species is available to buy the tree has already been chopped down. There are some people who would argue that once it is available then they may as well buy it and use it as the tree has already been cut down.
Afromosia has been banned for export since the mid 1980's, yet some timber yards still have afromosia in stock which they have had in stock since the ban was imposed.
There will always be a demand for hardwoods, but lets try to be sensible with our demand.
I read an article by David Savage recently which suggested English Cherry has become very hard to find as there simply isn't enough demand for it with so much of the imported American stuff around.
European/French Oak seems to get used an awful lot in industry, purely because of its price against the English species, I presume?
So, while I agree with should be doing all we can to help sustain the forests around Africa and the rest of the world, as woodworkers, I feel we could also pay a little more attention to what is growing a lot closer to home, which fits in with what Matthew said originally:
"I don't feel that we should refrain from using a particular species because by doing so we artificially narrow demand and that does nothing to incentivise those growers that do re-plant to maintain the diversity of their forests."
any clamp-down on "illegal" logging has been a complete and utter failure. It has been said by a number of authoratative sources that there is virtually no legally harvested timber from South America or Africa arriving in Europe without being mixed in with hundreds of times as much illegal timber. You really should consider anything from those two continents to be illegally harvested.
I have said it elsewhere on a very similar thread.......Africa (and particularly tropical Africa) is being devastated by tree felling. It causes the most incredible and long-lasting damage, including the silting up of rivers, the opening up of new forest areas to hunters for the huge "bush-meat" trade, the erosion of top-soil on a scale you just would not believe etc. These outcomes lead directly to the impoverishment and even starvation and sometimes murder of the locals.
Even "legal" timber from the tropics in Africa is only made legal by some of the nastiest little governments in the world, in it only for how much money they can make personally. The timber trade is usually controlled directly by one or two ministers who take an enormous personal cut of all the money made. We are talking of governments like Equatorial Guinea who would consider Mugabe a soft little liberal........
Your choice..........but I will never use any new wood from Africa or Central or South America. There are plenty of wonderful woods from Europe, North America, and as Matthew says, Australia (who haven't always been so enlightened in their practices!) that I don't consider it any sort of hardship to try and "do the right thing".
I agree with everything Paul has just said. There is so much info. coming from various sources that a clear picture is hard to get. Illegal logging continues apace, now also in support of 'downstream' industries like teak garden furniture and so on, which are sent in huge volume to Europe and North America - every 'garden centre' is awash with the stuff. More concerning overall is the mass clearance of land including forests of little commercial value but huge ecological significance, for such things as oil-palm plantations and - just lately - this ridiculous bio-fuel crop craze. I would have a natural aversion to buying any material or product containing timber obtained this way, but these corrupt countries are going to continue clearing their forests for one reason or another anyway, whether we choose to buy the stuff or not. The answer lies in a combination of political backbone and commercial leverage, both of which are sadly lacking. End of gripe - just don't get me started on scallop-dredging!
Sorry I only looked back on this thread now, evreything you have said has been a real eye opener, I won't be buying African or South American wood again but I suppose thats all I can do.
You might even turn it to your advantage.......explaining the reasons for your ethical timber choice could be a big plus with some of your potential customers.
I think there is scope for us to collectively get a petition together for the no.10 petition website http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/
I'm thinking along the lines of a campaign to educate the public rather than create another ineffective stamp of approval. Perhaps if there was a single source of information, such as a government run website, listing safe, dubious, and unsafe timber sources everyone would know the score and be in a position to make choices based on reliable information. This instead of the current mass of 'grey' information and certification currently available.
It will need some thinking about, though. For instance, if it is a government-led or controlled scheme it could be open to charges of political interference (imagine the scenario of an African government that has something we want.......say oil, or some hostages.....saying "well, we'd love to help you but it is such a nuisance to us that we are ranked as unapproved on the timber certification list......").
I suspect that an independant but authoratative body might be the way forward. It would have to have the approval of government or , dare I say it, the EU, to have that authority.....and it would have to include or take over the main existing schemes, particularly the FSC.
As for a petition, which I am all for, a little research (I'll ring Friends of the Earth tomorrow) might help the focus.
I'm too busy today, but I will do something on this tomorrow.
Excellent Mike, look forward to hearing how your phone call goes. It's a massive challenge but I'm sure there's something we can do to have a positive impact in the UK.
Ben, with regards to a website, there is one about somewhere that gives you a list of suppliers and sources of sustainable timber... Not sure if it's goverment-run though and I don't think it's TRADA or the FSC site... I vaguely remember Nick Gibbs mentioning it in Good Wood a couple of years ago (it sounds strange saying that now! ).
I'm not sure if it will be as clear-cut as that though - there could be plenty of suppliers out there who are prepared to "bend the rules" in order to make a profit...?
I have had a long conversation with Friends of the Earth on this subject.
Their position is that there is only one certification scheme of any merit, and that is the FSC........and even their support for that is currently being reviewed due to some lapses in standards.
They would hope that the (improved) FSC would become so widely adopted that no other schemes could compete, and if that was aided by some European or UK law that would be great. However, they wouldn't want the FSC to become a Government agency because of the dangers of political interference.
I suppose the analogy with the Soil Association having control over the word "organic" is the best example I can think of.
The dream situation would be that the EU required all timber used within the Union be from sustainable sources, and that the definition of sustainability and the certification of timber was all in the hands of the FSC, exclusively.
Friends of the Earth would hope that something like this came about, but aren't actively campaigning on the issue.
I don't know how this could be wrapped up into a petition, but if there is any support for this, and perhaps some momentum from the magazines, I would be happy to help draft something.
Wouldn't it be nice to know that all the timber we wanted to work with was from a sustainable source, and that using it was actually encouraging replanting? I feel quite sick at the thought that one day soon someone will cut down the last ebony tree, unless action is taken.
Just a couple of thoughts before we march off to downing street. I've been doing a bit of research myself and it seems the industry has already made massive progress in terms of making sustainability a global standard.
Although Friends of the Earth make the point about the FSC being the only certification scheme that they recognise, there are many other organisations working to promote proper forest management at all levels, throughout the entire global industry. What these guys are doing is trying to raise standards within the whole industry rather than just putting a happy timber stamp on products produced (properly) by members of the FSC and leaving us to pontificate and cast assumptions about the rest. The whole concept of saving the rainforests got under way in the 1980s, a lot has changed since then and to petition about the issue now would be like warning the Prime Minister that this dot com bubble won't last forever!
Take the International Tropical Timber Organisation for example, set up by the UN in 1986, to provide a framework that governments can sign up to. You cannot enforce something without first defining it and getting countries to agree to it.
Then there are nonprofits like the WWF who do some phenomenal work in physically observing logging operations to ensure that the loggers maintain the standards that their governments are signed up to. (next time we get the chance to put some money in their tin it would be a great help if we all had to fold it up first!)
Also trade organisations like the Timber Trade Federation of the United Kingdom who help and advise firms on how to source timber responsibly through their forests forever programme.
The global industry is well aware of the concerns that we all share about sustainability. There are well established programmes in place at all levels from corporate to intergovernmental to ensure that the forests and by definition the livelihoods of all of the people along the supply chain that depend upon them are protected.
I reiterate my point about trees being perennial - that is to say that if you chop them down they keep on growing back - usually much more vigorously, and will live several times as long if harvested than they would otherwise have done. The idea that if you chop a tree down you need to plant another one in order to maintain the forest is inaccurate and misleading.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with harvesting and using timber responsibly and thanks to the sustained efforts of organisations like those listed above, the vast majority of timber that is available to purchase in this country is now sustainably produced. It is in the interests of the industry to ensure that the forests are maintained and by creating demand for timber we are actively encouraging the use of land for forestry rather than other uses.
If you want to save ebony trees from extinction the best thing you can do is use their timber and make farming ebony more attractive than alternative uses for the same land. By boycotting African and South American timber you are actively encouraging the process of deforestation by making well managed forestry less economically viable.
By using as wide a variety of species as possible we can avoid the situation where it becomes economically desirable to clear natural mixed forest and re-plant with a single species because there is no demand for the others. Just letting it grow back is by far the cheapest option and the best for wildlife but there has to be a market for all of the many and varied species if this is to be viable.
So although it may seem ironic, the best way to save the rainforests is to use the goods that they produce.
After reading your post it would seem there is nothing we can do outside of continuing to use imported tropical hardwoods. I for one find it very difficult to trust the unseen process from felling through to end use. Having worked as a designer for one of the largest outdoor furniture companies in the UK, I'm aware of just how much corruption and massaging behind the scenes goes on to ensure timber/furniture prices are kept on a level. I'm skeptical when I read that a timber product is certified sustainable. On a personal level, I feel the need to source locally felled timber wherever possible.
There are other issues to think about too. It's not just about the illegal felling of trees. There is a sizable carbon footprint associated with each tropical board that finds its way into the UK. Sourcing local timber is the best way to get around this.
My view is that we need to be more self sufficient as a country. Not only do we need to use our own timber, we also need to produce more of our own food and, eventually, manufacture more of our own products.
there is a lot in what you say, and the same argument applies in other conservation areas as well. In an ideal world providing a value for rainforest products would seem a good way to encourage the sensible use of the forest.
However, there is an enormous qualitative difference between virgin forest and secondary or re-growth forest. The latter is almost devoid of animal life, for instance. It has lost all of the stratification that exemplifies virgin forest. It typically loses a lot of the very thin tropical soil on which it stand, and the rivers are silted and dry. It usually has a lot of human activity, and crops such as bananas and palms (your suggestion of just letting it grow back doesn't happen in reality). The very first thing that always happens after an area has been felled is that the farmers burn everything that remains.
Unfortunately, to the Indonesian government, say, a forest is a whole lot of wood awaiting exploitation, and once the trees are all clear-felled, the traditional farmers and hunters can move onto the land. Go and visit orang-utans now, I urge you, because in 10 years time there will be nowhere left for them to live.
If the value of the timber to the logging companies increases (which is the outcome you are seeking, I presume), then they will get more money more quickly by cutting it down.......their margins will have gone up. Governments declare National Parks, and then sell off the the entire area to Japanese loggers for the manufacture of plywood. These are the sort of Governments who actively resist helping their own people in the aftermath of cyclones.
I can't think of a single example of felled tropical rainforest that has regenerated to the same ecological standards as prior to felling..
There are, admittedly, one or two examples of regenerated pine forests and mid-latitudes hardwood forests, but all associated with the highest standards of governance.....a luxury that the tropics is very short of.
Matthew, as with the elephant and the rhino, the only way to preserve the remainder of the populations is remove any market for the products. I'm afraid that with the messy and corrupt, over-crowded, money-driven world we live in the only way to preserve rainforests is to not buy their timbers.
-
-
All that aside.......this petition suggestion is more about trying to resolve all of the miriad confusing labelling schemes into one understandable scheme. So many of the schemes which exist ostensibly to ensure the proper exploitation of forests are in fact no more than a bit of sales promotion, and do nothing to ensure that anything changes with regard to forest management.
Mike
PS Come with me on my next trip to Africa, Matthew. The reality of forest management there is a real eye-opener! Genuine offer, by the way.
All very valid points - this truly is a behemoth of a subject once you get thinking about it!
I can see the argument for using as many locally sourced products as possible, indeed as a family we have started buying all of our veggies from a local grower and our meat from a local farm for the same reasons you mention (and it tastes soooo much better!) In theory the price mechanism should also make this the most rational decision too.
There are however products that we either cannot produce locally at all, like bananas or ebony, or cannot produce efficiently due to the relative prices of labour and capital in developed and developing countries, damascus steel or hand stitched rasps for example. Although there are costs involved in moving these products (both financial and environmental) it still makes sense to source them from the people who have the right mix of resources to produce them most efficiently.
On a microcosmic level I guess its the same as an accountant buying bread from the baker rather than making it from scratch. Yes there's a food mile involved in going to the bakery, but the whole process is so much more efficient.
Likewise if the butcher and the baker pay the accountant to do their books in a couple of hours rather than the week it would have taken them to figure it all out, they can spend all that saved time doing what they are good at - making more sausages and baking more bread. The net result of specialisation is positive for all parties and results in a net surplus (in this case of sausage sandwiches) for society as a whole.
Good points Matthew. However, I can't help thinking that we're lacking the necessary skills to effectively compete in this country. Interesting things are happening at the moment; the cost of living is going up here, while the cost of labour, in inflationary terms, is coming down. Meanwhile the labour rates in China are rising due to increased living standards and their carbon footprint is increasing at an alarming rate. Two new coal fired power stations are taken online each week in China to feed their growing middle class and our habit for cheap products. That's thanks to the laws of supply and demand, but is it the right way forward?
We're becoming more aware of the true cost of travel around the globe too, as the price of oil increases and sea levels are set to rise further due to increased carbon emissions. If the financial and environmental cost of travel continues to increase then surely it is in our interest, and the interests of other countries, to nurture our own skills here in the UK so we are best able to produce a healthy proportion of our own product. I don't think it's realistic for us to be completely self sufficient, but I do think we need to readdress the balance. A work force spending their lives in call centres and consuming KD furniture that has a 2 to 3 year life span is hardly sustainable.
Do we need bananas and ebony? I'm not convinced and tend to agree with what Gordon Ramsay had to say on the matter last week. We should be eating what's in season here in the UK because the environmental cost is so so much lower.
To bring my post back on topic, all my arguments above apply to timber and timber products. Just think of the high skilled employment we could bring back if the UK timber and furniture industries were to see a resurgence.
With tropical forests I would expect the regrowth cycle to be at the bare minimum a 300 year process , so an accurate comparison between virgin and regrowth clearly cannot be made until we have some mature regrowth (and some virgin left to compare it with!)
I agree absolutely with your remarks about the change of land use to agriculture on felled areas and can understand why the cleared land, already kitted out with roads built by the loggers is eminently developable and may be just too tempting, especially in poorer countries that are trying to expand their economies.
Likewise, I believe that if the forest cannot deliver economic benefit to the country in which it grows it's days are numbered anyway. Hoping that we can persuade these people and their children to just leave the forest alone and be content with their dollar a day whilst we enjoy the benefits of living in a wealthy, once forested country that has been cleared for agriculture, then industrialised and now post industrialised is somewhat hypocritical to say the least. Especially since the forested nations weren't the ones who messed up the atmosphere in the first place.
Your suggestion to visit the Orang Utans illustrates what I mean about demonstrating with our wallets to the custodians of these forests that they can be exploited in ways other than clearcutting and uprooting for agriculture. National Parks that thrive economically through ecotourism may well bring in more dollars than logging or farming the same land. If we boycot forest products, be they timber or holidays, we relinquish any control over the process. The custodians of the forest will lose nothing by burning the lot on the spot and growing crops regardless.
I share your skepticism of certification schemes, many of which may be instigated with the best intentions but, as you say, end up with the effect of being just another sales initiative with no real teeth. Our problem here is lack of clarity and overview of a complex global situation, with many players, all of whom have their own sets of short and long term interests and objectives.Unfortunately with timber, the sustainability of its production all happens after it has been felled, so it's not like food for example where if you grew it organically, cut it and then put chemicals on the land, the food itself would still be organic.
Although I have been plying devils advocate in this thread to a degree in order to foster the debate, I genuinely believe that the truth lies somewhere between the two positions. Finding exactly what percentage of timber that arrives on our shores is truly sustainably produced may well be impossible to ascertain. I do believe that the situation is much better now than it was thirty years ago, or even ten years ago for that matter, and will continue to improve over time as more people cotton on to the idea that responsible behaviour is the most precious commodity of all.
she can come too.....I've got a four-person rooftent!
In one respect the situation is clearly better than 30 and 10 years ago, and that is that there is not only enormous general awareness of the issue amongst the general public, but there is also much more attention on the subject at inter-governmental level.
Not enough yet, though.....vast areas of forest are being degraded every year.
Mike
PS: I'm not optimistic that humans will be around in 300 years. If not.....problem solved!
.jpg)
).
