This film shows how we can turn around years of damaging policies and build an EU where all timber and agricultural products are produced legally, sustainably and in countries that respect communities’ rights to their land.
观看视频请点击：
Category: 新闻动态
中国人对高档家具的需求正在破坏世界森林
中国去年出台政策，禁止境内多地商业性伐木，但据《今日美国》5日报道，由于中国木材产品需求量大，很多伐木工人前往其他国家非法砍伐森林。
7月，153名中国工人在缅甸最北部的克钦邦因非法伐木被判无期徒刑。克钦邦盛产柚木、红木、山毛榉才、乌木以及玫瑰木等珍贵木材。虽然缅甸政府上周已宣布释放这153名伐木工，但却不可能阻止中国公司在当地的采伐行为。这些公司在当地采伐10年有余，且多数属于非法行为。
缅甸边界，云南瑞丽的一家家具厂门前堆满了木材
在缅甸，柚木是受森林法保护的物种。2014年缅甸出台的木材出口禁令也禁止非法出口其他一些珍贵树种。然而每年都有成千上万棵柚木树及其他珍贵树种从缅甸运往中国东部地区，被制作成柚木地板或是红木桌椅等。
在中国古代只有贵族才能使用红木，而现在它成为很多富豪尤其是暴发户的最爱，一件红木家具有可能价值100万美元甚至更多。
除了缅甸，很多主要木材生产国也是中国木材市场的主要来源。2012年中国成为巴西最大的木材销售市场。2013年印度尼西亚非法砍伐木材有一半流入中国市场。2014年刚果有65%的木材出口到中国。柬埔寨的森林砍伐率居世界第三，其中85%的木材出口中国。此外，巴布亚新几内亚80%至90%的木材出口到中国。而莫桑比克更甚，90%以上的木材供给中国。
中国何以对木材有如此大的需求？数据显示，由于建筑行业的发展和人均国内生产总值的大幅提高，越来越多的酒店、豪华公寓以及上层阶级消费者渴望使用木材家具产品，自2000年至2011年，中国的木材需求上升了300%。
2014年中国出台禁令，禁止在黑龙江省、内蒙古自治区以及吉林省进行商业性砍伐。中国政府希望在2020年前将国内商业砍伐降低20%。
但是，中国庞大的木材消费能力，导致大量在海外非法砍伐的木材进入国内。很多国家禁止进口非法采伐的木材及其加工品，如美国和加拿大。皇家国际事务研究所（查塔姆研究所）的霍尔认为出于保护加工工业产品出口的考虑，中国需确保进口木材为合法采伐。她说：“尽管中国已采取多种措施解决非法木材贸易的问题，如创建合法木材验证系统，然而这还仅仅是个开始。”
类似阅读;http://home.163.com/15/0724/06/AV93NAIL00104J5U.html
CEPN参加住友林业的展览会
2013年10月，CEPN参加住友林业的展览会，并了解住友林业在印度尼西亚的Project Earth造林项目。
New Leaf：一张纸的环保创新
在旧金山的一个街边打印店里，一包像是被叶子一样紧紧包裹的打印纸吸引了当时正在斯坦福做研究的赵萌的注意。在这个打印纸的包装上，叶子的脉络清晰可见。出于好奇，他在网上查到New Leaf(新叶)这个牌子的环保纸价格并不比非环保纸贵多少。当有次他的朋友说要买打印纸时，他毫不犹豫地向其推荐了New Leaf。
其实，赵萌不算是铁杆环保主义者，“但这种环保纸如此物美价廉，何乐而不为呢?”他说。
在环保主义盛行的今天，赵萌只是众多有同样想法的消费者之一。是新的行业变革，让他们的选择变得简单。
一张“有内涵”的纸
其实，这种打印纸，不过是New Leaf 35条产品线上的产品之一。New Leaf是一家位于旧金山的造纸公司，创立于1998年。它的产品涵盖了学校用纸、办公用纸等多个领域，而每一个产品的包装说明上，都标明了成分和漂白工艺。
“这也许是北美最环保的纸。”New Leaf这样自我标榜。
New Leaf环境型纸张的成分中，包括了多达50%的“消费后剩余材料”，而含有100%“消费后剩余材料”的纸张，则被New Leaf定为“环境优异”型，这涵盖了他们众多的产品线。在美国的垃圾场里，能用作纸浆材料的“消费后剩余材料”含量高达废弃物的40%。但是，相比之下，一般的非环保纸既不会采用“消费后剩余材料”，也不会使用森林管理委员会(FSC)认证的、通过可持续方式获取的原木浆和其他植物浆，在New Leaf的定义里，那种纸张对环境是不友好的。
此外，在制造工艺上，New Leaf坚持使用清洁的化学漂白剂进行无氯漂白，而在传统的造纸行业里，含氯的漂白剂几乎必不可少。
众所周知，造纸行业是传统的污染大户，这在其纤维取材、纸张生产及运输分销三个环节上，都有体现。
传统的造纸行业，使用了世界上木材消耗量的三分之一，并且还在增加中。而用来造纸的纤维或浆料中，85%属于原生木浆。
New Leaf十分重视纸浆的“可持续发展程度”，它将纸浆材料按其环保顺序定义为四种：1.纸浆中含有高比例的“消费后剩余材料”;2.农作物残余物，例如谷物秆或玉米秆;3.尚未使用的纸废料，例如未出售的杂志、造纸厂的残次品等;4.最后是获得森林管理委员会(FSC)认证的、通过可持续方式获取的原木浆和其他植物浆。
使用“消费后剩余材料”来制造纸浆，可降低对于原生木材的依赖程度，同时，这些废弃物本身对环境就是具有破坏性的，将其回收有利于环境保护。
从生产方式看，今天大多数造纸厂仍沿袭19世纪的工作方式。例如，它们建在靠近木材原料、有充沛水源的地方，因为造纸过程需要耗费大量水、能源和原生木浆。运输方面也是高耗能的。周边的社会影响也不容小视，比如砍伐树木的工人和废纸回收工人的工作和生活条件问题，或是造纸过程中的环境和社会问题等。
解决众多顽症，根本手段是用创新再造这个行业。作为New Leaf这样的新进入者，不可避免地碰到了诸如进入门槛、专业能力等多种问题，而这些反过来看，正是New Leaf对产业链进行创新的机遇。
从头铺建创新绿脉
在斯科尔世界论坛(Skoll World Forum)上，New Leaf的创始人杰夫·门德尔松(Jeff Mendelsohn)公开表示，公司的目的就是要用商业运作去改变造纸业，“从成立的第一天起，我们的使命就是从根本上将这个行业改造成一个可持续发展的行业。”
New Leaf将其社会和环境价值，整合进每一条产品线和每一个商业关系中，并用独特的路径和创新的方法去实现这个独特的公司愿景。
“我们公司的目标不是去主宰整个行业，而是去改变，改变顾客期望、造纸厂设计和造纸技术。”门德尔松这样评价公司的愿景。
New Leaf的目标是它的每一种产品都能成为业内的最佳环保实践。这种技术上的环保彻底性是由New Leaf作为社会企业的理想和使命所决定的。但在市场上没有符合他们理念的产品，于是一切要他们从头做起，这就注定了他们作为“创新者”的姿态。
例如，它从一开始就采用能找到的最环保的原料，使用当时最环保的生产技术和流程。公司把大量的时间和精力用来寻找这些原料和钻研这些技术。
“New Leaf募集到的资金不多，事实上，我们创立的头十年靠的都是资金的自我募集，这使得我们不得不将精力集中在可持续发展中，并在没有大额研发费用的时候，集中精力进行产品创新。”门德尔松说。
作为社会创新的长期观察者，现任斯科沃(SKOLKOVO)新兴市场经济研究院研究员的赵萌博士和牛津大学赛义德商学院战略管理学讲师马克·温特莱斯卡(Marc Ventresca)将这种创新行为归结为“探索式创新”。它要求企业能够通过学习建立新的知识基础，从而改变已有的技术路线，建立新的竞争能力，应对新的市场。
“我们只有25位员工，这使得我们的员工都以企业家的态度来做生意。”门德尔松说。他要求员工帮助其他公司做得更好。例如在纸张采购时，New Leaf帮助客户评估怎样在购买和使用过程中最大化地减少成本。所以你在买New Leaf的产品时，可能会突然有一个员工走过来对你说，怎样做能省掉5%。
这种社会企业家精神，让New Leaf在环保理念上走在前面，在产品创新、认证获信、标准制定等都灌输了可持续发展理念，例如，绿化公司营运、提供绿色产品、提供宜人的工作场所等等。
在门德尔松心目中，20年以后的造纸厂是这样的：一家造纸厂为方圆300英里范围内的人服务，所有原材料都从本地采购，市场在本地，那种笨重且高能耗的纸张运输将不再需要。
外散型的产业化创新
为什么选择造纸行业?因为这是污染最严重的行业之一，改变它很困难，所以改变它所产生的影响也就更有示范效应。门德尔松将New Leaf首先定位于一个社会企业。和传统企业相比，成功的社会企业之所以具有强烈的创新性，是因为已有的办法和思路对它们所要解决的问题通常是无效的。
“对人们进行环境教育是我们的主要目标之一。”门德尔松说。New Leaf采用了一种基于价值观的策略，即通过影响人们及厂商的价值观，来推动行业变革。
“这首先是一种社会创新，它是社会价值导向的活动。这就是有效的创新模式遵从于改良社会的价值理念。”赵萌和温特莱斯卡总结说。
要彻底改造这一产业，本质上要让客户接受New Leaf的产品。
New Leaf主攻具有相同价值理念的大公司来保证可维持其运转的订单数量。这包括苹果电脑、惠普、美国服装零售品牌GAP和Old Navy、耐克、美洲银行等。这些大客户为。提供了超过一半的销售收入。在社会公益领域具有创新性的商业企业，例如户外服装品牌Patagonia也是一拍即合地加入到阵营中来。同时，众多最有影响力的环保机构，例如美国自然资源保护委员会、美国环境防卫基金、世界野生生物基金会等，都成为New Leaf的客户。
“这是一种策略”，赵萌说，“通过提升客户在环保和道德上的自我价值来建立一种集体身份，通过为客户创造价值来创造网络的价值。”
同时，它通过战略性的公益机制使商业伙伴的社会和环境影响最大化。
例如，New Leaf和乳腺癌基金会开发了一个叫做TREEty的项目。New Leaf鼓励企业加入该项目从而加入一场使用环保纸的运动。New Leaf每年将来自TREEty企业的销售收入的0.3%到1%捐给乳腺癌基金会。
出版商对New Leaf产品的反映也很好。2001年6月，NLP推出一种采用百分之百消费后废料制成的新型图书用纸EcoBook 100。2003年5月，小说《哈利波特之凤凰令》全部使用EcoBook印刷，共95万册。
2004年7月，市场上已经出现了三种类似的产品。New Leaf对此表示欢迎，因为它的目的是发展整个环保纸产业。
可持续环保的制度化推广
深层次的行业变革需要更多的努力。
为了建立行业标准、实现自我激励，New Leaf建立了生态审计认证(EcoAudit)，激励商业伙伴去使用这个认证，再引起其他组织的仿效。
生态审计认证是一份为客户定制的环境效益声明。上面说明客户消费的New Leaf产品相对于普通白纸节省了多少自然资源，包括树、水、能源，以及少产生多少固体废料、少排放多少温室气体。这些数据根据“环境防卫基金”和“纸业特别委员会”成员机构的研究计算得出。
生态审计认证用一种正式而透明的方式，显示NLP的客户在社会和环境责任方面的努力。许多客户主动把这个认证放在它们的打印文件和出版产品里，这就向更多的潜在客户说明，通过选择New Leaf的产品他们可以清晰地彰显自己在环保上的贡献。
New Leaf还通过创立B型企业制度，传达自身的环保理念。字母B指的是Social Benefit(社会效益)中的B。这种企业的目标和使命是用商业的手段解决社会和环境问题，服务于公共利益。门德尔松希望游说美国国税局专门为这种具有内在道德属性的、可持续发展的以及具有社会责任的企业设立一种新的法律类别。这一类别将把对利益相关方的责任明确写在成立文件中，并享有专门的税收优惠。
“我们希望能够加入到创建一个致力于最高社会和环境责任标准的商业社区的过程中。我们希望B型企业能够助力这个商业社群的发展与成功。”门德尔松说。(据《21世纪经济报道》)
FSC in Russia: Certifying the destruction of Intact Forest Landscapes
A new Greenpeace report launched today reveals that the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is failing to protect Russia’s remaining wild intact forest landscapes (IFLs). Greenpeace analysed 11 years of satellite data (2002 – 2013) for the area between the Northern Dvina and Pinega Rivers in the Archangelsk region of northwest Russia, which has a high concentration of former or current FSC-certified forestry operations. Our study shows how the high conservation value Dvinsky Forest intact forest landscape (IFL) is being destroyed, despite much of the area being formerly or currently FSC certified.
Read the blog here – press release below.
The case study area: Dvinsky Forest (IFL) is located at the centre of the area between the Northern Dvina and Pinega Rivers, and has an area of just under one million hectares. Dvinsky Forest (IFL) is one of the largest non-fragmented natural forests in Europe and is well known for the same high conservation values that the FSC system pledges to preserve.
Intact Forest Landscapes (IFLs): The world’s remaining large intact forest landscapes are irreplaceable and play a crucial role in mitigating climate change, conserving biodiversity, supporting the livelihoods of forest dependent peoples and providing ecosystem services such as carbon storage, water resources and soil stability.
Key findings of the study:
– FSC is certifying logging practices that are destroying irreplaceable forests, including areas slated for legal protection, and has become a serious threat to Russia’s taiga IFLs.
– FSC is failing to distinguish good forest management practices from the typical model of unsustainable forest exploitation widely employed in Russia’s taiga forests
– The destruction of intact forest landscapes is widespread throughout Russia’s taiga.
For immediate release
FSC is certifying the Destruction of Russia’s Intact Forest Landscapes
Moscow, 4th August 2014 – The Forest Stewardship Council’s (FSC) failure to protect Russia’s remaining wild intact forest landscapes (IFLs), including areas slated for legal protection, while widely certifying companies using destructive forest practices has been revealed today.
Tatiana Khakimulina, Forest campaigner for Greenpeace Russia said:
“We hoped that FSC would reform the Russian forest industry’s ‘wood mining’ practices, whereby trees are extracted from forests in much the same way as minerals are mined. Instead of endorsing sustainable forest management and protecting Russia’s irreplaceable IFLs, FSC is providing green cover for their destruction, including Dvinsky Forest – one of the largest unfragmented natural forests in Europe”.
The FSC’s failures and complicity with forest destruction were revealed in the latest in a series of six Greenpeace International case studies highlighting both good and bad examples of FSC certified forest management.2 This case study shows how the Dvinsky Forest intact forest landscape (IFL) in Arkhangelsk region, northwest Russia, is being destroyed, despite much of the area being formerly or currently FSC certified. With an area of just under one million hectares,Dvinsky Forest is well known for the same high conservation values that the FSC system pledges to preserve.3
“FSC must stop driving the destruction of the Dvinsky Forest (IFL), especially while a formal protection process is underway,” continued Khakimulina.
In June, the Ministry of Natural Resources of Arkhangelsk Region established a special working group to help implement Dvinsky Forest (IFL) protection and to address ‘wood mining’ issues.
Although the study focuses on the scandal of ‘wood mining’ in frontier areas of northwest Russia with high concentrations of FSC certificates, this problem is widespread throughout Russia’s taiga. Russia is second only to Canada in having the largest area of FSC certified forest in the world – almost 38.5 million hectares. FSC has clearly been more focused on increasing its certified area in Russia than building trust in its label to provide consumers with the assurances of responsible forest management and forest protection that they expect.
The FSC has become a serious threat to Russia’s last remaining taiga IFLs. The world’s last large intact forest landscapes play a crucial role in mitigating climate change, conserving biodiversity, supporting the livelihoods of forest dependent peoples and providing ecosystem services. It is time for FSC to set clear thresholds for IFL protection.
Dr Christoph Thies, Senior Forest Campaigner for Greenpeace International said:
“If FSC cannot even comply with its own standards and give clear guidance on how to protect irreplaceable forests like IFLs, then its logo will become greenwash, indistinguishable from bogus certification schemes such as PEFC. FSC must act to turn this situation around immediately if it has any hopes of salvaging its credibility”.
Greenpeace urges FSC to take action to ensure the protection of IFLs and prevent forestry disasters such as the one that has occurred in Russia’s taiga during its triennial General Assembly, which takes place this September in Seville, Spain.
Notes to Editor
1 Forest plan of Arkhangelsk Region. Approved by the decree of the Governor of Arkhangelsk region on 20 of December 2011 # 175:http://dvinaland.ru/files/laws/175u.zip
2 The Russia FSC case study, along with previous case studies can be viewed here:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Forests-Reports/FSC-Case-Studies/
3 Dvinsky Forest is considered HCV2 by the FSC, and therefore its intactness must be maintained or enhanced under Principle 9.
2 The Russia FSC case study, along with previous case studies can be viewed here:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Forests-Reports/FSC-Case-Studies/
3 Dvinsky Forest is considered HCV2 by the FSC, and therefore its intactness must be maintained or enhanced under Principle 9.
Contacts for more information
Dr Christoph Thies, Senior Forest Campaigner, Greenpeace International. Tel: +49 1718831107
Tatiana Khakimulina, Forest campaigner, Greenpeace Russia. Tel: +7 (495) 988 74 60
Martin Baker, Communications Manager, Greenpeace International (based Jakarta [CET +5hrs]. Tel: +62 8131 582 9513
Tatiana Khakimulina, Forest campaigner, Greenpeace Russia. Tel: +7 (495) 988 74 60
Martin Baker, Communications Manager, Greenpeace International (based Jakarta [CET +5hrs]. Tel: +62 8131 582 9513
Images available:
Rate of deforestation in Indonesia
Indonesia lost 840,000 hectares of forest in 2012 compared to 460,000 hectares in Brazil, despite its forest being
a quarter the size of the Amazon rainforest.
The Guardian:
Indonesia has greatly under-reported how much primary rainforest it is cutting down, according to the government’s
former head of forestry data gathering.
UN and official government figures have maintained that the country with the third biggest stretch of tropical
forest after the Amazon and Congo was losing 310,00 hectares of all its forest a year between 2000 and 2005,
increasing to 690,000 hectares annually from 2006 to 2010.
Exact rates of Indonesian deforestation have varied with different figures quoted by researchers and government,
but a new study, which claims to be the most comprehensive yet, suggests that nearly twice as much primary forest
is being cut down as in Brazil, the historical global leader.
Belinda Arunarwati Margono, who was in charge of data gathering at Indonesia’s Ministry of Forestry for seven
years and is now on secondment at South Dakota university, calculates that nearly 1m extra hectares of primary
forest may have been felled in the last 12 years than was recorded officially.
In the paper in the journal Nature Climate Change published on Sunday, Margano says primary forest losses totalled
6.02m hectates between 2000 and 2012, increasing by around 47,600 hectares a year over this time. Because previous
estimates of forest loss have included the clearing of pulp plantations and oil palm estates the real loss of
primary forest has until now been obscured.
In 2012, she calculates, Indonesia lost 840,000 hectares of its primary forest, compared to 460,000 hectares in
Brazil, despite its forest being roughly a quarter the size of the Amazon. This, says Margano, was the most lost
by any country.
Annual primary forest cover loss, 2000–2012, for Indonesia as a whole and by island group (Sumatra, Kalimantan,
Papua, Sulawesi, Maluku, Nusa Tenggara and Java and Bali). Dashed lines are linear fits to the data. Photograph:
/Nature Climate Change
The new figures are significant because Indonesia is the world’s third-largest producer of greenhouse gases behind
China and the US, with 85% of its emissions coming from forest destruction and degradation. Primary forests are
the largest above-ground carbon stores in the world.
Margano said that the discrepancies between the figures were due to technical and bureaucratic problems in
Indonesia and better information becoming available. “Government cannot share data fully because of laws. There is
no transparency”, she said.
But the figures are potentially embarrassing because they suggest that a 2011 moratorium on granting new licenses
for clearing or logging of primary forests and carbon-rich peatlands could have been a driver for deforestation.
Margono and co-author Matthew Hansen said the new data from remote sensing showed that the extra losses came
largely from the felling of primary forest in wetlands and in government-protected areas.
“第四届亚洲浆纸工业可持续发展会议”将于10月22-24日在台
中国造纸协会副理事长兼秘书长赵伟和综合业务处王华同于2014年5月14-16日参加了在台北召开的““第四届亚洲浆纸工业可持续发展会议” 会前筹备会议”。此次筹备会议由台湾区造纸工业同业公会组织，邀请了中国造纸协会、日本制纸联合会代表参加。
会议期间，各参会代表就会议议程安排发表意见，经过探讨确定了会议主题与讨论形式，各位代表认为，应该深化会议内容，使会议的召开对亚洲纸业的可持续发展起到积极作用。此外，各参会代表还考察了会议地点及相关设施。并确定“第四届亚洲浆纸工业可持续发展会议”于2014年10月22-24日在台北召开。
全球纸张网络发布强力全新的《全球纸张愿景》
全球纸张网络发布强力全新的《全球纸张愿景》
120个社会及环境非政府组织为呼吁全球造纸行业的改善而结盟
今天，一个集合六大洲超过120家组织的国际网络发布了强力全新的《全球纸张愿景》，以响应近期绝大多数要求造纸行业采用更为可持续的生产实践的呼声。这份要求行业改变的计划阐释了未来30年被预测的翻倍的全球纸张消费状况所蕴含的社会责任与环境保育的优先顺序1，以及造纸行业对生物多样性、森林健康、全球变暖、空气及水的质量和地方社区所造成的影响。
“《全球纸张愿景》是一场影响力深远的世界运动的一致化体现，”环境纸张网络的总干事Joshua Martin说，“从今天起，我们所有署名的组织将向全世界的每一个阶层询问‘你的纸张意味着什么？’”并且促动造纸行业和消费者投入这场为保护人类和地球环境而充满热望的勇敢行动。
《全球纸张愿景》的署名者全都来自环境纸张网络的NGO成员组织，因为各自的成功努力为全体网络所熟知。他们向市场推动更多可持续性的产品，巩固世界上最大的造纸企业所改进的森林管理实务，并且在过去10年间加速了造纸行业的整体转变。最新的统一版《全球纸张愿景》融合了几份区域性愿景中关于从提倡全球造纸行业改革深化到发展出与纸张产品和原材料全球化供应链更为匹配的协作化努力的陈述。
这份全新的《全球纸张愿景》明确了组织间的7项共同宗旨，它们促成改变的关键目标：降低消费；最大化可循环利用；确保社会责任；负责任地采购木纤维；减少温室气体排放；保证清洁生产；以及确保生产过程的透明化。
“纸张的使用有社会的、环境的以及人权的含义，这份愿景为改善这些内容指出了明路。”来自英国组织FERN的Saskia Ozinga如是说。
“Jikalahari意识到造成印尼森林过量采伐的根本原因之一是木材种植园为了满足全球纸浆及纸制品需求而带来的诸多活动，这也是我们为什么需要一份全球纸张愿景的原因。 ”来自NGO组织Jikalahari的Woro Supartinah 这样说，该组织所在的廖内省在印尼过去的20年间经历了最多的森林砍伐。“在很多情况下，纸浆及造纸工业的膨胀与社会冲突、森立火灾、当地依赖森林的人们生计的丧失、生物多样性的丧失、违法行为、腐败以及现代苦役等现象相关。借这份《全球纸张愿景》我们希望参与一场世界范围的运动，按照依赖森林的人们与森林相处的方式对待、管理森林，促成改变。”
“遵循《全球纸张愿景》的指导，纸张使用者可以促使市场出现更好的纸张产品，帮助减少全球升温污染、保持水和能源，并且从垃圾焚烧炉和填埋场里回收可再使用的材料。《全球纸张愿景》是实现更绿色、更健康的纸张产品生产与消费策略统一的有力工具。”自然资源保护委员会（NRDC）的高级资源专家Darby Hoover分析道。
署名者共同承诺：促成非政府组织、造纸行业和其它体系之间的合作与对话； 鼓励政府发展与愿景一致的法规、财政和运营措施； 鼓励在此行业中负责任的投资； 明确和实施负责任的采购和购买指导；监督所有利益相关者走向此愿景的进展； 发起运动终结纸浆和纸张工业中破坏社会和环境的活动。
环境纸张网络将作为中心促成合作与对话，明确和执行共同行动，主持包括负责任的纸张采购指导在内的资源分享，并通过诸如行业发展报告之类的出版物监督愿景的实现进程。
阅读完整版的《全球纸张愿景》及联署名单请访问：www.environmentalpaper.org/Vision.
环境纸张网络是一个国际间的合作化项目体，成员包括120个为促成纸浆和纸张产品的生产和消费的社会和环境意义转变而工作的组织。区域网络领导由北美（environmentalpaper.org）、欧洲（environmentalpaper.eu）以及中国（environmentalpaper.cn）提供。
1 WWF Living Forests Report: Chapter 4: Forests and Wood Products. 2012
全球纸张愿景
全球纸张愿景：
我们拥有一个共同的愿景：希望林业、纸浆和造纸业为生生不息的地球贡献一个清洁、健康、公正、永续的未来。我们寻求一个崭新消费模式的世界：它可以满足人类的需求，物尽其用、消费有度。它的纸张生产是更少依赖于原生林木，不以破坏生物多样性和森林为代价，最大程度回收利用，尊重人权包括当地居民的土地权利，为社区居民提供就业，带来有益、和谐、公平的社会影响。我们寻求成功通向未来纸浆和纸张行业变革之路，它能助力解决气候变化问题、原料来源无害可靠，使用低碳、可再生能源，清洁用水，零废零排。我们寻求完全透明，愿与众多伙伴合作，共同实现此愿景！生物多样性和森林为代价，最大程度回收利用，尊重人权包括当地居民的土地权利，为社区居民提供就业，带来有益、和谐、公平的社会影响。我们寻求成功通向未来纸浆和纸张行业变革之路，它能助力解决气候变化问题、原料来源无害可靠，使用低碳、可再生能源，清洁用水，零废零排。我们寻求完全透明，愿与众多伙伴合作，共同实现此愿景！
全文下载：http://www.environmentalpaper.cn/upload/file/EnvironmentalPaperNetwork_CN.pdf
中资银行不执行，绿色政策有何用？
中资银行不执行，绿色政策有何用？
中资银行无视《绿色信贷指引》以及厄瓜多尔人对拟建铜矿的呼吁
“可持续金融与发展的领导者……” “建立了超越西方机构的绿色金融新模式……” “我们看到的唯一国家……” “超越……” “世界上最先进的之一……” “新锐模式……” “中国有机会成为可持续发展的全球领导者……”
以上只是我最近听到的称赞中国《绿色信贷指引》（中国政府2012年发布的银行业规章）的溢美之词的一小部分。此政策究竟有何特别之处？
厄瓜多尔经济与社会权利中心的Paulina Garzon告诉《卫报》，《绿色信贷指引》的特别之处在于，它要求银行提供贷款前考虑项目的社会和环境影响，并在整个项目周期中对其进行严格监察。此外，贷款的监管方式亦有创新。
经济与社会权利中心近日出版了一本介绍中国海外贷款和投资相关社会环境法规的西班牙语手册，Garzon是该书作者。她指出，“中国银监会已同意在国内和国际层面评价、管理和监督中资国有银行贷款的社会和环境风险。我们还没有看到任何其他国家的银行监管机构作出类似承诺。”
Garzon说，中国银监会“承认提供贷款的银行负有社会和环境责任，且该责任并不终止于向客户（无论政府还是企业）放贷之时，而是持续项目的整个实施阶段，直至其结束。” 她接着说：
《绿色信贷指引》明确规定，银行必须确保信贷资金最大限度地减少其资助项目的社会和环境影响，甚至指出当社会和环境不合规时可中止贷款。一些多边银行亦有类似原则，但在国家银行中尚属先例。
Garzon说，《绿色信贷指引》为中资银行必须开展的“尽职调查”制定了非常高的标准。
“尽职调查必须‘全面、深入、细致’，意味着银行必须对项目的社会和环境影响进行周密调查，”她说。“此类表述在任何其他金砖国家银行的环境准则中均不存在。”
经济与社会权利中心最近出版的手册中把《绿色信贷指引》列为涉及中资国有银行海外贷款的7项最重要的法规之一，重点提到了开展项目现场检查以及把环境条款纳入贷款合同等规定。在最近的一篇文章中，Garzon更进一步把《绿色信贷指引》描述为“可能是中国最重要和有用的社会与环境法规，并且是全球范围内最先进的银行法规之一。”Garzon说：
《绿色信贷指引》规定，中资银行必须在项目的设计、准备、施工、竣工、运营、关停各环节进行社会和环境影响评估。此要求比国家法律更为严格。此外，它还指出项目……尤其是涉及重大社会和环境风险的项目，必须与国际上的社会和环境良好做法保持一致……《绿色信贷指引》还提供了评估和监测项目每一阶段社会和环境影响的各种工具。
大地之友（美国）的Michelle Chan也对《绿色信贷指引》给予肯定，称它是“中国可持续金融政策的典范。”
“因为它是强制性的，并且对于履行环境和社会责任不达标的客户（包括海外项目）有具体的融资后果 —— 即中止或终止贷款。” 她说，“几乎没有其他国家发布包含上述要求的政策。公平地说，中国的可持续金融政策，尤其是《绿色信贷指引》，确实是世界上最先进的之一。”
Chan认为，美国或欧洲都没有等效的绿色金融政策。
“虽然《赤道原则》十分重要，但其采纳和实施全凭自愿。没有国家规定必须切实执行。另一方面，《绿色信贷指引》是自上而下的强制性国家法规。”
但如果《绿色信贷指引》只是纸上谈兵呢？中资银行理会此政策吗？我最近为“中外对话”所做的报道提到，厄瓜多尔的非政府组织和土著领导人致信6家中资银行 —— 中国银行、中国国家开发银行、中国进出口银行，中国招商银行，中国建设银行和中国工商银行，以及中国银监会 —— 指出拟建的El Mirador铜矿项目将对神鹰山区（Cordillera del Condor）“脆弱的生态系统”造成“不可逆转的破坏”，并侵犯土著人民的权利。他们认为资助该项目违反了《绿色信贷指引》，并要求与银行方面会晤，以便解释“为何El Mirador项目无论对中国或厄瓜多尔而言，皆是一个糟糕的选择。”
中国的国有企业铜陵有色金属集团（铜陵有色）下属子公司是Mirador项目的合资方，该项目计划占用近1万公顷土地建设露天铜矿。厄方已确认铜陵有色获得了上述银行的贷款，但未证实这些款项是否专为Mirador项目提供。
“我们恭敬询问贵行如何积极执行《绿色信贷指引》，以解决贵行客户铜陵有色涉及的问题（例如，对当地生态系统造成“不可逆转的”破坏，并侵犯土著人民的权利）？贵行对该项目的环境和社会风险评价作了怎样的修改？”厄方1月28日发出的信中如此问道。
中方的反应如何？有如石沉大海。两封信被退回，而讯息传达到其他四家银行的唯一迹象是中国银行给其中一家非政府组织生态行动打去的电话。
“中国银行的雇员打来三次电话才找到我。他说需要信函的西班牙语版，”生态行动的Gloria Chicaiza说，“我把函件的英语和西班牙语版通过电子邮件发送给了他。我问了他的名字和银行联系电话，他叫我把问题写在邮件里，并保证将会作答。他又打来一次电话，问我是否发送了邮件。我说已经发送了。此后他既未再打电话，也没有回复我。”
据Chicaiza说，信件寄出之后，Mirador项目在继续推进，森林被清除，警察也被派驻到项目地控制外人进出。
“眼下，《绿色信贷指引》的问题在于，有越来越多的证据表明，它并未被中资银行在海外执行，并且此情况未引起中国银行业监管机构的重视，”大地之友（美国）的Chan说。“从我们了解的案例来看，没有证据表明中国公司或银行把它当回事。中资银行既未明确认可、也未切实执行该政策。甚至不清楚，中资银行和公司是否知道该政策是强制性要求。”
“遗憾的是，迄今为止，尽管有《绿色信贷指引》存在，但中资银行资助的涉及重大社会和环境影响的数十个项目的社会和环境影响评价并未改善。”经济与社会权利中心的Garzon在她最近的一篇文章中写道，“这些投资达数十亿美元的项目涉及采矿、石油和天然气、大型水电、道路和交通以及农业产业化……中国银监会仍未设立负责确保银行遵守《绿色信贷指引》的部门。“
和厄瓜多尔人一样，我也没有收到银行的回音。当我试图为“中外对话“的文章联络他们时，注意到钢琴家郎朗作为中国招商银行的“品牌大使“出现在其网站首页，旁边有句口号，”一切为您“。
“一切为您”？试试看跟Mirador项目地周围的厄瓜多尔人这样说。
What good are China’s green policies if its banks don’t listen?
Chinese banks ignore pleas by Ecuadorians over planned copper mine and the “Green Credit Directive”
“Leader in sustainable finance and development. . .” “Exceeding Western institutions in establishing new models of green finance. . .” “The only country we’ve seen. . .” “Going above and beyond. . .” “Among the most progressive in the world. . .” “A cutting edge model. . .” “China’s chance to become the global leader in sustainable development. . .”
These are just a few of the encouraging remarks I’ve heard recently about China’s “Green Credit Directive” (GCD), a 2012 Chinese government banking regulation. What’s so special about it?
Paulina Garzon, from Ecuador’s Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CDES), told The Guardian that it’s the GCD’s requirement that banks consider social and environmental impacts before making a loan for a project and then rigorously monitor such impacts throughout the project’s life, as well as the way such loans are regulated.
“The public institution regulating the banks, the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC), has agreed at national and international levels to evaluate, manage and supervise the social and environmental risks of loans given by Chinese state banks,” says Garzon, author of a manual recently published by CDES, in Spanish, on socio-environmental regulations for Chinese loans and investment abroad. “We haven’t seen that type of agreement from a bank regulatory body in any other country.”
According to Garzon, China, through the CBRC, has “acknowledged that the bank making the loan has social and environmental responsibilities, and that such responsibilities don’t end when the loan is made to the client – whether government or company – but continue throughout the implementation of the project until it closes.” She goes on:
The GCD clearly stipulates that banks are obliged to ensure that loans minimize the social and environmental impacts of the projects that they finance, and it even indicates that a loan can be suspended if social and environmental regulations aren’t met. Some multilateral banks have similar principles, but not national banks.
Garzon says the GCD has set a “very high bar” in terms of the “due diligence” activities that Chinese banks must carry out.
“This due diligence has to be “complete, exhaustive and detailed” and means that banks must do meticulous research on social and environmental impacts,” she says. “This type of language doesn’t exist in any of the environmental guidelines from any other national bank in BRICs countries.”
CDES’s recently-published manual lists the GCD as one of the seven most important regulations regarding Chinese state banks’ loans abroad, highlighting elements such as the responsibility to make on-site project visits and incorporate environmental conditions into loan contracts. In a recent article Garzon goes even further, describing the GCD as “probably China’s most important and useful social and environmental regulation, and one of the most advanced banking regulations at the global level.” According to Garzon:
The [GCD] establishes that Chinese banks must do social and environmental impact evaluations for all stages of a project. . . including: design, preparation, construction, implementation, operation and closure. This requirement is more exacting than national laws. In addition, [it] states that projects. . . especially those involving important social and environmental risks, must comply with best international social and environmental practices. . . It offers various instruments to evaluate and monitor the social and environmental impacts of every stage of a project.
Michelle Chan, from Friends of the Earth-USA, also speaks positively of the GCD, calling it a “prime example of Chinese sustainable finance policies.”
“That’s because it’s mandatory, it has specific financing consequences – i.e. suspension or termination of loans – for clients who don’t fulfill the required level of environmental and social obligations, and it includes overseas projects,” she says. “Few other, if any, countries have released policies that incorporate these points. It’s fair to say that Chinese sustainable finance policies, specifically the GCD, are indeed some of the most progressive in the world.”
Chan believes there is no equivalent green banking policy in the USA or Europe.
“There are the Equator Principles,” she says, “which, although important, are completely voluntary in adoption and implementation and no national regulation from specific countries to actually enforce them. On the other hand, the GCD is a top-down national regulation and required.”
But what if the GCD only exists on paper? Are Chinese banks paying attention? As I reported recently for chinadialogue, Ecuadorian NGOs and indigenous leaders have written to six Chinese banks – the Bank of China, the China Development Bank, China’s Export-Import Bank, the China Merchants Bank, the China Construction Bank, and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, as well as the CBRC – stating that a planned copper mine will “irreversibly devastate” the “fragile ecosystem” in the Cordillera del Condor region and violate indigenous peoples’ rights. They argue that funding the project contravenes the GCD, and ask to meet the banks to explain “why El Mirador is a poor choice as a development project for both China and Ecuador.”
The Mirador project – as it’s called, set to be an open-sky mine and involve almost 10,000 hectares – is joint-owned by a subsidiary of the Chinese state-controlled Tongling Nonferrous Metals Group Holding Company. The Ecuadorians have confirmed Tongling has received loans from the banks, although they couldn’t confirm if such loans were specifically for Mirador.
“We respectfully ask how [your Bank] is actively implementing the Green Credit Directive to resolve these problems [e.g. among local communities, “irreversibly” devastating the ecosystem, and violating indigenous peoples’ rights] in regards to your client, TNMG [Tongling], and how your institution has modified its environmental and social risk assessment to this project,” the Ecuadorians’ letters, dated 28 January, states.
The response? Nada. Two of the letters were returned, and the only indication that any of the other four banks had been reached was a telephone call from the Bank of China to one of the NGOs, Accion Ecologica.
“An employee from the Bank phoned – three times until he got hold of me – and said he needed a Spanish version of the letter,” says Accion Ecologica’s Gloria Chicaiza. “I emailed it to him in English and Spanish. I asked him his name and for a telephone number at the Bank, and he asked me to put that in an email and assured me he would reply. He called one more time to ask if I had sent the letter, and I said that I had done. After that, he didn’t call again, nor reply to me.”
Since the letters were posted, operations at Mirador have been advancing, according to Chicaiza, with forest cleared and the police arriving to restrict access.
“The problem with the GCD at the moment is the growing evidence that it isn’t being implemented by Chinese banks overseas, and this lack of implementation is being overlooked by Chinese banking regulators,” says Friends of the Earth-USA’s Chan. “From the cases we’ve looked at, there’s no evidence that Chinese companies or banks are taking it seriously, and there has been no discernible recognition or action from Chinese banks to implement it. It’s not even clear if Chinese banks and companies know it’s a requirement.”
“Unfortunately, to date, the existence of the GCD has not led to better social and environmental evaluation in the tens of projects with serious social and environmental impacts funded by Chinese banks,” CDES’s Garzon wrote in her recent article, “which are investing billions of dollars in mining and oil and gas, the construction of hydroelectric mega-projects, road and other transport projects, and industrial agriculture. . . The China Banking Regulatory Commission still doesn’t have a department responsible for ensuring that banks comply with the Green Credit Directive.”
Like the Ecuadorians, I didn’t hear back from the banks either, when I tried to contact for them for the chinadialogue article, but noted that pianist Lang Lang features on the front page of the China Merchants Bank’s (CMB) website as its “brand ambassador” alongside the slogan, “We are here just for you.”
“We are here just for you”? Try telling that to the Ecuadorians around Mirador.