Trade and Environmental Diplomacy: Strategic Options for ASEAN

Abstract

I NJUNE 1992, the Austrian parliament passed a law requiring mandatory labelling of tropical timber imports. This legislation required that imported timber commodities be certified as having been produced under sustainable forest conditions. In ajoint communique issued inJuly 1992, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) reiterated that and development are mutually interrelated and mutually reinforcing. The right to development is a fundamental right of all peoples and measures for the protection of the environment should support economic growth and sustainable development. The Foreign Ministers reaffirmed that ASEAN should strengthen joint actions in countering the anti-tropical timber campaign in the major developed countries.' Malaysia elevated the case to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in November 1992. However, before a GATT ruling could be obtained, the tropical timber countries threatened to ban all Austrian imports. In March 1993, Austria repealed its legislation. This case illustrates the advanced perception among ASEAN countries regarding the impact of environmental issues in the development process. Their suspicion and resistance against proposed restrictions against the timber trade emanate from the central role these countries ascribe to export capability in the development effort. Among the members of ASEAN, Thailand and the Philippines have lost the capacity to export tropical hardwood and are now net importers of wood. Indonesia, on the other hand, has expressed no strong objections to the eco-labelling of tropical timber exports. ASEAN was able to arrive at a common stance on the timber trade issue based on a shared antipathy against the protectionist policies of industrial economies. In 1992, after several unsuccessful attempts to deepen their economic linkages, the ASEAN countries announced the formation of an ASEAN Free Trade Area