| Summary: | <p>Forest certification has expanded rapidly over the past five years. It was developed to make use of the trade in forest products to promote and stimulate sustainable forest management, and recognised that certification would have to offer commercial advantages to be taken up by trading enterprises. Paralleling this expansion, the application of genetic modifications has been heralded as a great tool in progress towards improved ecological management, alleviating poverty in developing countries (Nuffield Council on Bioethics 1999) and offering financial benefits to industry. However, one of the most prominent certification bodies, the Forest Stewardship Council, has barred the use of genetic modification (GM) in the forests that it certifies.</p> <p>GM has caused concern amongst many environmental organisations, which fear irresponsible applications of such a powerful technology and the 'unnatural' alteration of an organism's genetic code (Greenpeace 2000; Soil Association 2000; Owusu 1999). Yet the potential benefits to humanity are enormous, and many scientists cannot understand the desire for an outright ban on useful modifications (Strauss 2000a). Herein lies what many perceive as the fundamental crux of the debate; in evaluating the risks of genetic modification we must unravel a complex set of scientific, practical, ethical, philosophical and anthropogenic interactions using weighted judgement. This weighted judgement is a personal issue drawing on an individuals beliefs. Deciding upon a procedure that accommodates all stakeholders opinion is very difficult. Moreover, since each application of GM is different, a polarised acceptance or rejection is impossible. The issue is not black or white; each transgenic trait is a shade of grey.</p> <p>The issues discussed in this paper illustrate that GM has potential benefits and risks, and that these are not restricted to GM per se, but are applicable to 'conventional' breeding technologies and existing forestry practices, many of which are readily certified. Ideally each gene modification should be examined in isolation and against equivalent certification procedures. This would necessitate a more explicit risk / benefit assessment, rather than a politicised, unconditional ban on a potentially beneficial technology. However, the lack of precise information surrounding the risks of GM will make this difficult, because it leads to subjective judgements based on personal beliefs. More field testing of genetically modified trees will aid in making decisions surrounding their use.</p> <p>GM is still in its infancy and there are legitimate concerns. Yet it would be very shortsighted to automatically exclude GM from. certification programmes and loose the concomitant benefits of this technology. In the next 5 to 10 years plantations of transgenic trees will start appearing, most probably in developing countries with liberal forest legislation. Certification bodies have the potential to ensure these plantations conform to high standards. Certifiers, particularly the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) with its e~o-credibility and global perspective, can play a pivotal role in imposing realistic criteria for GM tree certification.</p> <p>However, the politics surrounding FSC certification are not welcoming to GM. For the foreseeable future, companies pursuing GM are likely to only undertake ISO and regional certification, and monitor the position of the FSC. Certification has the potential to endorse the rational appraisal of genetic modification and its concomitant benefits to the environment. Banning GM may defer the ecological benefits trangenics have to offer, or worse, marginalise GM plantations to regions where legislation and monitoring enable irresponsible use of GM trees.</p>
|
|---|