Disney and HarperCollins - RAN is just behind you!

We are following for some time after RAN's campaign aiming to ensure children's books are not printed on paper linked to Indonesian rainforest destruction. Their efforts, which included the release of a detailed report report a consumer guide, are focusing now on two publishers that are still: Disney Publishing and HarperCollins.

We were curious to hear how's the campaign is going and asked Robin Averbeck, RAN's forest campaigner and Lafcadio Cortesi, RAN's forest campaign director to tell us more about it.

Hi Robin and Lafcadio. Can you tell us more about this campaign and what you achieved so far?

RAN started this campaign in early 2010 by fiber testing three books printed in China on coated papers from each of the top ten U.S. children's book publishers. We were surprised to find mixed tropical hardwoods and/or acacia fiber, both from the clearing and conversion of Indonesia's rainforests, in 60% of the books we tested. We released these findings in a report in late May and followed it up with a lot education and outreach to publishers.

After a period of education and engagement with publishers, we decided to release a consumer guide in November, which ranked publishers based on their commitments related to Indonesian rainforests and their broader environmental policies and practices. We gave each publisher one of three designations: Recommended, Can do better, or Avoid. Recommended publishers were publishers that committed to phase controversial Indonesian fiber and suppliers APP and APRIL until reforms are achieved and had a comprehensive paper policy or a commitment to create one.

This group included Scholastic, Hachette, Simon & Schuster, Pearson/Penguin Group, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Macmillan, and Candlewick Press. Publishers that can do better include Random House and Sterling Publishing. Both made commitments to improve their paper practices and phase out controversial Indonesian fiber until reforms are achieved but had not committed to eliminating controversial suppliers APP and APRIL. Lastly, publishers to avoid are Disney Publishing and HarperCollins, and they have made no commitments to protecting Indonesia's or other endangered forests.

When we started this work, only one company, Scholastic, had taken formal action to eliminate ties with APP and APRIL and phase out controversial Indonesian fiber from their supply chain, but after engaging the others through the report and consumer guide process, we helped the vast majority of major U.S. children's book publishers to realize their impact on Indonesia's forests, understand the severity of the problem, and take action. We plan to ensure that publishers really follow through and implement their commitments and also keep up the pressure on the remaining laggards of the industry, HarperCollins and Disney Publishing. Here’s a blog we just wrote about Disney’s recent paper policy, which sadly falls short for Indonesia’s and other forests.

Why do you think Disney Publishing and HarperCollins don't agree to join the other publishers in taking steps to protect Indonesia's rainforests?

The only way to really know is to ask Disney Publishing and HarperCollins. If I were to speculate, I would guess they haven't taken action because it costs more money to be environmentally and socially responsible, and they believe they can get away with business as usual by simply paying lip service to these issues rather than taking meaningful action.

Do you think readers care about this issue? If they do, is there any evidence that they're willing to take these concerns into consideration when buying children's books?

I know readers care about this issue. From our first emails about this work to our most recent blog posts, people are following this campaign and have a lot to say. Mostly, people are shocked to discover that some of their favorite books (even those about environmental issues) are being printed on papers contributing to destruction of some of the world's most precious rainforests. People downloaded our book guide in large numbers, and many contributed to our rainforest-safe book database by going out to their local bookstores and sleuthing for books printed on recycled and FSC-certified papers.

From your experience in this campaign - What are the most effective ways to increase book lovers' awareness and get them to do the right thing?

Well, book lovers by and large are people who already care about the environment. For us, any sort of educational outreach has been met with a very positive response. However, to some extent consumer choice is different in the category of books than it is for other paper products, like toilet paper for example.

If someone wants a certain book but it is printed on environmentally unsound paper, they can't just buy a different book and get the same product. That's why it's so important that consumers put their concerns directly to the publisher to advocate for changes. Right now, we have an email campaign to Disney where people can voice their concerns, but picking up the phone, sending personal emails and letters, writing concerns on publishers' Facebook pages, etc. are always great too.

Of course, buying used books or using the local library are also good environmental options that we support. However, for a reader, these options won't always yield the book that is wanted, so again, it’s essential for consumers to voice concerns directly to the publishers.

It’s also very important for authors to learn about and talk with their publishers about these issues – requesting that their books be printed on environmentally responsible paper. The authors we’ve spoken with care and some have already taken action.

What do you tell supporters who ask you whether buying e-books won't be the most simple way to solve the problem and hence publishers should be encouraged to move from paper books to e-books?

Well, we know that electronic devices don't solve our environmental problems, they usually just present a different set of challenges related to mining, disposal, etc. We haven't done a lifecycle analysis to compare environmental impacts of e-reader vs. paper, so we can't speak to comparative pros and cons. We can say, however, if you're using paper, make sure it's good paper.

What will be your next steps in this campaign?

RAN will continue to track the progress of publishers we included in our first consumer guide as well as others. We also plan to keep up the pressure on the remaining laggards of the industry, HarperCollins and Disney Publishing. You can look forward to more from us in the months ahead, and for anyone who would like to keep up with us, they can join our Rapid Responder list.

Thank you Robin and Lafcadio!

To learn more visit http://www.ran.org/bookguide

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!


* Photos courtesy of RAN

Why RAN's rainforest-safe children's books campaign might not mobilize consumers to take action?

Rainforest Action Network (RAN) released yesterday a new report grading 11 of the largest children’s book publishers in the US. Their grades were given based on their paper policies and purchasing practices. It was also accompanied by a consumer guide, asking consumers to choose books from publishers who are committed to rainforest protection.

Both the report and the consumer guide follow a report launched by RAN in May, which found that a large number of kids’ books sold in the US are now being printed in Asia using paper that is closely linked to the loss of rainforests in Indonesia.

This is a very important campaign and we applaud RAN for their efforts to ensure that books will be printed sustainably and won't be contribute to the destruction or Indonesian rainforests. This campaign is clearly aiming at mobilizing consumers to buy rainforest-safe children's books this holiday season (and in general), but we have to ask ourselves - is it really effective? is it really change consumers' behavior?

First, let's look into what RAN's guide include. According to their press release,RAN’s guide recommends that consumers buy from industry leaders that have taken action publicly to decrease their forest and environmental footprints by creating time-bound commitments to phase out controversial Indonesian paper fiber and paper suppliers. The recommended companies include Hachette Book Group, Candlewick Press, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, MacMillan, Penguin Group (Pearson), Scholastic and Simon & Schuster. (the last three publishers, by the way, took part in the Green Books Campaign).

Some top publishing companies have yet to take public action to protect Indonesia’s rainforests. These companies have failed to make public commitments or adopt purchasing policies that improve their environmental footprints and ensure the papers they buy are not linked to Indonesian rainforest destruction. RAN’s guide recommends that book buyers avoid these companies this year: Disney Publishing Worldwide and HarperCollins.

So this is the message. Loud and clear - buy books published by the recommend publishers and avoid the ones that got a Failed grade. What tools RAN is using to get the message out to consumers? You got the following:

- A pocket-size shopping guide, which can be downloaded and printed. You can also share it with friends on Facebook and tweet it.

- There's the full report you can read online: Rainforest-Safe Kids' Books: How do Publishers Stack Up?

- Rainforest-Safe Book Database

- 'Roar At the Store' week - from December 6th-12th, hundreds across North America will hand out rainforest-safe guides in front of their favorite bookstores.

This is an impressive campaign. But will these tools help the campaign to meet its goals? Will it mobilize people to take action and buy only rainforest-safe children's books? I'm not sure about it and there are couple of reasons that makes me worry that the campaign won't be as effective as it could be:

1. The first step in mobilizing consumers into action is to get them aware of the campaign and its messages. RAN makes an effort to make it social network friendly and to have presence in bookstores during the first week of December, but I wonder how many consumers will actually hear about it.

First, a growing number of consumers buy online (online spending this holiday season is expected to grow by at least 9% according to analytics firm comScore), and the chances they will hear about the campaign are relatively slim. Second, even though RAN will have presence in hundreds of stores during the first week of December, they will still be able to reach to only a small percentage of the buyers.

What can be done? The best option would be to collaborate with book retailers such as Amazon, B&N, Indigo, Borders and the American Booksellers Association. If even one of them would agree to collaborate with RAN, there's a much better chance to reach a much greater number of consumers both at brick and mortar stores and online.

But I guess that's not going to happen as no retailer would agree to call his customers to avoid books they're selling. It just doesn't makes sense for them. So if we're looking at RAN's options realistically then I believe their best option then is to go viral - a viral campaign, just like what Greenpeace did with their 'Ask Nestle to give rainforests a break' campaign is the only way to get the word out effectively and reach a large number of consumers.

2. The most problematic part is how to mobilize consumers into action. OK, so you got people to hear about the campaign and let's assume many of them really relate to the message and care about the rainforests in Indonesia. Will it be enough to convince them to prefer books published by "good" publishers and avoid ones published by "bad" publishers? I doubt.

And the reason I doubt is that according to the rules of green marketing there's a good chance it won't work. Now, you can wonder why an activism campaign should look into rules of green marketing - RAN is not a company and it doesn't try to sell anything. That's true, but at the same time it tries to influence consumers' behavior and get them to buy a "green" product over a "non-green product", which is exactly what green marketing is all about.

One of the basic rules of green marketing, according to green marketing expert Jacquelyn Ottman, is to avoid trade-offs and if you can’t, make sure the cost to consumers of the green attribute doesn’t outweigh the product’s benefits.

Let's look for a moment at the equation here. The cost is very clear - you need to avoid certain books, even you wanted to buy them in the first place because of their publisher's practices. Instead you're being asked to buy books from a list of rainforest-safe books of publishers who got a Recommended grade. The benefit is that by doing that you're supporting publishers who help to protect Indonesia's rainforests.

Would this benefit be enough to persuade consumers to pay the price? Not to most of the consumers. This is unfortunate of course, but that's the reality. For the majority of the consumers you need actual benefits and not just the good feeling of doing the right thing to outweigh the costs. These benefits can be for example a discount on the recommended books, an hard to resist deal such as buy two recommended books and get the third one for free, discount coupons, etc. Without such benefits that will reward consumers for taking green actions you will be able to persuade only a small percentage of consumers to do the right thing.

What can be done? Again, the best way is collaborating with retailers, but since it's not realistic, maybe RAN should check with the recommended publishers how to create an hard to resist deal or provide consumers with discounts (maybe through websites like groupon). Another way to incentivize consumers is to find a green sponsor that will give a coupon for every purchase of a recommended book (RecycleBank is an inspirational example of this concept).

Another way to change the equation is to reduce the costs. The shopping guide is really small and informational, but still it's a hassle to check every book with the list of the publishers on it (especially when each one of them has many imprints). How about an App, where you can scan the ISBN of the book on your mobile phone and get an immediate YES/NO recommendation? This can also be a convenient way to provide coupons or discounts.

I'm sure that such an App will significantly increase the number of consumers that will use the guide and take it into consideration, as it will lower the cost they need to pay for taking a positive green action.

In all, we wish RAN all the best with this important campaign, but because of its importance and the effort they already put into it, I do hope they'll take into consideration some of the comments made here and will make this campaign as effective as it can possibly be.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting Sustainable Reading!

A paper company loses a contract worth $55m annually following Greenpeace protest in Indonesia

While the expectations of the upcoming Conference in Copenhagen seems lower and lower every day, Greenpeace is still working hard to remind us (and the world's leaders) of the urgent need to take a decisive action on climate change, especially when it comes to deforestation. It also reminds paper companies that it's still a watchdog with very sharp teeth. Just ask APRIL.

But first, the protest: As reported on Grist, last week, about 50 Greenpeace activists blocked rainforest destruction in Indonesia’s Kampar Peninsula by chaining themselves to excavators. Activists then draped a bright red “Obama You Can Stop This” banner over the destruction and called on the world’s leaders to stop deforestation at next month’s climate talks in Copenhagen.

Greenpeace explains on their website that "with up to a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions coming from cutting down and burning forests, it's clear we cannot avert a climate disaster unless world leaders take action of their own to stop the destruction."

And now for their interesting findings abut Asia Pacific Resources International Holding Limited (APRIL), a pulp and paper company - Greenpeace reported that in response to a letter they sent voicing their concerns about forest destruction in he Kampar Peninsula on the Indonesian island of Sumatra, APRIL stated that it had ceased operations in the Kampar Peninsula.

Greenpeace claimed it has now proof that APRIL is actually destroying this rainforest and draining forest peatland on Sumatra’s threatened Kampar Peninsula. Greenpeace also brought this evidence to a public meeting held by APRIL in the regional capital of Pekanbaru where the company was introducing the latest of a string of so-called 'High Value Forest Assessments' aimed at greenwashing its image.

The consequences were quick to follow - UPM, a Finnish-owned company which supplies products like photocopier paper to markets including Europe, the US and China, decided to cancel its contract with APRIL due to the company's poor environmental record. This is not a small hit for APRIL - Greenpeace estimates that APRIL’s contract with UPM was worth $55m annually, or over 4% of APRIL’s total pulp production.

So now couple of interesting questions arise here:

1. Will other companies follow suit and cancel their contracts with APRIL as well?

2. How much time will it take to APRIL to respond to Greenpeace and what will they do?

3. Will political forces follow the example of the business sector and do something about our poor environmental record at Copenhagen?

I hope we'll have answers to these questions in the next couple of weeks and we'll of course keep you posted once we'll have more updates.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting responsible printing!

Brazil's president will pledge in Copenhagen to reduce the pace of the Amazon's deforestation by 80%

If you're going over the news, looking for something positive about the upcoming global climate talks in Copenhagen in December, I think we got one for you.

Agence France-Presse reports that the Brazilian President Lula said on Tuesday that "he will offer to reduce the pace of deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon rain forest by 80 percent by 2020 when he attends December’s global climate talks in Copenhagen."

This pledge is translating to emitting 4.8 billion fewer tons of carbon dioxide gas. This is definitely a bold pledge, but how will Brazil do it? well, Lula didn't get into details, but as we mentioned here many times (here and here for example) it will probably will involve the concept of paying landowners to keep their trees standing and not cut them down.

Lula may reveal more details only in Copenhagen but he already knows who will pay the bill - he said according to the news that "he will also demand in Copenhagen that industrialized countries pay their fair share of the costs of reducing greenhouse gases."

It makes sense of course as the burden can't fall only on Brazil's shoulders, but nevertheless it's still a complicated task. So, good news? well, it's just a pledge but it's definitely good news to see that the discussion on the implementation of the "pay landowners to keep trees standing" is moving forward and hopefully, with the help of Lula,it will move forward significantly in Copenhagen. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting sustainable reading!

Pee in the shower! Save the Atlantic rainforest!

And how can anyone say No to such a funny ad?



This ad is part of a new campaign created by Brazilian environmental group SOS Mata Atlantica, using humor to persuade people to reduce flushes.

SOS Mata Atlantica is a Brazilian non-profit private organization, with no political or religious affiliations, which works for the protection of the Atlantic Forest (Mata Atlantica), one of the richest sets of ecosystems in terms of biodiversity, and also considered one of the most threatened with extinction on the planet.

The group says if a household avoids one flush a day, it can save up to 4,380 liters (1,157 gallons) of water annually. SOS spokeswoman Adriana Kfouri told AP that the ad is "a way to be playful about a serious subject."

This is definitely a great ad and I'm only wondering how much it can help the Mata Atlantica, but I guess any step, no matter how small it is, can be helpful!

The organization website in English - http://www.sosma.org.br/english.html

The campaign's website - http://www.xixinobanho.org.br/

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting green reading!

How investors can save the forests? check out the Ethical Corporation Magazine

We discussed here in the past ideas and programs that were offered to save forests and prevent deforestation. The bottom line was always the same: living trees should have a greater monetary value than dead trees. This is the best incentive to keep them alive.

Now you can read about it more on the latest issue of the Ethical Corporation Magazine. In this issue published on 1 February, the magazine shows how investors could make money and save trees through market-based schemes for rainforest conservation.

The magazine describes what you are expected to find on their report: "In an in-depth special report, Ethical Corporation magazine looks at the financial instruments being devised to protect rainforests, such as carbon offsets for avoided deforestation, and asks whether they can work for investors and tropical regions."

The main opportunity for investors stems from the carbon market. Carbon financing based on forest protection wasn't permitted under the Kyoto Protocol, but as we reported in the past, it was discussed in the U.N.’s Bali meeting in December 2007 (and also in Poznan in 2008), and though it is not approved yet, there's a good chance it will be part of the post-Kyoto protocol that will replace in 2012 and should be finalized in Copenhagen later on this year.

So since we're talking about an instrument that hasn't been approved yet, there are definitely some risks involved, but accordingly of course investors are seeing better pricing (and returns). It's a very interesting and important subject and this article is definitely worth reading (subscription is required).

What else you can find on this issue? check it out here - http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=6307

More articles about relevant issues:

Al Gore and Wangari Maathai calls the U.N. General Assemby to support protection of forests

Merrill Lynch is investing in forest protection

How to deal with the growing deforestation in the Amazon rain forest?

Prince Charles wants to team up with Norway to save forests

Preserving forests to fight global warming

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris
www.ecolibris.net

World Fair Trade Day 2008: Fair Trade + Ecology

Tomorrow is World Fair Trade Day, and this year's theme is “Fair Trade + Ecology”. It was first celebrated in 2005, and has taken place each year since, on the second Saturday in May.

Here's the wiki definition of fair trade:

“Fair trade is an organized social movement and market-based approach to alleviating global poverty and promoting sustainability. The movement advocates the payment of a fair price as well as consciousness of social and environmental standards in areas related to the production of a wide variety of goods. It focuses in particular on exports from developing countries to developed countries, most notably handicrafts, coffee, cocoa, sugar, tea, bananas, honey, cotton, wine, fresh fruit, and flowers.”

You can read more about it on IFAT's website, the organization that is an umbrella network for hundreds of fair trade organizations from all around the world.

So, what's so green about fair trade? There are several reasons that fair trade products can be greener than others, but here is the main one: Many fair trade products or materials are manufactured by local communities in developing countries, where resources and infrastructure are scarce, and continuous subsistence and livelihood are dependent on the sustained existence of these resources. Since the community in a fair trade setting is much more empowered than in an exploitative setting, it can often take positive action to make sure that its production practices do not irrevocably harm its surroundings.

For example, we can take fair trade rubber tapping in the Brazilian Amazon, conducted by local community co-ops that also stand against deforestation. Veja, is a French company that sources the rubber used to make it's line of fair-trade sneakers from such co-operatives. If the rain forest is destroyed, as is often the case with renegade logging operations, these tappers lose their livelihood and way of life. Fair Trade enables them to compete with rubber coming from big rubber tree plantations, and helps them keep the forests alive and flourishing.

But the thing I like best about the way Fair Trade and Environmentalism interact is that these are simply complimentary. They help one another but do not necessitate one another. Paying a fair living wage, and refraining from cutting down the rain forest are simply good things to do on their own, without any external or material incentives.

Yep, I'll celebrate that!

Eylon @ Eco-Libris

Plant a Tree for Every Book you Read!

How to deal with the growing deforestation in the Amazon rain forest?

Bad news from Brazil: The Brazilian Environment Ministry announced last Wednesday that as many as 2,700 square miles of Brazilian rain forest had been cleared from August through December, meaning that Brazil could lose 5,791 square miles of jungle by this August if the rate of deforestation continued.

This data is surprising as in the last three years there was a consistent decline in deforestation. The growing logging is probably spurred by high prices for corn, soy and cattle according to environmental officials in Brazil.

President Lula da Silva called an emergency meeting of cabinet ministers to discuss the new data. After the meeting new measures were announced including sending additional federal police and environmental agents to the Amazon. The Washington Post reports that the Environment Minister Marina Silva said that the authorities will also monitor the areas where the deforestation occurred in an attempt to prevent anyone from trying to plant crops or raise cattle there.

Reuters reported on other measures that will be taken:

1. The government will put on hold any new deforestation requests in 36 municipalities in an area that accounted for half of the forest destruction last year.

2. Landowners in the area will have to prove they maintain preservation areas, and could face penalties like being denied official credit if they fail to meet some requirements.

3. Companies like trading houses, soybean crushers and meat processors that buy commodities originating from destroyed areas of the forest will be considered responsible for deforestation.

I think that the plan is good, but I am not sure how well it can fight the economic incentives that drives the massive deforestation we see now. I think that another step to be taken is to give a counter-incentive to keep these trees alive. If local governments and municipalities will be paid to protect these trees, then they have an economic value as live trees. If this value will be high enough, then it will be worthwhile to keep them alive.

I think the measures should be based on the stick and the carrot both and not only rely on the stick. Give local communities the carrot and I promise you that you will see deforestation figures decrease again.

I also think it shouldn't be the sole responsibility of the Brazilian government to take care of it. The Brazilian rain forest is called "the lungs of the world" for its ability to consume greenhouse gases and produce oxygen, and hence I believe the world (especially the developed countries) should chip in.

Just last week we reported on Norway's willingness to contribute about $500 million a year to projects aimed at protecting forests in developing countries. I think this kind of funding (and of course other countries should contribute as well) can make some good in Brazil and help Lula protect this precious natural resource. What do you think?

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: plant a tree for every book you read!

Brazilian hardwood floors. Can you say “slave labor?”

Our reader from Minneapolis, Kermit Johnson, replied to our blog-action-day post and alerted us to a very interesting article he wrote about hardwood floors, deforestation and slave labor. So go check it out and big thumbs up to all green conscious real estate people out there.

Yours,
Eylon @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: a great green gift for the holidays!