'I' stands for International
The IFPTA should give a voice to industry professionals around the world, including non-native English speakers
John Kalish, Co-founder and President Emeritus, IFPTA
Published: April 29, 2011
I just read an amusing little book entitled Who moved my cheese? It is a very simple story of change and how to adapt to it. It provoked some thoughts of change in the context of IFPTA.
It should surprise no one that I remain very interested in the IFPTA’s future. Even if 10 years have already gone by – very quickly -- since I retired as President -- and many new members don’t know me at all – I am still connected at the hip to the organization I co-founded in 1981.
Back then the forest products industry worldwide was clearly dominated by Western Europe and North America. It was in many ways a North Atlantic club. IFPTA reflected this: all through the 1980s and 1990s, IFPTA’s membership held steady at around 50+% European members, 40% North Americans and 5-10% everywhere else.
The industry’s centers of gravity have, however, changed dramatically in the past 10 years. South America practically owns the pulp business (with a bit of help from Southern Asia) and China owns the world’s only expanding major paper industry. In contrast, the US paper industry has steadily declined during the past decade (2000 to 2009) by just under 1% per year, according to the latest AF&PA survey. A further decline of over 3% was expected for 2010. Western Europe’s paper industry has not performed much better.
But is this evolution reflected in IFPTA’s membership, with significant increases from at least the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China? In fact, IFPTA’s membership profile is virtually unchanged. The most recent printed edition of the IFPTA Membership Directory, published a year ago, shows 15 members from Brazil, 6 from China (most of them former Westerlund colleagues) and no one from India or Russia.
Language is an obvious explanation for this situation. Were I South American or Chinese, I would surely prefer an organization which conducted its business and communicated in my native language. An active IFPTA organization in South America which operated in Spanish and/or Portuguese, and one in China operating in Mandarin would certainly appeal to far greater numbers and deeper strata of those active in the business, as English does in North American and Western Europe.
Twenty years ago realizing an idea like this would have been completely beyond the horizon of a small organization like IFPTA. Today I don’t think it is. Would it be worth it? I think it just might be. The organizations could and probably should be fairly autonomous, with their own agendas, but linked as equal parts of an international whole. Therein could be the value – in China and South America – of participating.
The past 10 years have seen important positive changes in IFPTA, notably in communications. What will the next 10 years bring? Will this association still be relevant representing mainly two regions which very likely will have lost a fair share of their relative importance?
