News

January 2010: A Special Report on Copenhagen - What it Means for Forestry

Copenhagen - what it means for forestry
Environmental campaigners, like world leaders, invested heavily in a strong Copenhagen outcome. This was no more apparent than in the protracted campaigns against the world's forestry and commodity industries in the lead-up to the conference.

Yet the two-week event yielded little substance. Negotiators agreed to continue negotiating. Green campaigners expressed disappointment with the lack of outcome, and the world's leaders attempted to make the best of a difficult negotiating environment.

The one positive outcome that could be read into the negotiations is that the world's developing nations are beginning to push-back on Western anti-development policies.

Forestry in the negotiations
While a number of news reports and activists hailed a positive outcome for the world's forests at the negotiations, the decisions at Copenhagen will not have a significant impact upon forested nations in the immediate future.

This is a far cry from the Green ambitions for the conference.

Green campaigners had hoped that binding commitments from developing countries would prompt REDD schemes (reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) and an injection of billions of dollars of public and private money into forest conservation projects in the developing world.

The newly minted 'Copenhagen Accord' is not legally binding. Countries can sign up to it (or remove themselves) as they please. It merely mentions the need for implementing REDD and calls for finance for developing countries to address deforestation.

"REDD", however, remains yet to be adopted by the UNFCCC.

Yes to SFM, no to 'no conversion'
The negotiations for longer-term, legally binding 'post-Kyoto' commitments made slow progress. Despite public comments that the group working on forestry and land-use was making headway, much of the negotiating text is still up for grabs, and it is very much dependent upon the progress of other negotiating groups.

The inclusion of sustainable forest management in REDD can almost be considered a certainty. It is considered equally as a means of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions as avoided deforestation and afforestation or reforestation. The trick, however, will be in the strings that are attached to any REDD funding.

These found their way into the negotiations through the adding of safeguards to the text in earlier negotiating sessions. The 'no conversion' safeguard - which would effectively prevent the conversion of forests to more productive uses - was objected to by a number of African states and removed, only to find its way back in after Green lobbying of European governments. The 'no conversion' safeguard is still in the text, but has not been agreed upon.

No carbon trading bonanza
The failure at Copenhagen was the result of fundamental divisions between the industrialised economies, which wanted formal commitments from China and India and other major developing countries to reduce emissions and the outright rejection of that by those developing countries. This means that no binding global commitments to reduce emissions are foreseeable. Without that there cannot be a globally regulated system of emissions trading and thereby the grand global system upon which the original REDD idea was based (developing countries would be able to secure significant income from selling carbon credits into this global scheme) remains a pipe dream.

Concrete decisions
Outside the media circus surrounding the release of the Accord, one decision was approved by the UNFCCC that will affect forestry and economic development.

SBSTA, the UNFCCC body that directs scientific and technical advice for the Secretariat, approved a way forward on methodological issues surrounding deforestation.

There are no commitments to curb deforestation or any other similar actions. There is, however, a request that developing countries undertake work that will:

• Identify the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation and how to address them;
• Identify activities which will reduce emissions, increase carbon removals and stabilise carbon sinks;
• Use the IPCC guidelines as an appropriate basis for estimating forest-related emissions; and
• Establish transparent monitoring and reporting systems.

On the surface this doesn't seem like much. Numerous developed economies - particularly Norway - have outlaid large sums for 'REDD readiness' programmes through aid agencies, which will provide similar information on forest stocks. Pressure to implement either REDD-readiness or respond to the UNFCCC request - with the promise of aid dollars attached - is likely to continue.

Multilateral initiatives
Halfway through the conference, a number of developed economies - Norway, Australia, France, Japan, and the US - announced that they would assemble US$3.5 billion of REDD finance for the next three years, from 2010 to 2012.

Yet the statement released by all countries on how and where the funding will be spent or even approved is vague at best. The US pledge of US$1 billion has come from the US Department of Agriculture, not USAID, the US aid agency. Similarly, the Australian statement on the pledge refers simply to pre-existing programmes.

Interestingly, the US statement on the fund featured glowing testimonials from US-based NGO The Nature Conservancy and Gabon's president. One NGO campaigner said publicly that "The U.S. announcement was timed to influence the tropical forest negotiations at a critical point."

Yet the pledge, particularly from the US, may ring hollow. The US$1 billion that the US has put up will require approval through the US Congress. Getting a sum that large past a US public that is becoming increasingly sceptical of the current administration's spending initiatives will be difficult at best. The US has committed more than $275 million to the protection of tropical forests this financial year.

The business response
The business presence of forest-based industries at Copenhagen was muted compared with previous years. Representatives from the industry in Brazil and Europe were visible, but few industry representatives were putting forward their case.

Fortunately, however, the FAO did the industry a huge service by releasing a draft paper outlining the contribution of forest products to greenhouse gas mitigation.

Notably absent was the bank-backed carbon trading lobby, which had in previous years been pushing hard for a global emissions scheme that would incorporate forest-based credits.

This is unsurprising. The credibility of forest-based credits took a hammering in 2009. On one side, Greenpeace and WWF strenuously objected to any market-based scheme for REDD. At the other end, Papua New Guinea's Office of Climate Change was plagued by scandals over the issuing of credits, as reported in the international media. PNG's climate envoy, Kevin Conrad, was one of the world's most prominent boosters of forest-based credits.

Similarly, recent downward revisions of the actual contribution of deforestation to climate change have made the carbon credits market seem less attractive.

The future Green response
The NGO response to Copenhagen was predictable. International NGOs such as Greenpeace and WWF labelled the exercise as a failure for the planet.

However, the final outcome of the talks - a political agreement and a commitment to negotiating - will require Green campaigners to reassess their strategies on climate change.

The UNFCCC has lost credibility with international leaders. Most will be reluctant to buy into the hype in future and risk being associated with such a poor outcome.

It has also lost some credibility with Green groups. Early last decade, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Forum on Forests were denounced by campaigners once Green demands were not met.

This will possibly shift campaigning to a domestic setting. Greens will attempt to have domestic governments lock in policies that will make life difficult for forest industries. In the developing world, this means pressure to reduce levels of commercial activity in forests. In the developed world, it means pushing aid money towards environmental programmes.

Does this mean that Green campaigns against forest-based industries will stop? Hardly. As the UNFCCC negotiations lost their public prominence, they will be less of a focal point for media-savvy NGOs. This will mean that the tried-and-true tactics of NGOs - smear campaigns against the private sector, legal delaying tactics - will most likely be back at the forefront of anti-forestry campaigns. In other words, expect more of the same on climate, biodiversity and forest certification at a forestry operation near you.

December 2009: Has the World Bank learned anything on forestry?
Earlier in 2009 the World Bank announced the establishment of its Forest Investment Program (FIP). Yet a close look at the Bank's 'new' strategy on investing in forests reveals that it has learnt little from its previous experiences in developing countries.

One of the clearest failures of the Bank took place in Papua New Guinea. In 1997, the World Bank initiated a US$40 million loan to PNG. Its chief objective was to improve forest management in the country. But the goals of the project were not economic - they were environmental.

Forestry & Development recently came across the Bank's cancellation note on the project. Possibly the most revealing information in the document is a summary of the project's social assessment, in which it asked local communities what their development priorities were. The top three were: establishment of roads, hospital and medical staff, and a wholesale outlet. Other priorities included a portable sawmill, an FM radio and a coffee mill. Forest conservation did not appear anywhere on the list.

The disconnect between the local communities and World Bank staff was given as one the key reasons for the project's failure.

Is the FIP following the same path?

The FIP's design document gives very little indication that it is interested in the development priorities of local communities. Its chief aim is to assist developing countries prepare for the establishment of REDD (reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation). It refers very cautiously to forest products, does not mention timber or manufacturing, and skirts around production and economic benefits.

It is loaded with safeguards for high conservation value forests - an open-ended term developed by WWF and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) for forest certification. Under current World Bank lending criteria, virtually any commercial activity in tropical forests that is related to wood harvesting is prohibited.

A question for the World Bank is: has anyone actually asked PNG's local communities if they are actually interested in conserving the forests? Or would they actually prefer to take the monetary benefits and infrastructure developments associated with forestry operations?

It should also be noted that the World Bank seems to be forming a negative attitude toward the private sector throughout the process. While the FIP has stated that it will engage with the private sector, the documents outlining how it will do so have not been made available through the Bank's website or through direct requests.

10 December 2009: Anti-Chinese sentiment still a threat
E-mails are still circulating in Papua New Guinea that threaten the lives of Asian-owned businesses in the country.

The e-mails, which are not unlike those that were circulating at the beginning of the year that prompted a series of riots across PNG, call on the country's citizens to burn down Asian-owned businesses in Port Moresby.

A particular e-mail claims that the violent actions have the support of the country's main NGOs. Earlier this year the PNGFIA highlighted the fact that many of the anti-forestry reports published by CELCOR and Greenpeace in PNG contained a negative attitude towards Chinese and Malaysian-owned businesses operating in PNG. Greenpeace was very quick to deny any racist undertakings on their part.

The renewed activity from PNG's racist groups has been spurred by the recent inquiry into the anti-Asian riots. During the inquiry, which was itself surrounded by controversy, PNG's timber industry was accused of drug smuggling, arms dealing and human trafficking - claims that have been dismissed as baseless by well-documented and publicly available research.

The forest industry pointed out during the inquiry that increased foreign investment is a spur to raising living standards and a path to creating jobs and increasing both vocational and educational skills. Moreover, lower levels of unemployment and higher education standards are a clear means to reducing social tension.

7 December 2009: FAO: forest industries are carbon positive
A new report from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) demonstrates that the global forest industry overall has a beneficial impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

The draft report, 'The effects of the global forest products industry on atmospheric greenhouse gases' was published by the FAO at the recent UNFCCC conference in Copenhagen.

The report looked closely at global emissions from the forest products industry across the board. It found that carbon sequestration in forest products offset 86 per cent of emissions from all timber-related manufacturing processes, and half of all processes along the value chain, including shipping and transport. Net emissions across the entire value chain are around 467 million tons of CO2 annually.

But when displaced emissions are taken into account, that is avoided emissions by using timber products instead of high emission building products such as concrete or aluminium, the forest industry actually goes into positive territory, becoming carbon positive by 16 million tons. The report concludes that there is potential to increase this figure by another 130 million tons.

1 December 2009: Greenpeace's own version of reality in Indonesia
Greenpeace recently claimed victory in Indonesia, stating that its protest actions there had resulted in one of the country's largest pulp and paper producers being dropped by a major European buyer. Yet a close look at a timeline of events shows that Greenpeace hijacked a regular supplier change for its own purposes.

UPM, a major Finnish paper producer, had been purchasing pulp supplies from Indonesia for close to five years. Yet the recent acquisition of a pulp plant in Uruguay meant that the company's pulp demand could be met from within the company. APRIL was informed of the new arrangement at the beginning of November following a business decision taken by UPM in October.

Despite this, 24 hours after the new supplier arrangement was made public, Greenpeace hijacked the new arrangement, stating that UPM had dropped the Indonesian supplier on environmental grounds - clearly not supported by the facts on the ground.

The incident harks back to events at the beginning of the year when a group of Greenpeace campaigners stormed a boat containing wood that it claimed was illegal and belonged to Rimbunan Hijau, when neither was the case.

Yet the truth has never stopped Greenpeace's very effective spin machine.

1 December 2009: PNG dependent on agriculture
A new study published by the Australian National University (ANU) indicates that agriculture plays a vital role in everyday life in PNG - but its significance is not appreciated. The study, 'Food and Agriculture in Papua New Guinea', notes the disparity in decision-making between PNG's large rural population (81 per cent) and the urban centres, where most policy decisions are made.

According to the study, just four other nations in the world have a higher percentage of the population living in rural areas. The report authors also note that more than 1 million households are dependent upon non-market subsistence agriculture.

The report reaffirms two things. First, that much of the deforestation and forest degradation taking place in Papua New Guinea is due to subsistence agriculture. And, second, that any attempts to implement REDD in Papua New Guinea with any degree of success will have to take subsistence agriculture into account. This will be much easier said than done.

December 2009: Medal given for forest credits debunk, but scams live on
Two journalists, Ilya Gridneff of AAP (Australian Associated Press) and Natasha Loder of The Economist, were recently honoured for their investigative reports into the scandal surrounding the issuing of carbon credits for forest areas in Papua New Guinea.

The pair received an award from The Prince Albert Foundation/United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA) Global Prize for coverage of Climate Change.

Despite the international coverage of the incident in high-profile publications around the globe, the carbon scam in PNG's forests appears to be going on.

SBS Australia, one of the country's national broadcasters, recently ran a four-part investigative report by journalist Brian Thomson into the ongoing sale of carbon credits to developed world buyers. By Thomson's account, the main protagonists behind the scandal are still operating in PNG's forests.

And all of this is taking place while Kevin Conrad, PNG's climate envoy, is attempting to find potential funders for the nation's forests in at the UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen.

November 2009: PNGFIA releases study on economic importance of land-use in PNG
The Papua New Guinea Forest Industries Association (PNGFIA) recently released a comprehensive report on the economic importance of land use in Papua New Guinea. The report, entitled "The Economic Benefits of Land-Use in Papua New Guinea", examines how reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) proposals may impact PNG's economy.

The executive summary of the report can be accessed here. The full report can be downloaded here.

The key findings from the report are:

• A UN-backed international trading scheme in forest carbon is not foreseeable in the near future;
• Land use management practises in the forestry and agricultural industries are essential for sustainable long-term economic growth, and an appropriate balance is required between development needs and environmental considerations;
• Agriculture remains an integral part of PNG's economy - halting land conversion will threaten livelihoods;
• There is a significant opportunity cost for land use decisions that use land purely for conservation purposes;
• Using forestry concessions for sustainable forestry offers estimated financial returns that are up to six times greater than using the same forest area for REDD credits, with returns from palm oil plantations being even greater; and
• If REDD is to be pursued in PNG there is a need for an economic impact assessment that considers the regional development implications and a social impact assessment.

October 2009: Greens at the fringe in global forest-climate debate
Green campaigners have relegated themselves to the fringes of the forestry debate by lobbying against the international consensus on sustainable forest management (SFM).

Two activist groups - Greenpeace and Global Witness - have taken aim at the generally accepted concept of SFM.

In doing so, both groups are lobbying against the work of the world's most respected and technically proficient forestry and environmental organisations, including the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

They are also lobbying against what has become the international consensus within international climate negotiations.

Although the negotiations themselves have almost stalled, nations have agreed that REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) be broadened to REDD-plus; the 'plus' includes sustainable forest management, conservation, afforestation and reforestation.

This broadening is consistent with the outcomes of the 1992 Rio Summit, which reached an international consensus that forests must be used for economic, social and environmental purposes.

Unfortunately for the world's poor, Greenpeace and Global Witness want to take 'economic' out of the equation.

The Green position demonstrates that they are more interested in politics than climate.

A 2007 report issued by the UNFCCC itself demonstrated that there is greater potential in emissions reductions from implementing SFM than pure REDD - and at a lower cost.

Despite the clear higher benefits and lower costs, neither Greenpeace nor Global Witness is interested in SFM. Global Witness has gone so far as to suggest that the inclusion of SFM in the negotiations is a sign of 'vested interests' infiltrating the United Nations.

Why?

Both groups have a political rather than an environmental agenda. Their opposition (in Greenpeace's words) is opposition to 'industrial' activity in forests.

They have called for 'zero gross deforestation' and do not support reforestation or afforestation projects under the UNFCCC.

Simply, they do not want any trees cut nor do they want new forests established in developing countries.

The world's forest industries provide significant contributions to GDP and employment. In Brazil, for example, more than one million people are employed in the forest industry.

Applying SFM to all operations in developing countries would provide clear economic and environmental benefits.

But the implications of Greenpeace's position are nothing less than horrific.

The UNFCCC reports that almost three-quarters of the world's deforestation is caused by a combination of subsistence and commercial agriculture.

Are Green activists prepared to tell market gardeners in Papua New Guinea that they are unable to clear land to grow crops for their families? Or tell the 44 million additional people that Indonesia is projecting in its population figures that they must live on the same amount of food?

13 October 2009: Canberra issues illegal logging impacts paper
The Australian Government has issued a draft paper that attempts to cost introducing legislation that would ban imports of so-called 'illegal timber'.

The draft is the result of an election promise made in 2007 by the Rudd Government to address the issue.

There has already been a great deal of Green lobbying over the outcomes of the report and any policies to be implemented.

Yet the paper - prepared by the Canberra-based Centre for International Economics - makes a number of clear findings on the impact of any new legislation.

First, it finds that that effectiveness would be limited. The draft states that unilateral Australian import restrictions would only stop production of about one-tenth of the products incorporating illegally logged timber coming to Australia. The rest would be diverted to other markets.

Moreover, any actual reductions in illegal logging activity would be tiny: 0.0035 to 0.0331 per cent of all illegal logging activity.

Second, it finds that Australia will incur all of the costs without achieving the commensurate benefits of reducing the damage caused by illegal logging.

Third, it finds that the measures are likely to cause welfare losses in Australia and those developing countries from which Australia may be importing products incorporating illegally logged timber.

While welfare losses in a profitable industry might be a clear reason for not proceeding with the legislation, perhaps welfare losses in the forestry sector are precisely what the Greens want.

5 October 2009: Forest carbon markets susceptible to "wide abuse", expert warns
The forest carbon market is likely to attract organised crime gangs, international law enforcement agency Interpol has warned.

According to the agency, the increasing amounts of money flowing into the voluntary carbon market sector means that there will be attempts by criminals to take advantage of fledgling systems of governance.

"Alarm bells are ringing", Peter Younger of Interpol told the Guardian newspaper. "It is simply too big to monitor. The potential for criminality is vast and has not been taken into account by the people who set it up."

Younger, who made similar remarks earlier this year, is preparing an Interpol report on illegal logging. "Organised crime syndicates are eyeing the nascent forest carbon market. I will report to the [World] Bank that REDD schemes are open to wide abuse."

He added that the corruption associated with forest carbon schemes could take many forms. "Fraud could include claiming credits for forests that do not exist or were not protected or by land grabs. It starts with bribery or intimidation of officials, then there's threats and violence against those people. There's forged documents too."

There has been widespread media reporting in The Economist and other international newspapers of alleged corruption associated with forest carbon credits in Papua New Guinea.

October 2009: PNG leading Pacific economy
AusAID has published its annual Pacific Economic Survey. It confirms that the two largest economies in the region, PNG and Fiji, accounted for 63 per cent and 16 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the region, respectively.

PNG's economic growth was over 5 per cent in 2008. Its GDP was forecast to fall back to 2007 levels, although foreign direct investment (FDI) is rising after falling for a number of years. According to the report, export volumes of logs in PNG doubled between 2001 and 2007.

The report also noted that the sector has been affected by both the global recession and by poor weather. The volume of logs for the first quarter of 2009 was down by 74 per cent relative to the corresponding 2008 quarter.

August 2009: Emissions from deforestation tally exaggerated: expert
The level of carbon emissions caused by global forest destruction is likely to be significantly lower than 20 per cent, according to the Head of Brazil's widely respected National Institute for Space Research (INPE), Gilberto Camara.

In an interview with Reuters, Camara said that the 20 per cent figure was based on poor science, adding that rich industrialised countries had no interest in questioning the figure because it placed greater pressure on developing countries to reduce emissions.

"I should only state that the two people who like these figures are developed nations, who would like to overstress the contribution of developing nations to global carbon, and of course environmentalists".

The findings of the INPE are consistent with a number of papers that have been issued in recent years that question the rates of deforestation as reported by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and other bodies.

July 2009: Greenpeace - are its ethics appropriate in the developing world?
NGO criticism of the awarding of a knighthood to the Chairman of Rimbunan Hijau (RH), Tan Sri Datuk Tiong Hiew King, for services to Papua New Guinea have led to a recycling of various claims, either without foundation or disregarding the facts of the matter, made by Greenpeace about RH and forestry in PNG over the past five years.

Little attention has been paid to the re-hashed claims, but they have stimulated questions about Greenpeace's ethical standards.

We are accustomed to claims that lack substantiation (such as the claim that 70 per cent of PNG logging is illegal) or which have been withdrawn (such as the claim made several years ago by an individual that, as a policeman, he was paid by RH to rough up villagers, which was aired by SBS) or which have been proven wrong (such as a claim that RH mistreated its workers, which was countermanded by an official Labor Department report that commended the company for its high labour standards).

These were leading claims made by Greenpeace in various reports, all of which were exhaustively examined in Whatever it takes: Greenpeace's anti-forestry campaign in Papua New Guinea.

We are also accustomed to the outright denial of facts. When Greenpeace practised piracy in the Gulf of Papua late in 2008, claiming that the ship that it boarded belonged to RH and that the timber on board was illegal - despite public demonstration that neither contention was correct - it continued to issue media releases making the claims.

The anti-Asian riots in PNG have now drawn attention to the consistent references to the ethnicity of Malaysian forestry businesses operating in PNG in Greenpeace reports and criticism of the inappropriateness of them in the media in Malaysia and PNG.

Greenpeace appears to have a case to answer. One of its attacks on forestry in PNG was entitled "Partners in Crime: the UK timber trade, Chinese sweatshops and Malaysian robber barons in Papua New Guinea's rainforests".

First there is the slur in describing anyone in the timber business as a "criminal". Greenpeace has done this for years.

Sensationalising some timber production operations in China as "Chinese sweatshops" encourages the opinion that the report aimed to tap into anti-Chinese sentiment in Europe about cheap products from China.

The head of the PNG timber industry, Mr Bob Tate, has said that the contribution of Malaysian investors to the development of PNG should be congratulated, not criticised, and has called for more Malaysian investment.

This ultimately raises the question of the ethics of Greenpeace's strategies.

Set aside the fact that Greenpeace, an environmental organisation, has never produced a report which provides technical substantiation of its claims that forestry is destroying the paradise forests in PNG and that time is running out for them.

Consider instead the implications for the people of PNG if Greenpeace's preferred approach to forestry for PNG - eco-forestry or community forestry - were adopted.

There would be a loss of around 15,000 long-term jobs, forgone taxes of around US$100 million each year and the loss of annual exports worth more than US$200 million.

The eco-forestry model that Greenpeace advocates is uneconomic, as Greenpeace's elaborate experiment in Lake Murray two years ago showed and as was found in reports by WWF and, more recently, Japan's Institute for Global Environmental Strategies.

Eco-forestry in PNG is unviable without subsidies. Not only would the economic returns of commercial forestry (not just the jobs and income, but the infrastructure provided in remote rural areas) be lost, but there would be a drain on government revenue to support semi-subsistence livelihoods.

That Greenpeace considers this to be an appropriate development model in areas of PNG where high percentages of children do not attend secondary school and health services are inadequate is the greatest moral indictment of all.

Rimbunan Hijau has invested around US$300 million in PNG, employs more than 5,000 people and built PNG's leading manufacturing business. In addition, it is developing a major hotel, commerce and convention centre which will support PNG's tourism industry. It provides transport services to remote areas in PNG.

Why the PNG Government chose to honour the contribution of Rimbunan Hijau to PNG is obvious.

Unfortunately, so too is Greenpeace's indifference to PNG's poor.

July 2009: Meeting the commitments in Canberra on illegal logging
The recent anti-Asian riots in PNG reflect how sensitive race issues are in the country. There are regular flare-ups in this society in which the pressures associated with social change, high population growth and international migration are constant.

Expectations have been generated in Canberra that the Australian Government will announce its policy to implement its election commitment to halt imports of illegal timber in August.

It has commissioned research on the various means of implementing the policy - industry-based codes, regulations at the border and requirements for certification of legality by importers.

It has also commissioned research on the extent of Australian illegal timber imports and found what all research has shown so far - there are no reliable data - but has it concluded what is also a clear message from the research? The amount of illegal timber entering Australia is unlikely to be significant.

For the Rudd Government, this is not an issue over whether there is any significant public opinion in Australia. It is unlike Europe, where governments urged by Greens have fanned public concern about illegal logging. For Canberra, this is a tactical political issue.

Greens compete for primary Labor votes in areas sensitive to the Labor Party. The Greens and the anti-forestry lobbies - the Wilderness Society, Greenpeace and WWF - play the illegal logging card in the game of political poker with Labor over preferences and competition for primary votes.

WWF and Greenpeace also use the issue to advance their campaign to secure government endorsement of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) system to verify certification that forestry is practised sustainably. This is part of a global campaign to diminish the standing of a competing system which is much more popular within the forest industry worldwide, because it adheres to global standards and conformance with quality systems, and does not require the political commitments embedded in the FSC system.

Greenpeace and WWF devote considerable resources to trying to debunk other systems that verify the sustainability or legality of forestry. Some of the material is laughable. Greenpeace produced a report criticising a system to verify the legality of timber which had been developed by SGS, a very reputable global inspection service. Greenpeace complained that some of the verification processes were not at arm's length, and promoted, as it always does, the FSC model as being superior.

The FSC system so egregiously offends global best practice on arm's length separation of the processes of standard-setting from verifying conformance with them, that it is ineligible for recognition by the mainstream global rules governing standards and conformance, which are administered by the family of organisations built around the ISO (the International Standards Organization), of which Standards Australia is a member.

No FSC standard could qualify under the rules of Standards Australia. The Australian Forestry Standard (AFS), which sets the best practice standards used for sustainable forest management in Australia, was developed under Standards Australia rules and approved by it. WWF as well as FSC (which was established and is dominated by WWF) persistently attack the Australian standard.

The threat of imposing a trade ban on imports (which exists until such time as the Australian Government rules it out) has bothered Indonesia, Malaysia and PNG - all targets in the Greenpeace and WWF global campaigns.

Australian officials have stated that they will respect WTO rules in any measure that they implement. They effectively rule out environmental trade bans. But until the Government announces just what action it will take, there will be unease on all sides.

The election commitment has also prompted a minor wave of Green campaigning on the issue in an attempt to gain headlines in the Australian media.

The Government centrepiece thus far is a Memorandum of Understanding between Australia and Papua New Guinea, which will, among other things, investigate opportunities for improving the capacity to address illegal logging by understanding the reasons for illegal logging, identifying approaches to verify legal sources of timber and considering the impact of legality verification systems.

30 June 2009: Raising the stakes for Copenhagen
A group of more than a hundred international NGOs congregated in Copenhagen in late May for a preparatory strategy meeting in the lead-up to the UNFCCC meeting in Danish capital later this year.

WWF, which led the meeting, laid out a bare-bones strategy for NGO actions in the lead-up to Copenhagen.

The strategy recommends domestic approaches by groups in the lead-up to the negotiations, 'supporting the voices of the most vulnerable', strengthening of economic arguments and mobilisation of groups on the ground.

While WWF says that the Copenhagen meeting will "not deliver", the increase in on-ground action will more than likely mean an increase in campaigning against the private sector - particularly forest-related industries.

The recent Greenpeace activity on forestry in the lead-up to the Indonesian elections, as well as the criticisms of the Lula Government's apparent 'concessions' to land tenure reform, are a clear indication of the direction in which things are headed.

26 June 2009: Carbon trading under more scrutiny in PNG
Carbon trading in Papua New Guinea has been under the policy spotlight with continued reports of irregular dealings of carbon credits in the country.

According to the latest news reports from journalists in the region, the Director of the Office of Climate Change and Environment Sustainability, Theo Yasause, has been suspended pending an internal investigation into the dealings of the Office. There are also reports of carbon 'conmen' selling landowners permits to 'bag' carbon from the atmosphere to the Government carbon trading office.

It appears that publicity about these actions has been promoted by Governors in several provinces.

The reason for the Governors' discontent is that there was no indication that revenue would accrue to them. According to PNG law, some export-oriented activities direct revenue to provincial administrations.

The irregularities, snake-oil salesmen and administrative problems do not bode well for carbon trading in PNG. According to one report, Macquarie Bank has already pulled out of any potential carbon trading in the country, citing a lack of market integrity as the main reason.

Development agencies have something to answer for here. The World Bank actively promoted the idea that carbon credits could be earned and traded in a global emissions trading scheme if deforestation were halted. One World Bank report suggested that revenue from credits could greatly exceed revenue from forestry. The Bank offered to provide seed finance for a fund to support development and trading of credits. A number of national aid agencies chipped in.

But it is abundantly clear that this clever financial engineering is too clever. The EU has said that it does not favour the sale of such a large number of credits from developing countries into the EU trading scheme. Greenpeace and WWF oppose creation of cheap credits like this, and it is now clear there will not be global agreement on an emissions trading scheme in the near future.

Snide remarks are being made about the resurgence of a cargo cult mentality in PNG. But they shouldn't be derided for postulating that there was something worth little which could be sold for a lot more. The idea started in K Street in Washington DC.

22 June 2009: Chatham House lobbying for constraints
UK think-tank Chatham House has published a new paper on the use of 'illegal logging' legislation and its compatibility with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

The paper's author, Duncan Brack, contends that "none of the main measures being pursued at present should experience any conflict with WTO rules".

Mr Brack conveniently overlooked the mainstream view among WTO lawyers that measures to restrict trade for non-trade purposes not recognized in the WTO agreements usually get struck down.

This view is clearly share in the European Commission, which constructed an elaborate device to restrict timber imports unless the products are verified as legal under specific rules. They asked that developing countries engage in a 'voluntary' partnership agreement (under threat of EU trade barriers) to enter into a bilateral agreement that waives WTO rights Few countries have completed such agreements, although some (for example Malaysia and Indonesia) have agreed to begin negotiations. The EU should ready itself for protracted Asian diplomacy rather than an early agreement.

But beyond all else, the paper turns the basis of the WTO on its head. Brack asks the question: "do WTO rules constrain policy measures?"

The answer is yes, and for good reason: environmental policy measures such as those being flouted against the trade interests of developing countries deny the opportunity to capitalise on comparative advantage (protecting that right is the reason the GATT exists) and thereby can harm the poor.

12 June 2009: IFC hostage to greenmail
The International Finance Corporation (IFC) caved in to lobbying from Green groups last month over the financing of cattle-ranching operations in Brazil.

The US$30 million IFC loan to Bertin, an integrated cattle-ranching operation with more than 30,000 employees, was to assist the modernization and expansion of existing operations, develop a new operation in Mato Grosso and expand a plastic waste recycling operation.

The IFC withdrew the loan in June of this year after heavy lobbying by Greenpeace, which now claims that the cattle industry in Brazil is the leading driver of global deforestation.

Yet the tactics employed by Greenpeace do not seem to add up - a consumer campaign aimed at markets in the UK, US and EU - does not seem to add up. The biggest consumption market for Brazilian beef is Brazil itself and its main export markets are Russia, Iran, China, Venezuela and Egypt.

The facts are that Bertin sources 85 per cent of its beef from independent ranchers and smallholders, and uses a tracking system to ensure that legal land tenure for its cattle ranching is in place.

The trumpeting of the announcement by Green groups, environmental reporters and bloggers came at the same time that one of Bertin's main rivals, Independencia, laid off 1,400 workers as a response to current economic conditions.

8 June 2009: Eco-Forestry - not quite paying the bills
A new report by the Japan-based environmental think-tank the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) has confirmed that the eco-forestry model in Papua New Guinea is not economically viable.

Eco-forestry is the small-scale, community-level model of forestry espoused by a number of NGOs and Greener-leaning development agencies.

The report surveyed nine community-based forestry operations in PNG that receive financial assistance from FORCERT, a not-for-profit business backed by WWF and Greenpeace. The report attempted to provide an economic impact assessment of the eco-forestry operations. However, it concluded that "providing a quantitative estimate of the relative importance of forestry to household income was not possible" because "income flows were inconsistent".

One example of the inconsistent income flows included a case where just two of eighteen weeks' wages were paid because timber harvested was sold into local markets at a sub-optimal price.

The report notes that casual eco-forestry workers were paid between 0.75 and 1.50 kina per hour - lower wages than Greenpeace took Rimbunan Hijau to task for paying its employees in their 2008 campaign against the company.

The report also notes that "because of long periods of non production, actual household income from eco-forestry is well below potential income from a continuous logging operation".

June 2009: Greenpeace actions risk fanning anti-Chinese sentiment - reports in Malaysia
The recent anti-Asian riots in PNG reflect how sensitive race issues are in the country. There are regular flare-ups in this society in which the pressures associated with social change, high population growth and international migration are constant.

Asians (principally Chinese) have been a constant target in recent years. Untimely media commentary in Malaysia that the activities of Malaysian forestry companies in the past may have contributed to this general situation brought an instant response from the PNG Forest Industries Association which has been extensively reported in the PNG and Malaysian media.

The following is an extract from a report in The Star in Malaysia on 28 May:

PETALING JAYA: The attacks against the Chinese in Papua New Guinea are due to an influx of illegal workers from China and not caused by the forest industry, say industry officials.

PNG Forest Industries Association executive officer Bob Tate said news reports alleging that the forest industry had promoted social disturbance was wrong, and risked inflaming a dangerous situation.

"Reports that problems in the forest industry, where the biggest operators were Malaysian-owned, had promoted social disturbance in the past were irresponsible and risked further inflaming a dangerous situation.

"For a start, there has not been any significant social disturbance from the forest industry in PNG, except foreign for foreign-finance environmental NGOs who are opposed to commercial forestry," he said in a statement.

Tate accused Greenpeace of leading an organised campaign to stop commercial forestry, calling the campaign unethical and opportunistic.

"It risks fanning anti-Chinese sentiment, both in Europe as well as PNG," he said, citing a 2005 report titled "Partners in Crime: The UK Timber Trade, Chinese Sweatshops and Malaysian Robber Barons in Papua New Guinea's rainforests".

"As well as branding the Malaysian-owned forest businesses in PNG as 'Robber Barons', it also persistently referred to them as 'Malaysian-Chinese'," he said.

The 2005 report was published by Greenpeace and is still online.

June 2009: PNG and climate change: US$2.4m in funding
Details of funding under an international programme to prepare Papua New Guinea to participate in the REDD forestry programme have been announced. Sponsored by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the FAO, the programme will provide approximately US$2.4m over two years.

REDD was conceived by the World Bank as a win/win strategy - developing countries would generate carbon credits to sell into a global system to trade emissions as part of a global strategy to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

No such global trading system is in prospect; not at least until China agrees to support mandatory global caps on emissions. That is not likely in the foreseeable future.

So REDD is evolving into an arrangement to assist developing countries to better manage deforestation and forestry.

The good news is that the FAO will provide approximately US$1m to assist PNG to establish a robust methodology for calculating PNG's emissions.

The inclusion of the FAO in the process is an immensely positive step. The FAO - unlike some of its fellow United Nations bodies - has genuinely stuck with its brief to improve food and agricultural output throughout the world.

The FAO's technical work on forestry - such as the periodical Unasylva - is arguably the most objective forest policy analysis available in a highly politicised field.

The illegal logging issue
Another positive development is that 'illegal logging' does not appear in the programme. Anti-forestry groups such as Greenpeace continue to cite the World Bank to support the Greenpeace claim that 70 per cent of PNG logging is illegal.

It is to the shame of the Bank and its professionalism that its staff refuse to disavow its endorsement of that number, despite having been told officially by the PNG Government that the very report that they cite as evidence itself concedes that the number is an assumption and that the report's authors made no empirical assessment of forestry in PNG.

On the contrary, the empirical indications are that most logging is legal. SGS, the independent agency which monitors PNG log exports to ensure that taxes are paid, finds no indications of widespread illegal logging.

There is no significant discrepancy between PNG timber export statistics and statistics on timber in import markets. Major variations between them would be sure indicators of substantial illegal logging.

The downside of the programme is the stated intention to review all PNG forestry laws. This is not necessary. It will simply create a fresh opportunity for anti-forestry NGOs to continue to obstruct commercial forestry.

Supporting sustainable forest practices
At least the FAO work will help build the infrastructure that PNG needs to assess the content and performance of its forest estate properly. Around 30 per cent of PNG is already set aside, so the fundamentals of forestry biodiversity are preserved.

Improved management of the commercial forest estate requires a full forest inventory (PNG does not have one) and more technical information about species to improve silviculture in PNG. With that, improved forest conservation and management can be achieved.

If PNG can earn the benefits from carbon credits, so much the better. Irrespective of whether or not that is achieved, improvement in the capacity of PNG authorities to manage forestry will deliver certain benefits to the PNG economy. This will benefit landowners, forest workers and people in poor rural areas where only forestry provides the infrastructure necessary to raise living standards.

June 2009: FSC Australia seeks charitable status
Despite the Forest Stewardship Council's (FSC) bluster, there are regular reports in the Australian forest industry that the FSC just cannot get operational. Its coverage is small (from its publicity one would not think so) and it has signally failed to establish a national Australian SFM standard. There are also signs that it is short of money.

In April, Australia's arm of FSC decided to seek recognition by Australia's tax authorities as a charity. FSC promotes itself as a supplier of business services and charges heftily for them. But business can't be too good given that the basic reason that organisations seek charitable status is to reduce costs and increase donations.

Businesses join FSC not for the "feel good factor" or the tax deductibility of the cost, but to acquire certification to supply markets where buyers want FSC certification (often after they have been pressured by WWF or Greenpeace to do so) or to get a Green anti-forestry organisation off their own backs.

When they have a choice, they prefer the PEFC forest certification standard, which is more professionally delivered and does not bring with it the attendant political demands.

WWF likes to regularly warn companies that their "reputation" may be at risk if they do not adopt policies proposed by WWF. Ironically, it is those who associate with WWF who often receive the biggest bruising.

FSC is increasingly becoming a business risk for forestry companies. Feuding among Green groups has resulted in Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (both members of FSC) attacking FSC certification. That is of little value to businesses which buy FSC services precisely to keep Greens off their backs.

Is WWF a provider of business services or a Green activist? Like its sire and warden, WWF, FSC has to make up its mind. So does business, and maybe even the Australian tax authorities.

June 2009: Greenpeace's timber policies questionable
To coincide with the Australia-PNG Ministerial talks in Brisbane in June, Greenpeace renewed its call to ban imports of 'illegal' timber from PNG. Its spokesman was quoted as stating that Greenpeace wanted imported timber to be certified as legal and banned it if wasn't.

This statement is redolent of Greenpeace's continuous claims that the timber on the ship that it seized illegally in the Gulf of Papua last September was illegal - even after it was demonstrated on the public record that this was not the case.

The Greenpeace claim implies that it supports trade in forestry. But Greenpeace supports something quite different.

Greenpeace's position on forestry in PNG is that there should be no "industrial" (read "commercial") forestry, only eco-forestry or community forestry. That is commercially unviable, as even WWF has found, and would result in the closure of an industry which employs 9,000 people.

The only certification system which Greenpeace supports is the FSC system (it is a member and sometime supporter) which does not have a fully developed system for certifying legality of forestry in PNG.

The most comprehensive legality verification system available in PNG has been developed by the highly-reputable international inspection company SGS, which Greenpeace has attacked on grounds which has led the usually reserved Switzerland-based company to sharply criticise Greenpeace's claims.

Nevertheless, official agencies continue to treat Greenpeace as a serious participant in forestry discussions rather than a political combatant. Australian officials recently thanked Greenpeace for its advice and assistance in the development of the Asia-Pacific Carbon Partnership programme. A key element is to promote carbon trading between Australia and its neighbours.

A few days later, Greenpeace launched an international attack against the creation of carbon credits in any developing country. This was no change of position. Greenpeace has always opposed measures to reduce emissions by promoting sinks to absorb. It insists that the only proper strategy is to shrink carbon-based energy industries.

April 2009: G20 commitment to avoid trade barriers ignored on timber trade
As part of the global strategy to manage the global recession, G20 leaders have twice called on all countries to avoid erecting trade barriers. When it comes to timber and tropical products, it appears Western authorities are ignoring this.

The European Parliament has voted to require those who market timber and timber products within the EU to prove its legality. The EU does not require producers in EU countries to prove other products are legally produced before they may be traded among EU members. This is a back-door way to restrict imports of timber from tropical countries and is the result of years of lobbying by Green NGOs, such as WWF and Greenpeace, to use trade bans to stop illegal logging.

This measure is likely to harm smaller family forestry businesses in Northern Europe who will have to incur the cost of applying chain-of-custody verification systems which are totally unnecessary since there is no question forestry in these enterprises is conducted legally.

In similar vein, the European Council adopted a Directive last December to enact the EU policy of deriving 20 per cent of energy from renewable resources. Palm oil is a good renewable fuel and cheaper than vegetable oils produced in Europe.

But the Directive will restrict imports unless EU forestry standards are followed by exporters in developing countries. This is another back-door way of using trade controls to force changes in forestry policy. Governments in those areas have warned they will challenge the EU measures in the World Trade Organization.

Greens in the US have had plant species added to the Lacey Act which outlaws possession in the US of fauna endangered or controlled in foreign countries. This will enable US authorities to charge anyone possessing any product containing any element of a protected plant. Since plant fibres are used in many products, this will restrict trade because this assurance will be expensive to demonstrate. That is precisely the intent of key anti-forestry backers of the measure.

The same Green groups are pressuring the Australian and New Zealand Governments to adopt similar measures on imports from PNG, Indonesia and Malaysia.

The claim is these trade bans will pressure developing countries to control illegal logging. A recent report on Forestry and Sustainability by World Growth, a free market NGO (report available here), points out that the extent of illegal logging is considerably exaggerated and that trade bans rarely work.

A more effective approach is to encourage forest businesses and governments in developing countries to promote sustainable forestry and to employ private-sector systems to demonstrate legality, such as those developed by SGS in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Some Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) schemes also provide verification of the legality of sources of timber.

April 2009: UNFCCC approach to forestry improving
While the recent United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) talks in Bonn, Germany, revealed that among industrialized nations there has still been very little progress on recognizing the full role forestry can play as a low-cost means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, at least there is a move away from the Greenpeace and WWF position that the Climate Change Convention should be used as an anti-forestry tool.

The REDD (reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) concept has now been extended to REDD-plus - meaning REDD plus Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) and conservation. Forested developing countries, led by Indonesia and Brazil, have been insisting REDD must include assistance for promoting SFM. Unreconstructed, anti-forestry NGOs are lauding the fresh prominence given to conservation.

Australia has also tabled a proposal that when carbon sequestration by forestry is measured, the continuing storage of carbon in timber and paper products should be recognized. World Growth has estimated that using this measure would probably double the rated value of Europe's forests as carbon sinks. WWF and Greenpeace can be expected to oppose this. They have consistently opposed full recognition of forests as carbon sinks.

April 2009: Preparing for carbon credits in PNG
The PNG Office of Climate Change has initiated work to establish a basis for generating carbon credits in PNG. This was originally sponsored by the World Bank and Finland in the expectation that the UNFCCC negotiations would result in agreement on a global system for emissions trading. It is now accepted that the Copenhagen Climate Change conference in December will not settle on a new global agreement, but simply lay down a framework.

A final agreement is several years away. There is also little prospect there will be global emissions trading in any such agreement. China and India have made it clear they will not support a global system to cap and trade emissions of carbon dioxide.

The only buyers of any PNG credits would then be the EU, or Australia if it establishes a scheme, the starting date of which has now been put off until 2011. Greenpeace is arguing that timber kept in the ground is more valuable for carbon credits than harvesting and forest regrowth for subsequent harvesting.

Research on the prospective value of credits is slim. Exploratory work in Indonesia suggests the real value of carbon credits from forestry is very low. If that is correct, the Greenpeace strategy would reduce the economic benefits PNG derives from commercial forestry.

March 2009: World Bank supports SFM Forestry in Brazil
The World Bank has issued a US$ 1.3 billion loan to Brazil. The loan provides for sustainable harvesting and management within natural forests, and for SFM certification of that forestry. The likely candidate is CERFLOR, a national SFM system developed in Brazil and recognized by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC).

The loan also recognizes that forestry in natural forests will continue in Brazil, with the Government committing to reduce, but not cease, the rate of deforestation. The World Bank report points out that 80 per cent of the Amazon rainforest remains intact.

This loan is a welcome departure from the policy straightjacket which the Alliance with WWF on forestry imposed on World Bank forest policy. Alliance policy opposes any conversion of forest to non-forest purposes or forestry in large-scale forests. This policy has effectively prevented the World Bank from funding SFM in tropical forest economies. The loan provided to Brazil is a welcome development.

Will the Bank apply similar approaches in Indonesia and PNG, where, until now its primary focus has been on conservation? In the case of PNG, the Bank still insists on giving credence to unsupportable claims by Greenpeace and WWF that most forestry in PNG is illegal, when it clearly is not. PNG's problem is that it is not as large as Brazil and cannot take out the large loans that the Bank requires to stay in business.

March 2009: FSC under attack from the inside - again
Greenpeace Nordic has published a report which claims that FSC-certified Swedish timber may have been sourced from Sweden's high conservation value forests (HCVFs). The report states that "the loss of Sweden's old-growth forests" demonstrates that the FSC system is "flawed nationally".

Greenpeace claims that its report reveals a "web of complicity" in respect of the "continued logging of threatened old-growth forests" between the FSC, companies that are knowingly destroying threatened HCVFs, accredited certification bodies and the Accreditation Services International (ASI), which delivers accreditation and other services to the FSC.

Greenpeace's "pro-Old Growth" strategy is a screen for its opposition to all commercial forestry. There is no inherent environmental value in "Old Growth" trees. The appropriate conservation strategy is to ensure representative and sustainable strands of species and related biodiversities are set aside in conservation areas and then to practice sustainable forest management in plantations and natural forests.

Criticisms of FSC by Greenpeace continue to demonstrate the political risk for forest businesses which expect that membership of WWF-sponsored FSC will enable them to gain credit for practising sustainable forestry when Greenpeace, a member of FSC is saying it will not. The odd thing is that it is difficult to find criticism by WWF of Greenpeace's continuing attacks around the world on FSC.

March 2009: FAO and Finland support SFM
Similarly, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and Finland have signed a four-year, EUR14 million partnership titled "Sustainable Forest Management in a Changing Climate". The partnership will seek to improve forest data collection and analysis as well as management skills for sustainable forest management in "selected developing countries".

The aim of the programme is to assist developing countries to protect their forest resources, build sustainable forest livelihoods and provide governments with the knowledge to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Between three and six countries will be selected to pilot the programme.

March 2009: US mobilising on global forest policy
The United States is re-emerging as a significant player in global forest policy.

President Obama has already declared that he wishes to "make trade an important policy tool for achieving progress on national energy and environmental goals" in his Trade Policy Agenda for 2009.

In Jakarta last month, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton applauded Indonesia for its efforts to "integrate deforestation into the broader climate negotiations".

Democrat Senators Lugar and Kerry have introduced legislation in the Senate to reauthorise the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 (TFCA) for an additional three years. The Act was originally initiated by Lugar and current Vice-President Joe Biden over a decade ago. Under the Act, the United States and partner countries are permitted to undertake 'debt for nature' swaps, that is, swap sovereign debt to the United States for the implementation of conservation measures.

Under the right circumstances this could be a positive thing. But if those measures threaten jobs and livelihoods in sustainable industries, it could have a damaging effect on economies in developing countries.

Thus far, the agreements have only been signed with Latin American nations. But Clinton's visit to Indonesia heralded a new engagement with the Asia-Pacific region - and international environmentalism will be part of that engagement.

The US has not been this deeply engaged with international forest policy since the first term of the Clinton Administration in the mid-1990s. Back then, the US was highly supportive of a global convention on forestry. This changed in Clinton's second term, after the Democrats had lost control of Congress.

At around the same time that Hillary Clinton was in Indonesia, the Washington-based group AD Partners (Avoided Deforestation Partners) held a Capitol Hill briefing that it says urged the US Government to "prioritize ending tropical deforestation in domestic climate change legislation and U.S. climate change foreign policy".

Among the featured speakers at the briefing were Senators Kerry and Lugar. One of AD Partners' major supporters is former Democrat Vice-President Al Gore.

AD Partners' supporters are generally Green organizations such as Environmental Defense, Greenpeace and WWF. There is no involvement from the forestry sector. Private sector involvement is mostly confined to legal and financial firms - the forest-carbon industry's 'boosters'.

But AD Partners has lined up a team that will carry significant influence with the current Obama Administration on international environmental issues. The White House and Congress will be receptive - as will many developing country governments that are promised foreign aid dollars.

March 2009: World Bank "REDD"ying PNG
There are news reports that a World Bank team has visited PNG to assist with preparing PNG to receive funding to participate in proposed actions as part of the climate change negotiations to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD).

The original plan was that carbon credits would be created by ceasing deforestation and then sold on world markets. This would not offer PNG much. Global trading of carbon credits is most unlikely to be agreed to in the climate change negotiations. Developing countries, China and Brazil in particular, are not interested. And now Greenpeace and WWF also oppose this.

PNG would benefit if the "REDD" programme recognized sustainable forestry management as an effective means for reducing emissions by increasing carbon sinks in forests. Until now, the World Bank has not entertained this idea, but very recently it announced a large development loan to Brazil through which the Bank agreed to finance promotion of sustainable forestry in native forests in return for a reduction, but not cessation, of deforestation in Brazil.

March 2009: WWF boycotts PEFC review
WWF has declined an invitation to join the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes (PEFC) Stakeholder Forum. PEFC established its stakeholder forum as a response to its Governance Review in 2008 in order to provide a forum for NGOs, businesses and other groups to collaborate on the implementation and certification of sustainable forest management (SFM) - among other things.

WWF has stated in very formal terms that it has declined the invitation because PEFC's stakeholder participation standards aren't up to its own internal standards. This raises two questions. First, wouldn't a stakeholder forum be precisely the right avenue for WWF to assist in raising participation standards? Second, if WWF is genuine about the improvement and implementation of SFM across the globe, wouldn't its technical expertise on conservation assist companies who choose PEFC?

The tactic of boycotting other forest certification systems has been tried before. When the Australian Forest Standard (AFS) was being developed in Australia, local Green NGOs withdrew from the process - then claimed there was no input from environmental organizations. WWF then lobbied European Governments to boycott Australian paper and wood products certified as complying with the standard. Some, like the UK, agreed until the Australian Government put the facts in front of them.

When SGS was designing the first comprehensive legality standard for forestry operations in PNG, local NGOs, including Greenpeace and WWF's affiliates in PNG, boycotted meetings and did not acknowledge efforts to engage them - and then complained they weren't consulted. PEFC should expect precisely the same treatment

March 2009: New conservation area in PNG
There are news reports that a World Bank team has visited PNG to assist with preparing PNG to receive funding to participate in proposed actions as part of the climate change negotiations to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD).

The original plan was that carbon credits would be created by ceasing deforestation and then sold on world markets. This would not offer PNG much. Global trading of carbon credits is most unlikely to be agreed to in the climate change negotiations. Developing countries, China and Brazil in particular, are not interested. And now Greenpeace and WWF also oppose this.

PNG would benefit if the "REDD" programme recognized sustainable forestry management as an effective means for reducing emissions by increasing carbon sinks in forests. Until now, the World Bank has not entertained this idea, but very recently it announced a large development loan to Brazil through which the Bank agreed to finance promotion of sustainable forestry in native forests in return for a reduction, but not cessation, of deforestation in Brazil

March 2009: PEFC endorses Russian certification scheme
PEFC has endorsed the Russian National Council for Forest Certification (RNCFC) certification system. The system was initiated in 2004 by the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources. The Ministry received funding under a World Bank programme to establish the system. The RNCFC system is one of two voluntary systems that have been developed in Russia; the other is the Russian State Forest Certification System.

RNCFC has been supported heavily by MetsŠliitto, one of Europe's largest forestry groups. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), approximately 2.5 per cent of Russia's forests are currently certified - roughly 20 million hectares of a total forest area of 800 million hectares.

Russia has the fourth-largest certified forest area, behind the US, Canada and Finland. Russian forest product exports have been increasing steadily over the past decade in all sectors - except for roundwood, which has declined slightly since 2007

March 2009: SFM, climate change a priority at World Forestry Week
The FAO is pushing for sustainable forest management (SFM) to be made a priority in global climate negotiations and in intergovernmental mechanisms designed to combat climate change at this month's World Forestry Week in Rome. The event coincides with the FAO's Committee on Forestry meeting, one of the most significant events on the international policy calendar.

Concern has been expressed that "neither the lessons learned in SFM nor the experience of foresters has been sufficiently applied in the climate change negotiations". Moreover, the Committee has suggested that the delegates to the Committee consider how "political will and resources to implement SFM" can be "better mobilized by the forest sector".

February 2009: Illegal logging regulation in Australia?
The Rudd Government is currently considering measures on 'illegally logged' timber, in line with an election commitment that was made in 2006. A draft impact assessment on any regulation is expected to be released in March of this year. A presentation from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests can be found here.

There are indications that Greenpeace Australia is attempting to garner industry support for a joint statement on the measures in order to pressure the Rudd Government to adopt its preferred regulatory option.

That NGOs should attempt to lobby their traditional enemy - the Australian forestry industry - for Green-preferred measures seems to be an odd move, but it was a tactic that worked for the introduction of mandatory labelling of imported timber products in New Zealand.

Australian industry may counter that any regulatory regime on timber imports will only apply to importers of timber. On the surface this is true. But support for the Green position on timber imports will ultimately harm the Australian industry. Here's why:

The AFS (Australian Forestry Standard) is Australia's industry- and government-developed standard for forestry. AFS standards for sustainability and chain-of-custody labelling are widely used by the Australian industry for domestic timber. The AFS is widely accepted and endorsed by the Australian industry and the Australian Government. It has since been accredited by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes (PEFC) and is now a part of the world's largest certification scheme.

Yet a number of Australian Green NGOs - Greenpeace, the Wilderness Society, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Friends of the Earth - have expressed considerable opposition to the AFS. Green NGOs attempted to lobby Standards Australia to reject the standard. Their opposition to the standard most probably continues to this day.

Greenpeace recently attacked an independent third-party legality and chain-of-custody certification scheme in Papua New Guinea, simply because it was not FSC certification, the preferred certification 'brand' of Green NGOs.

Is it not unreasonable to assume that, based on this behaviour, these same NGOs will continue to attempt to discredit certification systems that are not FSC?

In other words, the NGOs are attempting to have it both ways. They wish to undermine the industry's own initiative that gives it credibility in domestic and international markets, but are now asking that same industry for support.

The Australian industry should be wary.

February 2009: "Deforestation is land use conversion, not harvesting of timber"
The most recent issue of Unasylva, the FAO's forestry journal, clearly states something that this e-newsletter has been arguing since its inception: deforestation and timber harvesting are not the same thing.

The article by R.M. Martin, Director of the FAO's Forest Economics and Policy Division, argues that the promotion of forest restoration projects and the implementation of sustainable forest management (SFM) is more likely to mitigate climate change than a pure focus on reducing emissions from deforestation.

This is a view that is supported both by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report and by the UNFCCC. Both argue that implementing SFM is the more cost-effective and easily achievable option. However, the World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) is focusing purely on deforestation.

February 2009: Green protectionism on the rise
This website has often reported on attempts by developed countries to erect barriers to timber and other commodity imports from the developing world. Most notable are the United States' recent amendments to the Lacey Act and the EU's proposed regulation for imported timber products in the European market. The EU proposals were primarily driven by Green groups, but the US legislation was driven by an unwieldly combination of domestic timber industry interests, Greens and organised labour.

The Lacey Act amendments were originally sponsored by politicians based in Oregon Ð the largest timber-producing state in the US. The US timber industry had been hit particularly hard by hardwood flooring imports from China.

With the global financial crisis now gripping the world economy, these types of protections can be expected to proliferate - and they will hit timber producers in developing countries. Moreover, they will be dressed up as environmental initiatives.

For example, last month, Australia introduced an anti-dumping action against paper tissue producers in China and Indonesia. The action was instituted by two of Australia's biggest paper producers, which had long been struggling against cheaper imports and rising domestic costs.

Leading up to the action was a long campaign that claimed that these imports were environmentally destructive, but at its heart were Australian union and industry interests.

Similarly, the EU recently indicated that it would introduce restrictions on imports of palm oil from Indonesia and Malaysia for renewable fuels. The EU sustainability criteria for palm oil and other biofuels are currently before the European Parliament. They are expected to be adopted in May.

The restrictions fall neatly into line with a long-running Green European campaign against imported palm oil. Underlying this is the fact that imported palm oil is a cheaper alternative to EU-produced rapeseed oil - which can also be used for renewable fuels.

January 2009: Fierce deforestation debate at the Smithsonian
A symposium held at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC brought out a fierce debate on the future of tropical rainforests.

S. Joseph Wright of the Smithsonian's Tropical Research Institute in Panama argues that tropical deforestation and species extinction will not be as severe as many believe. Wright contends that slowing population growth, combined with increased urbanisation, will allow abandoned forest areas to recover and foster tropical species survival. This would alleviate pressure on forests and allow secondary forests to regenerate on abandoned farmland, according to Wright.

At the other end of the debate is Wright's colleague, William F. Laurance. He argues that only a fraction of tropical biodiversity will be sustained by secondary and degraded forests. He also argues that increasingly dominant drivers of tropical deforestation include industrial agriculture, logging, mining, and economic globalisation (as opposed to changing populations).

December 2008: PNG closes book on illegal logging claims
Papua New Guinea's forest industry moved closer to closing the book on claims that it is a major source of illegal timber with the announcement of PNG's first independent legality verification certificate. The SGS Timber Legality Traceability and Verification (TLTV) certificate was awarded to Saban Enterprises Limited, a subsidiary of Rimbunan Hijau in PNG. The project was the result of collaboration between Saban, SGS - one of the world's leading audit agencies - and the ITTO, which jointly funded the development of the new legality standard for Papua New Guinea.

This important development contrasted starkly with a serious blunder by Greenpeace in September when it seized a timber vessel in the Gulf of Papua, claiming that it belonged to a particular company and held illegal timber. Those claims were publicly demonstrated to be as false as its claims that most of the logging in PNG is illegal. Greenpeace not only revealed its true colours, but wasted most of the one million euros that a Dutch agency forked out to finance the prank.

The intention of Rimbunan Hijau and the PNG Forest Industries Association is progressively to extend application of this legal verification standard to most operations in PNG. The Australian Government has offered funding to support this.

Greenpeace has criticised the SGS legality verification standard (and others) on the usual contrived grounds - lack of independence and poor consultation - revealing once again that its aim is not to curb illegal logging, but to exploit that issue with false claims to advance its campaign to restrict or halt commercial forestry in tropical developing economies. SGS publicly released its response to Greenpeace's complaints. The conclusion was as follows:

SGS finds it unfortunate that Greenpeace continues to undermine global timber legality verification efforts when both Greenpeace and SGS share a common interest - ensuring that timber harvested in any country meets the criteria of legality and provides the necessary assurances to consumer markets world over. A more productive cause for a globally reputable environmental NGO such as Greenpeace would be to work with timber producing country governments to improve their legal framework and bring it closer to Sustainable Forest Management standards.

The announcement by Papua New Guinea's forest industry is available here.

December 2008: Forestry in the spotlight at Poznan
Developing countries won some useful ground on forestry at the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland. The discussions over REDD - reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries - have now been broadened to include expansion in forest cover as a means of reducing emissions.

While the concept is yet to be endorsed by the UNFCCC and remains with a subsidiary body, the development represents a shift in thinking on how to use forests to tackle climate change.

Most REDD proposals - particularly those made by Greenpeace, WWF, the World Bank and the EU - have focused almost entirely on deforestation, ignoring the carbon sink function of afforestation and reforestation projects, and the implementation of sustainable forest management (SFM) as a means of climate change mitigation.

Both the UNFCCC and the IPCC have published data which clearly show that reforestation, afforestation and SFM are equally cost-effective climate change mitigation measures. These proposals reflect an apparent intention of Greenpeace and WWF to push their anti-commercial forestry agenda, whether it is sustainable logging in native forests or plantation forestry, through the climate change negotiations.

Deforestation-focused REDD proposals have also ignored the development risks associated with REDD. Data presented by the UNFCCC show that 80 per cent of deforestation is caused by agriculture. Almost half of deforestation is caused by subsistence agriculture. Thus far, no Green proposals on REDD have sufficiently explained how a strategy focusing purely on deforestation will guarantee either economic growth or food security for developing countries.

Some leading tropical forest nations, such as Indonesia, India and the Congo Basin countries, stressed that the climate change strategy must include sustainable forestry and expansion of sinks. The World Bank is considering how to meet these demands.

December 2008: Forestry the easiest way to mitigate emissions
US-based NGO World Growth released a report at the recent UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan pointing out how UN research shows that expansion of forestry is the most cost-effective way in which developing countries can mitigate emissions. The report, "Winners All - How Forestry Can Reduce Both Climate Change Emissions and Poverty", is available at www.worldgrowth.org. Click here to download the report.

November 2008: PNG's REDD proposal published
Papua New Guinea's analysis to demonstrate that it is ready to participate in World Bank REDD programmes has been published on the World Bank Forestry Carbon Partnership Facility Website. Unfortunately, the report draws heavily on recent research by the University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) which suggests that deforestation rates in PNG were higher than extant assessments and that the commercial forestry industry is a significant driver of deforestation in Papua New Guinea. The methodology in the UPNG study has been severely critiqued by Colin Filer, one of the region's leading forest and resource management experts, and flies in the face of existing data on deforestation in PNG published by the FAO.

In a recently published report, Greenpeace relies heavily on the UPNG report in an attempt to resuscitate the flagging credibility of its claims that illegal logging is a major problem in PNG. It is now also making the unsupportable claim that commercial forestry is a major threat to the country's carbon stocks.

November 2008: ITTO holds 44th Session
The 44th Session of the International Tropical Timber Council (ITTC) was held from 3-8 November in Yokohama, Japan. At the meeting the ITTC announced funding of US $8.6 million toward tropical forests. This includes:

• US$3.5 million towards a new programme aimed at reducing deforestation and forest degradation in the tropics; and
• US$5.1 million for new projects and activities for the conservation and sustainable management, use and trade of tropical forest resources.

These funds are in addition to the US$3.1 million announced in June in Accra, Ghana. The pledged total in 2008 is therefore US$11.7 million.

The Council also announced a number of new pilot programmes, including: Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade; Community Forest Management and Enterprises; Trade and Market Transparency; Industry Development and Efficiency; and Reducing Deforestation and Forest Degradation and Enhancing Environmental Services in Tropical Forests. For the last programme, the Norwegian Government pledged US$3.5 million. The Council stated that further detail on all newly funded projects will be provided at a later date.

17 October 2008: EU to use climate change to push its deforestation agenda
The European Commission has announced that it will use the UN climate change negotiations to pursue its policies to restrict deforestation in tropical countries.

The Commission has proposed the formation of a 'Global Forest Carbon Mechanism' to be funded with ECU 1.5 to 2 billion derived from proceeds of auctioning emission credits in the EU. The money will be given to developing tropical countries if they agree to EU policies to cease deforestation and enter binding commitments to reduce emissions.

The EU will limit the number of credits developing countries can trade into the EU because if there were too many, that would ease the pressure on European energy industries to reduce emissions. The EU has said it will not be used to produce carbon credits in quantity in these developing countries until maybe around 2020 when they hope more global trading of credits occurs than is now the case.

Like WWF, which has set out near-identical policies, the Commission wants both to keep its cake and eat it too. It points out that unless the 17 per cent of world emissions generated by deforestation is eliminated, it will be too expensive for European industries to reduce emissions.

Yet it also accepts industrialised economies have a responsibility to lead on climate change. The report supporting the proposal shows that more carbon emissions can be reduced by afforestation and the practice of sustainable forestry, than by stopping deforestation.

Yet the Commission's proposal explicitly denies tropical developing countries the opportunity to secure benefits from extending sustainable forestry or conversion of forest lands to other commercially viable purposes, such as palm oil plantations, which are often more effective carbon sinks than forests.

These activities generate commercial returns and reduce emissions. The EU policy is an anti-forestry policy, not a pro-climate change mitigation policy.

It is also anti-development. There is ample scope in tropical developing countries to set aside conservation forests, to harvest native forests and to convert forestry to productive uses such as agriculture. The EU wants to keep these countries as parks, without regard to the economic well-being of the people.

The EU will announce these proposals at the climate change negotiations at Poznan in December 2008.

17 October 2008: EU announces illegal logging legislation
The European Commission has also announced a draft law for the European Parliament to make it illegal to procure or sell wood products without evidence the timber was legally obtained.

The proposed EU law to stop imports of illegal timber is like the US Lacey Act and UK law. It puts the onus on the buyer or importer in the EU to demonstrate the product is legally sourced.

This is poor law, requiring evidence to be produced from a second country to secure conviction in the first. It is expensive and rarely successful.

It claims 19 per cent of timber imported into the EU is illegally logged. This is unlikely since the Indonesian Government clamped down on illegal logging. The EU uses the illegal logging issue to advance its deforestation campaign.

9 October 2008: Norway puts money into forests, climate
Norway has weighed heavily into the forests and climate debate with a series of announcements relating to the Norwegian Climate and Forest Initiative (NCFI). Launched in December last year, the NCFI will fund REDD projects to the value of approximately US$500 million annually. The goal of the programme is to take early action on REDD while waiting for a post-2012 climate agreement to be finalised.

Norway has already committed US$100 million to the Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF), US$1 billion to the Amazon Fund, and US$35 million into the World Bank's own REDD pilots. Norway has also been engaged in talks with Papua New Guinea and Indonesia regarding disbursements in the Asia-Pacific region.

6 October 2008: FSC: Sues US Government, slammed by Greens
FSC---the WWF/Greenpeace-endorsed forestry certification scheme---has come under further fire from Green groups, indicating further a deep split within the organisation. International NGO Friends of the Earth (UK) has stated publicly that it does not recommend the FSC mark, that the FSC mark has been 'undermined' and that it is currently 'supporting a review of the FSC scheme' in order to 'understand how it needs to be strengthened in order to guarantee the highest environmental and social standards in all cases'.

The Rainforest Action Network (RAN), another member of FSC, has also criticised FSC, announcing it will undertake a strategic review of FSC. As stated in previous issues of Forestry and Development E-News, the clear tensions within the FSC membership indicate a lack of clarity about whether FSC is in the business of environmental advocacy lobbying or verifying sustainable forestry management. .

September-October 2008: PNG deforesting?
Greenpeace continued to repeat its routine allegation that PNG was heavily deforesting and endangering the 'Paradise Forests' when its vessel, The Esperenza, 'Keystone Copped' its way through the Gulf of Papua last month, seising a vessel it thought belonged to someone else, and alleging it carried illegal timber, which was palpably legal.

Three weeks later, the EU released a map prepared by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment showing global deforestation to support its new carbon initiative. According to the map, there is no serious deforestation problem in PNG.

Presumably the Dutch lottery foundation which funded the Greenpeace 'Paradise Forest' campaign in the South Pacific to the tune of around ECU 2 million (according to the Greenpeace website) considered its money was well spent.

30 September 2008: Garnaut backs off forestry in PNG
The Garnaut Climate Change Review - Australia's answer to the Stern Report - has changed its view of forests in developing countries as an easy source of carbon credits. The Review's recently released final report flags the potential for a bilateral carbon trading scheme to exist between the two countries. It also states that drivers of forestry-related emissions include "subsistence farming, illegal logging and poor governance" - but the commercial forestry industry was not mentioned. This contrasts heavily with the Garnaut Review's interim report and discussion paper. It confidently stated that PNG's rural population could take cash payments for carbon in lieu of timber revenues from commercial forestry. This contention was made with seemingly little consideration for governance and implementation issues, or even the contribution of the forestry industry to PNG's rural communities. Moreover, the Review had undertaken no quantitative research comparing the value of PNG's forests as carbon or as timber, or what would benefit PNG's rural poor the most. The change is consistent with an emerging developing country position: that forests aid both the climate and development when they are harvested and managed.

16 September 2008: Lacey Act comes under fire
The recent amendments to the Lacey Act in the US that attempt to prevent the import of 'illegal' timber products have come under fire from business groups in the US. Bloomberg reports that according to the Washington-based National Retail Federation, a peak body for US retailers, the law has been written so broadly that almost any product derived from plants could fall within the legislation's definitions.

The legislation requires importers to disclose the specific name, value and quantity of plant product, and the country from which it was harvested when importing any plant-derived products. If this information is not known, importers must disclose possible species and possible countries of origin. In reality, this means that importers of cosmetics that might use fragrant woods or textiles such as rayon using cellulose fibre must disclose this information.

9 September 2008: Greenpeace gets it wrong: the poor in the Pacific are the victims: commentary by Alan Oxley
Last week, Greenpeace blundered with a clumsily executed publicity stunt in the Papua Gulf in Papua New Guinea (PNG) in the remote South Pacific. Greenpeace protestors illegally boarded a ship, claiming that the timber it was transporting to China was illegally logged by long-standing Greenpeace target, Rimbunan Hijau, the largest forest business in PNG.

Greenpeace hadn't checked its facts. The timber was not from a Rimbunan Hijau company. When told this, Greenpeace pointed to a report by SGS, the Swiss inspection company, which cited the company concerned. But the SGS report was found to be in error.

Greenpeace persisted and continued to claim that the ship was carrying timber from the Rimbunan Hijau company.

Associated Press (AP) correctly reported the Greenpeace action as "piracy", an illegal boarding and seizure of a vessel. The Post Courier newspaper in Port Moresby ran the AP report in full, with the headline "piracy". This was unusual. The Post Courier is traditionally a critic of the timber industry in PNG. It probably felt misled. The day before, it had devoted extensive space to the Greenpeace argument that it was saving PNG forests. The ABC ran an article that corrected the Greenpeace claims.

Just like the famous Brent Spar blunder in 1995, when Greenpeace erroneously insisted that the ditched oil platform discharged a large amount of oil into the North Sea, Greenpeace is still claiming that the timber is from Rimbunan Hijau. In the end, Greenpeace apologized about Brent Spar. So far there is no sign it will follow suit in PNG. Is this hoodwinking on Greenpeace's part, or is the NGO jammed between a rock and hard place? There seems to be plenty of hoodwinking.

August 2008: UNFCCC still trying to see REDD
Forestry's role in climate change was up for discussion at the UNFCCC talks in Accra, Ghana in August. On the table at a workshop meeting was 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries---Approaches to Stimulate Action'. The workshop followed on from discussions earlier this year in Bonn and Bangkok, as well as in Bali in 2007. The talks demonstrated that what seems like a straightforward concept---compensating developing countries for avoiding deforestation---is proving exceedingly difficult.

Submissions by parties prior to the workshop indicated that there is a large gulf between what developed and developing economies expect from negotiations. Countries such as India, Indonesia, Congo Basin nations and a coalition of 27 small developing nations (including Papua New Guinea) proposed that they be compensated for increasing their forest carbon stocks (afforestation and reforestation) as well as avoiding deforestation. However, this is at odds with the EU and Green position, which is only concerned with avoiding deforestation---and not expanding the commercial forest industry. At the end of the workshop, agreement was reached on only one thing: to continue discussions.

The workshop highlights two major problems with the enthusiastic approach to REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) taken by Greens. Firstly, it assumes that a global agreement on emissions trading is imminent. While the UNFCCC has talked up a global agreement and named December 2009 as a deadline, prospects remain low. China and India are unlikely to agree to deep emissions cuts; the US will not participate in an agreement unless China does. Secondly, it assumes that enough is known about the forest carbon cycle. Measuring carbon emissions from soil disturbance after forest harvesting, or even finding estimates for carbon sequestered in standing forests, is still in its infancy. At this stage, REDD is based on unmeasurable carbon credits within a yet-to-be defined emissions trading scheme that is part of a non-existent climate agreement.

REDD looks increasingly like a fund to coax tropical forest nations to accept binding commitments to reduce emissions and restrict forestry in return for cash.

27 July 2008: WWF trots out the 'usual suspects' for the EU
WWF has been using old and discredited data in its efforts to lobby the EU Government ahead of proposed new EU legislation on the import of illegal timber products. A WWF report released in late July claimed that almost 20 per cent of all timber imports to the EU are from illegally-sourced timber.

But the numbers used to derive this figure are from sources that have previously been discredited in numerous international forums. For example, the figure for illegal timber from PNG - 70 per cent - is sourced from a Seneca Creek report estimate that was applied to the entire Asia-Pacific region without any research on compliance or timber flows. The figure for Malaysia was sourced from an Australian Institute of Criminology report which had a formal complaint lodged against it by the PNG Forest Industry Association.

The EU was due to publish a legislative proposal on illegally logged timber products in July; it has now been pushed back to September. Green NGOs are likely to step up their activity in the meantime.

21 July 2008: SGS-FSC moratorium being beaten up by Greens
The recent moratorium on new FSC certification assessments by Swiss-based auditors SGS has been beaten up by Green groups. The moratorium introduced by SGS was prompted by a shortage of qualified assessors to undertake new certification activity. However, Green groups - including World Rainforest Movement and FSC-Watch - have attempted to use the moratorium to discredit certification activities by SGS. Green groups have long objected to FSC and SGS certification of plantation forests and have lobbied FSC as such. Greens have also lobbied against certification of FSC-compliant companies that aren't in tune with the Greens' conservation agenda, such as Veracel and Asia Pulp and Paper. This puts FSC in a perilous business position. On the one hand, it claims to offer a business-to-business service but, on the other, is also coming under pressure from Green NGOs when it certifies a company that Greens dislike.

14 July 2008: World Bank announces REDD recipients
The World Bank has announced its first round of REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) funding under its Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. The Bank has given funding to 14 developing countries in total: six in Africa (the Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar); five in Latin America (Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Mexico, Panama); and three in Asia (Nepal, Lao PDR, Vietnam). Indonesia, Brazil and Papua New Guinea - often portrayed by NGOs as the world's deforestation 'hotspots' - were absent from the applicant list. In a press interview, Benoit Bosquet of the World Bank's carbon finance unit conceded that, without the participation of Brazil and Indonesia, forest-based emissions would not be reduced substantially. However, he also expected both countries to apply for funding within the next 12 months.

6 June 2008: SGS criticises Greenpeace assessment of legal verification
SGS, one of the world's most respected inspection organisations, has criticised a Greenpeace report released in January that purports to be a technical assessment of international legality verification systems as unprofessional and not transparent.

Greenpeace gave the SGS Timber Legality Traceability and Verification (TLTV) system a surprisingly low score, despite the system being considered one of the best around. The SGS statement says that "the Greenpeace Assessment does not qualify as a balanced, informed, and accurate analysis" and highlighted the "lack of professionalism and transparency applied by Greenpeace in carrying out this specific task, especially since, in doing so, Greenpeace is adversely affecting potential customers' perception of the services."

30 May 2008: WWF at CBD - "postcard" theatrics
WWF has claimed that environment ministers from 60 countries have demonstrated their support for WWF's call for zero net deforestation by 2020 by signing postcards at the WWF side event at the 9th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP9) in Bonn last month. The postcards were addressed to WWF International Director-General, James Leape. Australia and Indonesia both signed the postcards. WWF has said that its target of zero deforestation by 2020 was set to "support and enhance the CBD's Forest Programme of Work". WWF has once again demonstrated that when crafting policies to achieve its forestry ambitions, no weight is given to economic growth or eradication of poverty.

27 May 2008: NZ announces illegal logging measures
The New Zealand Government has announced it will adopt measures to address the issue of illegally-logged wood products. New Zealand Forestry Minister Jim Anderton announced that international action will include financial mechanisms to reduce deforestation in developing countries, research, and government engagement with key consumer countries that are considered a risk for the export to New Zealand of illegally-logged wood. New Zealand's timber imports are relatively small, but a campaign by the New Zealand Greens attacking the import of kwila - primarily from Malaysia - has gained considerable attention over the past months. Cabinet has agreed to compulsory labeling of kwila products that indicates if it has been legally verified by a third party. An election is approaching in New Zealand, so these measures are likely to have been adopted to win over the Green vote.

25 April 2008: Greenpeace moves attacks to Solomons
Greenpeace's failed campaign against the commercial forestry industry in Papua New Guinea has now shifted back to the Solomon Islands. Greenpeace had previously run a campaign against forestry in the Solomons in 1999 and 2001. Its campaign then constituted a broadside at the Solomons' poor. One report stated that after receiving income from forestry, "People started to buy things they didn't really need like tinned and processed foods". The NGO is now voicing the same rhetoric against the Solomons' commercial forestry industry as it did in PNG, accusing it of bribery, tax avoidance and poor labour practices. It is also attempting to re-mount the same campaign for 'small-scale eco-forestry' operations for local operators, promising access to significant premiums for an FSC-certified product.

22 April 2008: Forestry equals climate solution: Gabon, Indonesia
Submissions by Gabon and Indonesia to the UNFCCC on reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) indicate support for carbon absorption in sustainably managed commercial forests. Gabon's submission, which was made on behalf of the Congo Basin countries, states that emissions from the exploitation of sustainably managed forests should not be included in carbon accounting, and that "enhanced forest carbon stocks achieved through sustainable management should also be estimated and compensated". Indonesia also states that "Countries would be compensated for any carbon stock accrual or enhancement through forest management between a first and a second carbon stock inventory".

16 April 2008: AIC report on illegal logging fails organisation's own professional standards
The PNG Forest Industries Association has complained to the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), an Australian Government legal research agency, that a recent report on imports of "illegal timber" fails the Institute's charter obligation to produce impartial and high standard research. The report repeats Greenpeace claims that an Australian subsidiary of an arm of forest company Rimbunan Hijau imports and sells illegal timber in Australia and that illegal logging is prevalent in PNG. The Association says that this is untrue and that the report defames the Australian company.

It points out that the report is full of errors, for example underestimating plywood production in PNG by two-thirds, because it draws mostly on reports by Greenpeace and the Australian Conservation Foundation. These are political documents which are heavily slanted to push anti-forestry positions. They are notorious for sensationalist claims about illegal logging and forestry which cannot be substantiated. There is ample material on the record from industry and government sources which illustrates this, but virtually none has been drawn on in the report. As well as being full of errors and slanted, it is outdated.

1 April 2008: Political disputes spell commercial trouble for FSC
FSC's ambition to become the world's leading forest certifier has been seriously harmed by deep internal political divisions which make it a very undependable partner. The World Rainforest Movement (WRM), a key member and one of the founders of FSC (along with the initiators, WWF and Greenpeace) has demanded that FSC cease certifying plantation forestry. It recently publicly described FSC's decision to certify eucalypt forests in Brazil as the system's 'death certificate'.

Anti-forestry groups have been criticising FSC for some time through the website "FSCWatch" for certifying legitimate forestry in native forests.Ecological Internet has described such activity as a "big lie". Under this sort of pressure, FSC is now unilaterally cancelling commercial arrangements. It recently revoked the right of Indonesian pulp and paper company APP, one of the largest in the world, to use the FSC logo on paper products, despite formal verification by inspection agency SGS, as it had in the past, that the product met FSC rules. No formal justification was provided. FSC's spin was that the company's forest practices were poor. There is long-standing bitterness between WWF and APP over a failed effort to collaborate several years ago.

17 March 2008: PNG industry to invest in silviculture
Rimbunan Hijau, the largest forestry company in PNG has announced that it will make further substantial investments in silviculture and reforestation in Papua New Guinea, in line with the Australia-PNG Forest Carbon Partnership Agreement. The company commenced its silvicultural investments in 2006, when it identified plantation sites and species across the country. The company has also states that the activities will incorporate large-scale community participation in the investments. The company has also stated that its activities will go well beyond paying the current reforestation levy imposed by the PNG Government.

4 March 2008: Lao forestry under the green spotlight
A report released by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) has released a paper that criticizes the impacts of LaosÕ forest industry. The report, ÒEnvironmental Impacts of Trade Liberalization in the Wood and Wood Products Sector of the Lao PDRÓ largely ignores the positive impact of the forest products sector, which now makes up almost 25 per cent of all exports from the country. Green NGOs have consistently overstated the impact of commercial forestry in Laos. The country has large forest reserves. There is deforestation, but the primary cause is slash and burn agriculture practices by Lao people living on mountain lowlands.

30 January 2008: WWF and Flannery promote climate change forestry experiment in PNG
WWF and Australian climate change author Tim Flannery have made a joint submission to the Australian Garnaut Climate Change Review, proposing that PNG villagers in remote areas sell carbon or biodiversity credits via Internet auction site eBay to conserve their forest areas. They will apparently do this using a combination of mobile phone technology, laptops, Internet auction sites and satellite mapping.

The concept is that the rural poor would benefit more from trading carbon in trees than from harvesting them. PNG's rural poor need more income. Less than 9 per cent of rural households have access to piped water and less than 15 per cent of the rural population attends school beyond the age of 15. The scheme, however, is likely to decrease not increase income.

For a start, the idea requires a globally managed system to trade carbon credits and none is in prospect. A related idea was proposed at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change last year and was even given some World Bank support. It depends on the establishment of a global system to trade carbon credits under the Convention. At Bali in December, parties to the Convention did not endorse the idea of globally managed carbon trading and remain unlikely to do so.

With less than 0.5 per cent of people able to access the Internet, communications in PNG could not support such a system anyway. Only 1.2 per cent of the population of five million have fixed-line telephones. A simpler and more effective strategy would be to improve commercial forestry and to increase harvesting: that generates the environmental benefit of increasing the carbon sink in PNG forests and increases the returns from commercial forestry, thereby increasing rural incomes. But WWF (along with Greenpeace and the Australian Conservation Foundation) have consistently worked against commercial forestry in PNG.

30 January 2008: Greenpeace assessment of legality verification systems - who benefits?
In a new "assessment" of systems to verify the legality of forest logging, Greenpeace has advanced a set of criteria which requires a "time-bound commitment" to adopting FSC-certified forestry management.

The report criticises many other verification systems for lack of transparency. Greenpeace fails to mention in the report that it has a proprietary interest in FSC as a founding member and that it is a member of one of FSC's governing bodies.

Greenpeace has an established record of targeting businesses that do not adopt its preferred policies on forestry and sourcing of timber. It usually also promotes the FSC system set up by WWF which companies must pay to join. FSC is facing increasing competition from legality verification schemes, which offer legality verification without onerous procedures and costs that can be prohibitive for developing country operators.

8 January 2008: Tropical forests - what crisis?
A new study from the University of Leeds challenges claims of a global crisis in tropical forestry. The study, published in the US-based National Academy of Sciences, has found that evidence of a decline in tropical forest area is unclear.

"The picture is far more complicated than previously thought", said Dr Alan Grainger, the study's author. "If there is no long-term net decline in global forestry, it suggests that deforestation is being accompanied by a lot of natural reforestation that we have not spotted", he said.

Dr Grainger is one of the world's leading authorities on deforestation. He has found inconsistencies among United Nations' forest resources assessments. He has concluded that current data cannot be used to monitor tropical forest area with great accuracy.

"Scientists all over the world who have used these data to make predictions of species extinctions and the role of forests in global climate change will find it helpful to revisit their findings in the light of my study", he said.

17 December 2007: UNFF agreement adopted
The UN General Assembly has adopted the UN Forum on Forests Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests (NLBI), eight months after the agreement was reached in April 2007.

The agreement on international forest policy and cooperation calls for greater international cooperation and national action to reduce deforestation, reverse the loss of forest cover, prevent forest degradation, promote sustainable livelihoods and reduce poverty for all forest-dependent peoples.

It "sets a new standard in forest management", according to the General Assembly.

Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, Sha Zukang, stated that the agreement represented "a new era for international forest policy, characterized by reinvigorated dialogue at all levels".

Zukang also said that "further pro-poor, pro-nature and pro-growth actions that link trees and forests to the achievement of the internationally agreed development goals" are needed "to enable forests to contribute to the overall development of society".

16 December 2007: Bali Roundup
A number of key developments related to forestry took place at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference in Bali, Indonesia, from 3 to 14 December.

• UNFCCC - role of sustainable forestry as tool to reduce carbon emissions recognised
  Forestry was a hot topic at the UNFCCC meeting. There was a keen awareness among Green NGOs that if they couldn't walk away with commitments to binding emissions cuts from developed nations, they could try to force their anti-forestry agenda under the Convention. The results were mixed. On the one hand, the UNFCCC peak body, the Conference of the Parties, agreed to consider policy approaches and positive incentives for reduced emissions from deforestation in developing countries as part of its mitigation activity, which could have a detrimental impact on the forestry industry. However, it also agreed to recognise the role of sustainable forestry and enhancement of carbon stocks in developing countries when formulating mitigation strategies.
  
  
• World Bank - fails to recognise sustainable forestry
  The World Bank wasted another opportunity to take positive action on forestry, growth and climate change, with the launch of its Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) at the UNFCCC Conference. The professed aim of the Facility is to fund deforestation measures in developing countries in a way that may help to create carbon credits which these countries can trade in an international system after 2012. Yet it is unlikely that a system of global trading will be agreed upon. The Fund looks like an offer of money to developing countries to adopt Bank policies on deforestation.
  
  
• Indonesia
  Host nation Indonesia made some major announcements regarding forestry and climate change at the UNFCCC conference. The Indonesian Government announced that it will select four forestry projects for the World Bank's proposed Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme. The Indonesian Government also launched the 'Orangutan Conservation Strategy and Action Plan', which was widely supported by NGOs and governments within the region for attempting to preserve orangutan habitat and reducing climate change emissions. The Indonesian province of Papua also announced that it will review all forestry operations in the province. Finally, Papua signed a number of agreements with carbon investment companies in return for financial assistance.
  
  
• NGOs
  A large number of NGOs were present at the UNFCCC Conference - and a large number had the forest industry in their sights. Greenpeace launched its "Tropical Deforestation Emission Reduction Mechanism", which aims to raise funds to avoid deforestation, but which opposes any commercial forestry activity. One participant asked if Greenpeace was more interested in carbon reductions or avoided deforestation, to which Greenpeace responded that it was only interested in avoided deforestation.

8 December 2007: IFC withdraws from Olam
In another disappointing development in World Bank forest policy, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the investment arm of the World Bank, divested its 3.4 per cent stake in Olam, a Singapore-based company with holdings in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), in December 2007.

Olam had been under repeated attack from Greenpeace over its involvement in the DRC. These attacks were maintained despite Olam holding just less than 1 per cent of all forestry concessions allocated by the DRC Government (which were subsequently handed back earlier in 2007) and having never cut down a single tree in the DRC. The company issued a statement strenuously denying Greenpeace's charges, stating that the IFC and Olam's policy approaches had diverged, and also stating that it believed that it had been unfairly targeted because of the IFC's stake in the company.

29 November 2007: UK DFID as anti-forestry advocate
The UK's Department for International Development (DFID) has employed the advocacy tactics of Green NGOs with two booklets on illegal logging in Indonesia, Ghana and Cameroon. The DFID publications are 'policy lite', written in a journalistic style with no sourcing of data and information.

Aid agencies are usually more responsible, with reports backed up with sourced statistics, serious analysis and solid policy recommendations.

The reports attempt to equate the timber trade in Indonesia, Ghana and Cameroon with the trade in illicit drugs. They also squarely blame Chinese demand for illegal logging and are critical of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) for not cracking down on the illegal timber imports - despite this being well outside the WTO's ambit.

However, the booklets are heavily in favour of the European Union's mooted voluntary partnership agreements (VPAs) which encourage developing countries to sign away their WTO rights.

This is not new for DFID. In PNG in 2006, it funded a scurrilous report by the Australian Conservation Foundation suggesting that the forest industry was responsible for gun trafficking.

November 10: ITTO funds PNG governance project
The International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO) has funded a governance project in PNG to the tune of almost US$500,000. The project aims to enhance forest law enforcement in PNG and support sustainable forest management activities. Forest law enforcement in PNG has been heavily criticised by NGOs operating in the area who are unfamiliar with capacity and resource constraints within PNG that severely limit the ability of forest authorities to enforce forest law. Instead, NGOs simply accuse the forest industry of being corrupt.

2007: Greenpeace unscrupulously attacks certifiers
Greenpeace has attacked Swiss-based auditing organisation SGS by launching a letter-writing campaign against the company over its recent FSC inspection of Spanish industrial plantation company NORFOR. SGS was engaged by NORFOR to conduct Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification for its forestry operations. The FSC has since requested a small number of remedial actions for the certification following stakeholder complaints - one of which was made by Greenpeace.

24 October 2007: Prince Charles takes anti-development position
In a speech at a WWF event in London, Prince Charles launched a private-sector initiative aimed at protecting old growth rainforests for their "services to humanity". He said that the value of living forests would need to out-compete other drivers of forest destruction - some of which were the demand for palm oil, beef and soya from rich countries. The Prince of Wales fails to understand that soya and beef are essential foodstuffs and income sources for people in developing countries.

17 October 2007: Greens maintain unscrupulous attacks on PNG, ANZ
Australian and New Zealand Greens campaigning against the proposed Gunns pulp mill in Tasmania are using the PNG forestry industry as a pawn in their campaign. The campaign is attacking Gunns' banker, ANZ. To gain further leverage on the bank, campaigners have unscrupulously dragged another ANZ client, Rimbunan Hijau, into the campaign. All of Rimbunan Hijau's forestry operations in PNG are legal. The attacks are doubly unscrupulous, first relying on unsourced and unsubstantiated claims about levels of illegal logging in PNG, then drawing a link with a company that just happens to operate in that country. A recent International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) draft report that has been eagerly flaunted by NGOs such as Greenpeace in their criticism of the industry did not at any point state that illegal logging was of concern in PNG.

11 October 2007: World Bank releases Forest Carbon Partnership Fund details
The World Bank has released details of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF). The FCPF is a market-based mechanism aimed at compensating developing countries for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). The World Bank has indicated that it will rely heavily on contributions from governments, the private sector and other public sector entities for funding. According to a World Bank presentation, the FCPF aims to have US$1 billion at its disposal for compensation payments by 2014. It has also stated in a concept note that it will work with the private sector in implementing programmes.

10 October 2007: Forestry plays role in reducing poverty in rural PNG
A new report from an Australian consulting firm reveals that private-sector forestry investments play a vital role in reducing poverty in rural areas in Papua New Guinea. The report, 'The Economic Contribution of Rimbunan Hijau's Operations in PNG', has found that forestry contributes significantly to economic and social development in rural areas. The report, which was commissioned by forestry company Rimbunan Hijau (RH), details the private-sector funding of roads, bridges, airstrips and services such as health and education in rural areas. It found that RH's contributions in these areas exceeded government spending by as much as 80 per cent. Written by Australian consulting firm ITS Global, the report indicates that the forestry industry contributed approximately 187 million kina ($US90 million) to the PNG economy in 2006; accounts for 5 per cent of PNG's exports and employs more than 9,000 people. On its own, RH's forestry operations contributed just under 80 million kina (K) to the economy last year. The company paid nearly K70 million last year in levies, royalties and duties. In addition, the company employs more than 4,000 forestry workers. New PNG Forestry Minister Belden Namah said that he was "impressed" by the report, as it revealed the industry's positive contribution to the PNG economy. Read the full report here.

9 October 2007: Greenpeace tactics hold little sway in developing countries
Greenpeace has come under pressure from local groups on both sides of the Pacific Ocean in relation to its anti-forestry activities. In Castelo dos Sonhos in Brazil, Greenpeace campaigners were ambushed by angry local residents and timber workers after they attempted to haul a tree trunk to Rio de Janeiro for an 'exhibition' on climate change. Locals were upset that the NGO did not ask locals for permission before removing the tree. In Indonesia, Greenpeace has ignored the failure of its PNG-based Global Forest Rescue Station and established a 'Forest Defenders Camp' in Riau. In PNG, the Global Forest Rescue Station was designed to promote subsistence eco-forestry. It was an exercise that ultimately failed to bring sustainable development outcomes to the people of the region.

24 September 2007: UN High-Level Event on Climate Change aims high
The UN-convened High-Level Event on Climate Change (HLECC) was held at the UN Headquarters in New York on 24 September. The meeting was aimed at building momentum for the UN Climate Change Conference, to be held on 3-14 December in Bali, at which negotiations are to take place for a post-2012 international climate change agreement. The HLECC marked the first meeting of a newly-formed Coalition of Rainforest Nations. The coalition consists of Brazil, Cameroon, Congo, Costa Rica, Gabon, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Peru.

9 September 2007: APEC leaders make declaration on forests and climate
The APEC Australia 2007 Conference was held on 2-9 September, and culminated with the 15th APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, the APEC Economic Leaders issued the Sydney APEC Leaders' Declaration on Climate Change, Energy Security and Clean Development, which included an Action Agenda on Forests. In addition, Australia and Indonesia have signed the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership agreement to which Australia will commit A$30 million. Australia also announced funding of A$15.7 million for the Asia-Pacific Forestry Skills and Capacity Building Programme.

30 August 2007: Woolworths pressured by NGOs
Australian supermarket chain Woolworths has withdrawn tens of thousands of units of tissue and paper products after ceding to NGO pressure over its links with an Indonesian paper supplier. NGOs have made allegations that a range of products labelled with a "Sustainable Forest Fibre" logo were sourced from unsustainable forestry practices. Woolworths sources these products from Asia Pulp and Paper (APP), an Indonesian company that has long been a target of NGOs such as Greenpeace.

20 August 2007: Australian forestry gains standard
The Australian Forestry Standard (AFS) has been fully recognized as an Australian Standard following a comprehensive three-year review process. The AFS is the standard for forest management under the Australian Forest Certification Scheme (AFCS).

A number of changes were made to the Standard from its 2003 version, which was recognised by Standards Australia as an 'interim standard'. The revised standard will not certify plantation forestry on cleared native forest land. It also provides greater transparency for the certification process and a greater regard for social and indigenous interests in forest management. The AFCS is endorsed by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). A related press release issued by AFS Limited is available here.

20 August 2007: NZ Greens attempt to derail developing economies
The forestry industry in Papua New Guinea (PNG) has again come under attack from environmental activists who are using financial institutions as leverage in their anti-forestry campaigns. The New Zealand Greens Party has launched an attack against the ANZ Banking Group in a coordinated campaign with the New Zealand Financial Sector Workers' Union (FINSEC). The groups have urged a consumer boycott against the bank. The banking group has previously been the target of campaigns from NGOs in New Zealand regarding claims that the bank financed military operations in Iraq. The action is part of a campaign by NGOs around the world to pressure financial institutions to force their customers to change their practices.

7 August 2007: NZ illegal logging report suspicious
The New Zealand Government has announced that it will consult industry, importers and retailers on a new proposal to introduce rules on the legality of imported timber products. The New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) has published a report entitled Implications for the New Zealand Wood Products Sector of Trade Distortions due to Illegal Logging. The report states that trade distortions due to illegal logging cost the New Zealand forest industry NZ$266 million a year in lost revenue, and that illegal timber harvesting depressed wood product prices around the world. The report specifically identifies PNG, the Solomon Islands, Myanmar, Laos, Viet Nam, and Thailand as countries exporting "suspicious wood", citing unsubstantiated claims by NGOs such as Greenpeace.

1 August 2007: Another illegal logging Bill for US Senate
Another illegal logging Bill has been introduced into the US Senate. The 'Bipartisan Combat Illegal Logging Act' follows the introduction of a Bill against illegal logging tabled in US Congress in March of this year. The Bill's text is in many ways identical to the earlier Bill that was introduced in March this year. The Lacey Act has been identified by anti-logging groups as a potential model for legislation. Submission of a Bill to the US Senate is no indication of a likely change in policy by the Administration on any subject. Submitting a Bill with no expectation it will be passed is a common way of drawing attention to an issue.

27 July 2007: Climate change to dominate forest policy
Forests and climate change are becoming more prominent in international policy. At the Australian Government's High Level Meeting on Forests and Climate, which took place in Sydney during the week ending July 27, Australia made three large-scale commitments to climate change, which will have a direct impact on forestry in the region. Read an Australian Government press release here. At the same meeting, the World Bank released details on its new Global Forest Alliance (GFA), a new institutional arrangement that subsumes its current forestry partnerships (the World Bank-WWF Alliance, Profor and FLEG). It will provide for consultation with stakeholders and also raise funds for the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF). The facility primarily concentrates on Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), and purchasing carbon credits from developing countries. The World Bank presentation on FCPF is available here. The World Bank presentation on REDD is available here.

30 June 2007: ITTO funds Pilot Project in PNG
The ITTO will jointly fund a Timber Legality and Traceability Verification (TLTV) pilot system with Saban Enterprises Limited, a PNG-based timber company and subsidiary of Rimbunan Hijau (PNG), demonstrating a commitment to legal logging in PNG from both the private sector and the international community.

The voluntary scheme is designed to strengthen forestry law governance and enforcement on global timber markets, will promote the production and trade of timber from legally and sustainably managed forests, and will provide importers with the confidence they seek with respect to the harvesting of timber in accordance with PNG law.

Implementation of a TLTV scheme will provide concrete evidence that those who sign up are not engaged in illegal logging; it will independently demonstrate that Saban Enterprises Limited's Australian timber exports meet all PNG forestry laws, policy requirements and standards.

The PNGFIA announced earlier this year that it would introduce a TLTV scheme in 2007.

30 June 2007: Yale mixes it in the global forestry debate
Two recent interventions suggest that members of the Yale Center for Environmental Policy and Law, an environmental institution that carries significant international influence, are becoming activists in the global forestry debate.

In 2005 and 2006, the Center published a general rating of sustainability of forestry in developing countries. Its standard was that not more than 3 per cent of forest was being logged annually. PNG met that standard.

In October last year, the PNG forest industry cited the Yale rating at an illegal logging conference hosted by the ITTO. It has been cited since. It appears that PNG's leading anti-forestry NGO complained to Yale about this. After that, a member of the Center wrote to media in PNG and Australia stating that the index now should not be used as a measure of sustainability.

Several anti-forestry campaigners and NGOs have made statements indicating that the PNG election should be decided on forestry issues.

Around the same time, research by a member of the Yale Center was used as part of a campaign to pressure financial institutions not to finance timber companies. The paper criticized HSBC and Credit Suisse for facilitating an IPO by Malaysian-based conglomerate Samling on the Hong Kong stock exchange. The researcher had studied the activities of Samling's subsidiary, Barama, in Guyana. BankTrack, a small NGO set up by other NGOs to pressure financial institutions to adhere to the Equator Principles, criticized the banks for supporting the IPO, while at the same time they were adherents to the Equator Principles.

HSBC correctly pointed out that the activity was an IPO and that the Equator Principles only applied to project finance.

30 June 2007: US Congress creates nasty trade and environment linkage
The Democrat-controlled US Congress and the Republican Bush Administration have agreed to place environmental conditions in free trade agreements (FTAs). In future, FTAs will require compliance with the terms of nominated multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). This will include the CITES, one of the handful of international environmental agreements adopted by the US.

This foreshadows the possibility that if a partner in a bilateral FTA with the US fails to abide by obligations under CITES, the dispute provisions of the FTA may be invoked, invalidating other rights secured under the agreement. At present, there are no penalties for failing to apply obligations under CITES.

This requirement will only become law when Congress re-enacts law which US Administrations have traditionally used to secure Congress's approval of trade agreements. The old law was time-bound and lapsed at the end of July. Re-enactment is unlikely in the remainder of the second Bush term.

11 June 2007: G8 backs World Bank forest carbon plan
The G8 has supported a World Bank proposal for a US$250 million pilot facility to provide finance to developing countries which manage forestry to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. Known as the Forest Climate Partnership Facility (FCPF), it has been put together under the World Bank's new Global Forest Alliance (GFA).

Details of how the scheme will work are unclear, but it appears to encourage reforestation, reduction of deforestation and restrictions on the conversion of forest land to other uses. Initial presentations on the FCPF indicated that subsidies will be used to prevent conversion of land for both agricultural and biodiesel purposes. There are also indications that the Facility aims to promote the creation of carbon credits which can be traded.

A related concept fostered by the Bank is a scheme to reduce emissions from deforestation or forest degradation (REDD). This has been endorsed in principle by the Rainbow Coalition of small countries with significant forest industries.

The notion of accepting payments for not harvesting timber may seem like an attractive prospect for developing countries. Already, a number of governments have indicated preliminary support, including the Democratic Republic of Congo and a number of regional governments in Indonesia.

11 June 2007: Malaysia and Indonesia defend palm oil
The Malaysian and Indonesian governments have launched a campaign to defend their countries' palm oil industries internationally. The palm oil industry has come under increasing attack from NGOs around the world.

Several environmental NGOs have claimed that a combination of palm oil plantations for biofuels, as well as illegal logging, is causing damage to Indonesia's rainforests. WWF and Friends of the Earth in the UK have been running a campaign against the oil palm industry, targeting supermarket chains such as TESCO, and food manufacturing companies, claiming that palm oil plantations endanger orangutan habitats. Greenpeace has also heavily criticized palm oil as a source for biofuels, claiming that its green credentials are false.

Malaysia and Indonesia are the world's two largest producers of palm oil. The Malaysian and Indonesian governments have also stated that they will set up a joint economic committee that will examine illegal logging.

7 June 2007: Developing countries block anti-forestry moves in CITES
Developing countries foiled an effort by NGOs at an international meeting in the Netherlands at the beginning of June to convert the international convention to control trade in endangered species into a tool to control trade in timber.

The meeting of CITES had been the subject of intense lobbying over the previous few months. NGOs such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth had been attempting to have a number of timber species listed on Appendix II of the convention. In recent years there has been agreement within CITES to restrict trade in some species of mahogany.

At this meeting, NGOs had targeted merbau in particular, releasing a report claiming that merbau exports from PNG and Indonesia were illegal and endangering the species. Another report released by Greenpeace focused specifically on Dutch importers in an attempt to gain leverage at the CITES meeting. However, no countries buckled to NGO pressure and the timber was not nominated for review.

NGOs also targeted Spanish cedar and rosewood. The EU proposed that the timbers be placed on Appendix II which specifies species which are endangered. But these proposals were withdrawn once it became clear that they would be voted down.

The targeting of commercially viable species within CITES is another chapter in the NGO global campaign to restrict commercial forestry, following campaigns against illegal logging. Rather than basing campaigns on facts, there has been a specific targeting of species that form a valuable part of the forest trade. This international trade in forest and wood products is a vital contributor to economic growth and poverty reduction in developing countries.

Full briefing documents from the CITES meeting can be viewed here.

24 May 2007: Chinese action on illegal logging
The US and China have announced a consensus on a number of environmental and energy issues at the Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED) on May 22 and 23. The SED aims to incorporate environmental objectives into a broader economic framework. Three policy areas in particular were addressed by the Dialogue: clean coal technology, clean energy, and agreements on illegal logging, oceans and fisheries. Both nations have agreed to engage in a dialogue to produce a bilateral agreement on illegal logging by the end of 2007.

China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Jiang Yu, has stated that China is taking measures to address illegal timber imports from countries such as Myanmar.

7 May 2007: NGOs keep up unethical campaigns against developing countries
Forestry in developing countries has come under recent attack, once again, from anti-development NGOs on opposite sides of the globe. The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has launched a second attack on the ANZ banking group last month, pressuring it to withhold banking services from one of its clients, Rimbunan Hijau (RH), a timber producer in Papua New Guinea.

The attacks on the timber industry in PNG, the bank and the timber importer have come just weeks after the PNG forestry industry announced a commitment to a legality verification scheme through Swiss-based firm SGS.

At the same time, Greenpeace has launched an attack on Dutch timber importers such as Hoek Lopik, which purchase timber from RH. The NGO has once again called for bans on imports of timber from developing nations, putting the future of developing economies at risk.

It tried this tactic in Australia with the same material, and failed. In addition to recycling previously discredited and unsubstantiated claims, the report also smears EU initiatives such as the Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) program to reduce illegal logging because it does not entail trade bans which would not be permissible under WTO rules.

The report was also released at the same time as a Greenpeace report that unfairly criticizes timber operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and a WWF report that also criticizes the EU's timber import policies.

All this activity is taking place at a time when the EU is assessing whether it needs to take "additional measures" on illegal logging. Caught up in this long and protracted campaign are the developing countries themselves, who depend on forest industries for jobs, raising living standards and economic growth.

28 April 2007: UN forum on forests adopts Non-Legal Binding Instrument
The Seventh Session of the United Nations Forum on Forests announced that it has adopted a Non-Legal Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests (NLBI). The session, which concluded in New York on April 28, had the specific aim of having the instrument adopted. The NLBI is a substitute for a legally-binding instrument, which members agreed last year that they would not consider until at least 2015.

The NLBI was welcomed by all member states, scientific bodies, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Bank, but was heavily criticised by NGOs at the Session. NGOs argued that the Instrument does not tackle the "underlying causes of deforestation É including the need for the reduction of consumption."

The session documents are available here.

26 April 2007: Indonesian provinces to limit logging
Governors of three of Indonesia's provinces have committed to measures which limit carbon emissions and logging in the provinces' tropical rainforests. The agreement between the provincial governors of Aceh, Papua and West Papua was reached at a World Bank sponsored meeting on climate change in Nusa Dua in Bali on 26 April. Minutes from the meeting are yet to be released publicly.

The main aims of the agreement are to mitigate the impact of climate change and address deforestation. The governors expressed a determination to implement policies which are environmentally friendly, and pursue sustainable development and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Governor of Aceh committed to imposing a moratorium on all logging, pending the outcome of a review of the forestry industry. The Governor of Papua committed to revoking licenses of logging companies whose operations are not deemed to contribute to sustainable forest management. Both Aceh and Papua committed to relocating approximately five million hectares of conversion forest for carbon trading.

The roundtable was attended by representatives of Indonesia's central government, civil society, the international community and the private sector.

A news report covering the event can be found here.

15 April 2007: China develops guidelines for sustainable plantations
The ITTO has reported that China has developed sustainable forestry guidelines for plantation management.

The guidelines are yet to be implemented, but according to an ITTO report, the State Forest Administration (SFA) is currently in the process of selecting timber companies to implement the guidelines.

China is coming under increasing pressure from NGOs, the EU and the US Government to implement sustainable practices in its plantations and to confirm the legality of its timber sources.

Regulations for the Implementation of Forestry Law of the People's Republic of China are available here.

11 April 2007: Congo cancels logging rights
The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has cancelled 21 logging contracts it deemed to have been granted illegally. The contracts covered approximately 3 million hectares of forest.

The holders of the cancelled rights, mostly small companies, were given two weeks to contest the decisions. Large logging firms, such as Safbois, Sodefor, Siforco and Soforma, account for approximately 70 per cent of the country's production capacity, but were unaffected by the decisions.

The DRC government has come under considerable pressure from the EU and from the World Bank regarding its forestry policies. The International Conference on Sustainable Forest Management in the Democratic Republic of Congo was held in February; Belgium pledged an initial annual contribution of 1 million Euro for the Congolese Institute of Nature Conservation.

Information on the International Conference on Sustainable Forest Management in the Democratic Republic of Congo is available here.

2 April 2007: EU suspends imports of ramin from Malaysia
The EU has suspended imports of the timber ramin from all Malaysian territories. The EU Scientific Review Group on Trade in Flora and Fauna made the decision that ramin imports be suspended in mid-April.

The basis for this decision was that trade in the species "is likely to have a harmful effect on the conservation status of the species or the extent of the territory occupied by the species".

The report also stated that requested information regarding quota establishment for the species had not been received, nor has a report outlining their non-detriment findings on the previous quota. The EU will urge Malaysia to provide this information.

There has been considerable pressure on the trade in ramin for a number of years. It is currently on the CITES (Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species) in Appendix II, listed as a vulnerable species, meaning trade is permitted.

The assessment of the EU Scientific Review Group can be read here.

28 March 2007: Australia commits $200 million to forestry in developing world
The Australian Government has announced a practical approach to address climate change in the form of the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate. The initiative commits A$200 million to promote sustainable forestry to preserve forestry sinks in developing countries. Australia has called for support from other countries for the initiative, putting it in a position to lead global policy on deforestation without being subject to anti-development agendas pushed by environmental NGOs. Read the statement from Australian Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull here.

27 March 2007: PNG moves towards legality verification
Papua New Guinean forestry has taken a step towards legality verification. The PNG Forest Industry Association (PNGFIA) announced last week that it is now working with Swiss firm SGS (Societe Generale du Surveillance), one of the world's most credible inspection and verification auditors.

Under a new pilot programme, the PNGFIA and SGS will assist PNGFIA members in joining the Timber Legality and Traceability Verification (TLTV) programme offered by SGS. The move has been welcomed by a number of stakeholders, including the Australian Government. Read a press release from the Australian Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation here.

22 March 2007: Stora Enso, Botnia under attack from Greenpeace
Finnish pulp and paper manufacturer Stora Enso has come under attack from environmental NGO Greenpeace. Greenpeace helped organize a protest at both the Stora Enso and Botnia pulp and paper plants in northern Finland, claiming that the company had accepted pulp from native forests. Stora Enso accepts pulp from Metsahallitus, a state-owned timber company. Stora Enso strenuously denied the claim, citing its wood procurement principles and its national stakeholder processes that prevent the purchase of products from native forests. Read the Stora Enso press release here.

22 March 2007: Beware the Equator Principles
International banks HSBC and Credit Suisse have come under pressure from NGOs such as Global Witness, who claim that the institutions have breached their own sustainability guidelines. The banks played a managerial role in the IPO for Samling, a Malaysian-based timber company. But, as signatories to the Equator Principles, they have made a voluntary agreement not to provide financial assistance to commercial logging operations in primary tropical moist forest, as defined by International Finance Corporation guidelines. Read the HSBC Forest Land and Forest Products Sector sustainability guidelines here.

15 March 2007: Global demand for certified timber weak
Global consumer demand for timber products certified under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme makes up a small proportion of the timber market, contrary to claims by Green groups WWF and Greenpeace. A report from the UK's Timber Trade Federation recently stated that although 56 per cent of wood and wood products imported into the UK in 2005 were certified, demand for certified timber made up just 10 per cent of sales. FSC products made up 50 per cent of UK's certified imports. These findings stand in stark contrast to the picture painted by WWF and Greenpeace. More information is available here.

13 March 2007: Asia-Pacific forests improving
The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's (FAO) State of the World's Forests report reveals that the world's forests are not on the verge of catastrophe. The report, released on March 13, highlights the reforestation that is currently taking place around the world. A total of 57 countries reported a net increase in total forest area in the period from 2000 to 2005. The full report can be read here.

5 March 2007: Greenpeace encourages supporters not to think
The European Union (EU) has concluded a public consultation on the introduction of "additional measures" to combat illegal logging. The consultation included an extensive questionnaire posted on the EU website. In a related press release, Greenpeace International discouraged visitors to the Website from filling in the questionnaire, warning them of 'beaurocratic [sic] technobabble'. Instead, they were urged to send a submission "custom made" by Greenpeace, which called for an outright ban on EU imports of illegal timber. Greenpeace failed to notify the readers that such a ban is likely to conflict with the EU's obligations to the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

1 March 2007: Germans reject WWF-FSC campaign
Germany's federal government has launched a government procurement scheme and a consumer guide for the purchase of wood and wood products from legal and sustainable sources. The newly-announced procurement policy accepts FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) and the PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes) certification as verification of legality and sustainability. The German government also released a consumer guide for sustainable shopping, which also recommends the PEFC label. 'Nachhaltig einkaufen: Der Wegweiser' ('The Sustainable Buying Guide') is available in German here.

15 February 2007: SGS shows PNG timber Is legal
In a speech at a recent illegal logging seminar funded by the UK's Department for International Development (DFID), Papua New Guinea's Trade Minister Paul Tiensten disputed allegations by environmental NGOs that commercial logging in PNG is illegal. Statistics provided by Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS), an international provider of monitoring services, were used as evidence. The Minister asserted the sovereignty of the PNG government to make policy, and the need for those who want to participate in the process to follow proper procedures. The full version of Paul Tiensten's speech can be found here.

12 February 2007: Heart of Borneo Initiative signed
The governments of Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia have signed a Declaration on the Heart of Borneo Initiative, pledging to cooperate in ensuring effective management of forest resources and conservation of protected areas on the Island of Borneo. The Heart of Borneo area covers approximately 220,000 square kilometres (one third of the island). The voluntary cooperation is said to respect each country's sovereignty, laws, regulations, policies, and territorial boundaries, and will consist of research and development, education, training and fundraising. A copy of the declaration can be found here.

9 February 2007: A Green Attack on the WTO and the UNCED Consensus
In a speech last month to ECIPE (European Centre for International Political Economy) in Brussels, the Chairman of World Growth, Alan Oxley, said that the WTO was being weakened by ENGO campaigns to create a global convention on forestry. WWF, Greenpeace and the FSC have heavily lobbied governments to breach fair competition standards to include only FSC-certified products in their procurement policies. The lobbying is part of a long-term campaign to have FSC standards used as an import control. This campaign is part of a long-term attack by WWF and Greenpeace on the WTO. The casualty in this campaign will not be the WTO. Rather, it will be developing countries who will lose valuable export income. A briefing on the speech can be found here.

28 January 2007: Germany's government procurement policy to accept FSC and PEFC certification
Germany's federal government has made a commitment to purchase wood and wood products that have come from legal and sustainable sources. The newly-announced procurement policy accepts FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) and the PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes) certification as verification of legality and sustainability; 'comparable proofs' will also be accepted (although it is not clear what this means). The procurement policy will be reviewed after four years. A related press release from Germany's Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety can be located here.

29 January 2007: Rimbunan Hijau launches a major HIV/AIDS initiative in PNG
Rimbunan Hijau PNG, a major commercial forestry operator in Papua New Guinea, has announced that it will contribute K600,000 (A$278,000) to the national fight against HIV/AIDS. The funds (granted through the RH Foundation) will be delivered over a three-year period. The announcement was made at the opening of a new publishing facility in Lae, PNG. More details are available here.

December 2006: FSC failing to uphold indigenous peoples' rights - WRM
The World Rainforest Movement (WRM) has accused the FSC-accredited forest certifier SGS Qualifor of closing its eyes on human rights abuses in Uganda. FSC certification has been granted to a tree-planting project in the Mount Elgon National Park, which WRM alleges is characterised by violence towards indigenous communities. In its monthly bulletin, WRM claims that because 'tree planting inside the boundary of the national park cannot be separated from the management of the national park', operations of the whole park were to be taken into account by SGS when granting certification.

21 December 2006: 2011 International Year of Forests - UN
United Nations General Assembly has adopted a resolution declaring the year 2011 as the International Year of Forests. The move aims to promote sustainable management, conservation and development of forests worldwide. United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) Secretariat has been tasked with serving as the 'focal point' for the implementation of various activities during the year, and has set up a related Website. The associated press release also states that 'governments, regional and international organizations and civil society organizations are expected to create national committees and designate focal points in their respective countries'

19 December 2006: UK Government releases review of forest certification schemes; PEFC and FSC approved
The UK Government has released its review of existing forest certification schemes. The study found that the Forest Stewardship Council system (FSC), the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes (PEFC), Canadian Standards Association scheme (CSA), and North America's Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) all met UK Government's procurement policy requirements in regards to legality and sustainability.

The National Association of Forest Industries and the Australian Forestry Standard Limited hailed the decision. Australian Forest Certification Scheme is a fully-endorsed member of the PEFC.

The Malaysian Timber Certification Council scheme (MTCC) was found adequate in ensuring legality. However, it was found wanting in terms of ensuring sustainability, due to the lack of 'any clear procedures or safeguards relating to the influence of different interest categories' during the standard-setting process.

A full version of the report can be found here.

15 November 2006: Claims of log smuggling in PNG unfounded
www.illegal-logging.info, a website managed by Chatham House and funded by UK's Department for International Development (DFID), has published an article which dispels some of the myths regarding illegal logging in Papua New Guinea. Written by Kwame Asumadu (an independent consultant based in Australia), the article outlines the independent monitoring system of PNG log exports developed and implemented by Société General de Surveillance (SGS). SGS is an international provider of monitoring services and directly oversees five per cent of all world trade. It has been operating in PNG since 1995. The article argues that the monitoring system in place 'provides a verifiable proof that allegations of rampant log smuggling in PNG [often raised by environmental non-governmental organisations] are highly questionable'.

A full version of the article Illegal logging in Papua New Guinea - the other side of the story can be found here.

9 November 2006: FSC-Watch launched
A website aimed at scrutinising the activities of the Forest Stewardship Council was launched on 9th November 2006. FSC-Watch (www.fsc-watch.org) is run by a group of ex-FSC employees 'who are very concerned about the constant and serious erosion of the FSC's reliability and thus credibility'. The website states that unless structural problems within the FSC system are addressed, 'the FSC is doomed to failure'. FSC-Watch acts as an information portal, providing latest news on FSC certification whilst also encouraging reader comments and contributions.

8 November 2006: PEFC publishes requirements for the avoidance of controversial wood
The Council of the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes (PEFC) has published a mandatory guide for the Avoidance of Controversial Sources. All PEFC-certified suppliers of forest-based products are now required to produce a signed self-declaration that none of their supplied raw material originates from a 'controversial source'. In a case where the materials are considered as "high risk" (with list of indicators provided by PEFC), the supplier must provide PEFC with necessary information on origins of the material and the whole supply chain. Certified material from other certification systems (such as FSC) is considered as not requiring further checks.

The new guide forms Appendix 7 of the International PEFC Chain of Custody Standard. It becomes effective as of 1 May 2007, and can be found here.

2 November 2006: Australian government refuses NGO calls for tropical timber ban
In a draft policy paper, the Australian government has produced a list of measures it is planning to undertake to tackle the issue of illegal logging. Despite the pressure from green NGOs such as Greenpeace, the discussion paper rules out banning imports of tropical timber from countries such as Papua New Guinea (PNG) and the Solomon Islands. Instead, it focuses on voluntary industry measures, and supports a government review of forest certification schemes.

In an accompanying media release, the Australian Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Eric Abetz, stated that an attempted ban 'would also prevent legal timber coming into Australia', and that 'significantly, no other country has implemented such a ban'.

The policy paper was welcomed by the Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism, Martin Ferguson, and the National Association of Forest Industries. Greenpeace and Australian Conservation Foundation, together with Tasmanian Senator Bob Brown have criticised the policy as ineffective, and renewed their calls for the government to ban tropical timber imports.

In a related edition of ABC's radio show PM, the Greenpeace campaign to halt commercial forestry in PNG came under heavy criticism from Alan Oxley, a managing director of a consultancy ITS Global and a former Australian Ambassador to the GATT.

The draft policy paper, Bringing down the axe on illegal logging - a practical approach can be found here.

The media release by Senator Abetz is available here.

26 October 2006: New body to promote Australian timber industry
The Australian Government has given approval to the formation of a new company to promote the timber industry. Forest and Wood Products Australia (FWPA) will provide generic marketing and promotion of the environmental credentials of timber as well as providing research and development services to the industry which are currently undertaken by the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation (FWPRDC). FWPRDC could not provide marketing services for the industry under its enabling legislation. It is expected that the new company will begin operation on 1 July 2007. The National Association of Forest Industries (NAFI) has welcomed the development.

A related press release by Australian Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation Eric Abetz can be found here.

10 October 2006: International forum on government procurement policies produces mixed findings
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), together with Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), held a policy forum on "Public procurement policies for wood and paper products and their impacts on sustainable forest management and timber markets". Attendees included stakeholders from exporters, traders, industry and NGOs. The forum's primary findings were that while there is strong political momentum towards procurement policies for forest products, only a few countries are currently applying procurement policies in practice. There are many difficulties with implementation, including the complexity of assessing certification schemes.

Documents presented at the forum can be found here. A related press release from UNECE is available here.

20 October 2006: Australian Treasury rejects NGO allegations against ANZ
The Australian Treasury has ruled that ANZ has no case to answer in an NGO complaint which asserted that, by having financial links to Rimbunan Hijau, ANZ is breaching various OECD Guidelines. The complaint was lodged by a consortium of Green NGOs (including the Australian Conservation Foundation, CELCOR and Human Rights Council of Australia), and made references to 'respect of human rights' and 'contribution to economic, social and environmental progress'.

The Australian National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (ANCP) rejected the complaint, stating that ANZ's links with Rimbunan Hijau could not be characterised as investment (as required by the OECD Guidelines). Citing the absence of ANZ membership in 'any RH Board, management committee or other decision making body of RH', ANCP stated that it was difficult to see ANZ having the kind of links with Rimbunan Hijau that would enable it to direct the company's operations. The ruling did not include a discussion of the allegations made by the NGOs against Rimbunan Hijau.

Earlier this year, ACF and CELCOR produced a report which accused the commercial forestry sector in Papua New Guinea (in which Rimbunan Hijau plays a major role) of causing 'spiralling abuse of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights'. The report recycled material from earlier papers by Greenpeace, and the claims were denied by the PNG Government and the PNG forest industry (see the news item on 7 August 2006, below).

The full version of ANCP's findings can be found here. The story was also covered in The Age.

25 September 2006: EU and Malaysia launch formal VPA talks; NGOs sceptical
Following a meeting in Brussels, the European Union and Malaysia have agreed to embark on formal negotiations towards conclusion of a voluntary partnership agreement (VPA). A part of the EU strategy on forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT), VPAs require certain imports from the signatory country into the EU to be subject to a legality verification licensing system. The overall aim is to ensure that Malaysia only supplies legal timber to the European market. The relevant EU press release can be found here.

In response, the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) and Indonesian NGO Telapak have labelled the proposed VPA as inadequate. They have called for "mandatory regulations" (i.e. a ban), stating that the 'voluntary approach alone will be ineffective' in stemming the flow of illegal timber into EU. EIA also urged the EU to demand that Malaysia stops dealing in illegal Indonesian timber.

16 September 2006: World Bank allegations against PNG lacking evidence
The World Bank has published Strengthening Forest Law Enforcement and Governance - Addressing a Systemic Constraint to Sustainable Development, a report which estimates the effects of illegal logging in developing countries. The report claims that an estimated 70 per cent of Papua New Guinea's total forest production is illegal.

A review of documents which the report lists as references with respect to the claim has failed to find any evidence for the claim. Follow-up communication with the World Bank revealed that no profiling of PNG forestry was undertaken. The report also fails to provide a working definition of illegal logging, despite admitting that 'different stakeholder groups use different definitions to promote their agenda'. A full version of the report can be found here.

16 September 2006: Greenpeace criticised in The Australian
The Australian has published 'A skewed vision from team green', an article by Alan Oxley on commercial forestry in Papua New Guinea. The article exposes to the lack of evidence supporting the claims of human rights abuses in the industry, made in the report recently released by CELCOR and Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF). It also points to the need for forestry companies operating in remote areas to call in police forces to keep order, refuting CELCOR-ACF insinuations that forestry companies are responsible for distribution of arms throughout PNG.

Greenpeace's suspect definition of "illegal logging" is exposed, and its campaign against Rimbunan Hijau Group (the largest forestry company in PNG) is scrutinised, concluding that claims against the company 'are baseless or cannot be properly substantiated'. The article also provides an environmental case for ongoing commercial forestry in PNG, and emphasises the importance of the industry to PNG's development. The full text of the article is available here.

7 September 2006: Drastic measures proposed by Victorian anti-forestry NGOs
Victorian Forest Alliance (coalition of NGOs including The Wilderness Society and Australian Conservation Foundation) has called for the area of protected forests in eastern Victoria to be increased by 970,000 hectares. A report by the Alliance, Choosing a future for Victoria's forests, argues that the local timber industry should deal with a sudden decrease in resources via 'a rapid shift from commodity production using native forests to commodity production based on plantations'. The report fails to address how this unrealistic shift would be achieved. Instead, it proposes a $104 million investment in tourism, and $32.5 million in recurrent funding for National Parks.

The report also suggests widening the definition of "old-growth forests" to include 'negligibly-disturbed younger forests and forest with a mature growth stage, which have the potential to become the old-growth forests of the near future'. This move appears designed to add credibility to calls for increasing conservation areas. A full version of the report can be found here.

August 2006: Greenpeace and WWF respond to ITS Global report
Greenpeace International and WWF South Pacific have posted separate responses to Whatever it takes: Greenpeace's anti-forestry campaign in Papua New Guinea, a report by ITS Global.

Greenpeace has challenged the independence of the report, citing the fact that the report was commissioned and paid for by Rimbunan Hijau. It also disputes the claim that its policies impede development in PNG, and maintains the claims of illegality and human rights abuses in the PNG forest industry. To support these allegations, Greenpeace produces a list of sources used in its previous reports (which were dealt with by ITS Global); no substantial new evidence is provided. The document, titled Rimbunan Hijau can't handle the truth, can be found here.

WWF's response includes the rejection of allegation that it is engaged in a global campaign to replace commercial forestry with eco-forestry, stating its support for 'commercial forestry companies all over the world who appreciate É truly sustainable forestry'. By stating that 'much of the criticism levied against WWF in the report is wrongly based on the assumption that WWF owns and manages the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)', WWF misrepresent the claim by ITS Global that it controls the FSC. The document also falsely sustains the claim that global consumer demand for certified timber is strong; this claim is disproved by the recently released UNECE/FAO Forest Products Annual Market Review, 2005-2006 (click here). WWF's document, Certified timber market speaks for itself, can be found here.

August 2006: World Bank creates new challenge for forestry in developing nations
The International Finance Corporation (the arm of the World Bank Group responsible for private-sector lending) recently conducted a review of its safeguard lending policies and has developed a new set of Performance Standards on the social and environmental impacts of funded projects. The new Performance Standards are now in force. Performance Standard 6 relates to sustainable natural resource management. The standard requires clients involved in natural forest harvesting or plantation development to have their resources independently certified, or 'develop and adhere to a time-bound, phased action plan for achieving such certification'.

According to the latest data, forest certification remains largely confined to the forests resources of the developed countries. The new standard will therefore make it extremely difficult for forestry operators in developing countries to obtain financial assistance from the Bank.

A full version of Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management can be found here.

23 August 2006: NGOs target ANZ for its association with Rimbunan Hijau
A five-member coalition of Australian and PNG NGOs has filed a formal complaint to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) against the ANZ Bank over the latter's relationship with Rimbunan Hijau. ANZ is accused of being complicit in the alleged environmental and social damage caused by RH, thus breaching OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The coalition includes Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), the Centre for Environmental Law and Community Rights (CELCOR), the Environmental Law Centre, the Human Rights Council of Australia, and the PNG EcoForestry Forum.

In particular, NGOs assert that ANZ's financial relationship with Rimbunan Hijau is detrimental to PNG's economic, social and environmental progress, whilst also contributing to human rights violations. The claims against Rimbunan Hijau rely on the reports by the Independent Review Team, Forest Trends and Masalai-i-tokaut as evidence; these sources have been largely discredited in a report by ITS Global. The submission calls for ANZ's 'immediate disengagement from socially and environmentally destructive forestry operations in PNG' (i.e. commercial forestry), as well as a commitment to promote 'community-based forestry operations'. A full version of the submission can be found here.

22 August 2006: Skill shortage in Australian timber industry due to 'negative propaganda'
A report funded by the Australian Government has found that an 'undeserved negative image' is the core reason for a skills shortage in the Australian timber industry. Conducted by the National Association of Forest Industries (NAFI) in conjunction with the Australian Plantation Products and Paper Industry Council (A3P), the study asserts that the negative perceptions about the wood and paper products industry results in the inability to attract young professionals (particularly engineers, accountants and electricians).

The Australian Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Eric Abetz lamented the fact that 'the Greens' continual negative propaganda' is having a negative effect on the industry, particularly as the number of timber plantations increases. The government also pledged its commitment to improve the public perception of the industry.

A full version of the report, Wood and Paper Products Industry Skills Shortage Audit, is located here.

7 August 2006: PNG forest industry abusing human rights, says AFC
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has produced a report which accuses the commercial forestry sector in Papua New Guinea of causing 'spiralling abuse of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights'. The report, Bulldozing progress: human rights abuses and corruption in Papua New Guinea's large scale logging industry, was produced in collaboration with the Centre for Environmental Law and Community Rights (CELCOR), a PNG-based NGO.

The report recycles material from papers by Greenpeace attacking the PNG forestry sector. ITS Global undertook a critique of Greenpeace's allegations and found them to be baseless (see Whatever it takes - Greenpeace's anti-forestry campaign in Papua New Guinea, available here). ACF and CELCOR also include evidence from a small number of interviews with land owners. The evidence is unverifiable and presented without regard to investigating the actual circumstances in which claims were made. Many of the claims relate to a road-clearing project, which was investigated and closed by PNG authorities. The case is not indicative of production forestry in PNG.

In their recommendations for solutions to PNG's political and economic problems, ACF and CELCOR propose increased funding for groups such as CELCOR and the replacement of industrial logging with small-scale eco-forestry. This mirrors Greenpeace's vision for forestry in PNG. ACF and CELCOR also call for increased funding for the police force, and creation of new public supervisory bodies. They do not discuss how such actions could be resourced or the economic impacts of phasing out an industry important to PNG's economic growth.

The Papua New Guinea Government and the PNG forest industry have denied the allegations. A full version of the ACF report can be found here.

5 August 2006: Greenpeace targets furniture retailers in Sydney
Furniture retailers in Sydney's Homeworks Caringbah shopping complex were subjected to a day of action by Greenpeace. Claiming that retailers were 'selling products sourced from suspected illegal timber from Papua New Guinea and Papua, Indonesia where over 80% of the logging is illegal', Greenpeace activists wrapped 'Forest Crime Scene' tape around timber furniture, placed stickers on timber furniture with the message 'Is this timber stolen from rainforests?', and attempted to confiscate a table made from suspected stolen timber. Activists left after police entered the premises.

Greenpeace's claims of illegality were based on a 'suspicion', due to the alleged lack of credible certification on the stocked furniture. The Greenpeace spokesman urged furniture retailers to adopt purchasing policies which would ensure the absence of illegal timber, and encouraged consumers to purchase FSC-certified products.

26 July 2006: New report highlights the importance of commercial forestry in PNG
A new report has found that commercial forestry is a consistent contributor to growth in Papua New Guinea and could play a larger role in development in the future. The Economic Importance of the Forestry Industry to Papua New Guinea, produced by ITS Global, marks a first attempt to estimate the economic value of the infrastructure created by commercial forestry in PNG.

The findings contradict claims by Greenpeace and other Green NGOs that commercial forestry in PNG is economically unviable and provides little economic value. The report found that the industry employs 10,000 people, contributes 5 per cent to GDP and a quarter of a million dollars each year in exports. Export taxes on logs account for 3 to 6 per cent of all tax.

At the regional level, the impact of the industry includes the provision of roads, air fields and services, wharves, schools and medical clinics for the local populace. A case study of Western Province indicated the industry doubles the amount of infrastructure provided by the provincial government. The report also found that the industry could contribute more if property rights, taxation and institutional arrangements and economic policies were improved. The study provided evidence that eco-forestry (promoted by Greenpeace as a replacement for commercial forestry) is currently commercially unviable in PNG.

The report was commissioned by Rimbunan Hijau (PNG) Group, the largest forestry operator in PNG, to assess the current and potential economic significance of forestry in Papua New Guinea. To see the report in full, click here.

25 July 2006: Greenpeace brokers deal to ban the use of "illegally" grown soy in the Amazon
Leading European supermarkets, food manufacturers and fast food chains such as McDonalds have pledged not to use soy "illegally" grown in the Amazon region in response to Greenpeace's claim that large areas of Amazon forests are being cleared for the crop. A two year moratorium on newly deforested land in the Amazon has been agreed on. The deal was brokered by Greenpeace UK, which linked the illegal destruction of the forest to large-scale soy farming. The related press release by Greenpeace can be found here. The story was also covered by The Age.

20 July 2006: PNG accused of transfer pricing, but evidence lacking
A news article in The Australian has accused the Papua New Guinea forest industry of engaging in transfer pricing, resulting in the loss of A$100 million a year in tax revenue for the PNG government. However, the news item fails to provide adequate evidence for the claim, citing only the difference in export prices of timber from PNG, Malaysia and western Africa. Other factors influencing export prices have been ignored, and the allegation of an A$100 million tax revenue loss is referenced to unspecified "industry sources". The PNG Forest Industries Association has denied the claim.

19 July 2006: NAFI welcomes new toolkit to assess effects of reforestation
Australia's National Association of Forest Industries (NAFI) has welcomed the launch of a toolkit which will provide a framework that enables private investors, farmers and the forest industry to optimise commercial forestry. Developed by Ensis (a collaboration between CSIRO in Australia and Scion in New Zealand) and launched by the Australian Forestry and Conservation Minister, Senator Eric Abetz, the Commercial-Environmental Forestry toolkit is said to increase the cost-effectiveness of revegetation projects, including commercial timber plantations. A relevant press release can be found here.

18 July 2006: Poland and Czech Republic progressing towards PEFC certification
Forest certification schemes of Poland and the Czech Republic are undergoing the international public consultation period in a bid to achieve PEFC endorsement. External consultancies have been hired by PEFC to independently assess whether the national systems comply with the PEFC benchmark requirements. While the Czech Republic is seeking PEFC's re-endorsement for a second 5-year period, Poland's bid is its first. More information can be found on the PEFC website.

15 July 2006: Greenpeace campaign against forestry in PNG laid bare
ITS Global has released a report which reveals that a campaign run by Greenpeace against Rimbunan Hijau (the largest forestry company in PNG) is baseless. Greenpeace claims that Rimbunan Hijau's logging is illegal and is destroying the environment. It also claims that the company abuses human and labour rights, and is engaged in corruption. None of these claims can be substantiated.

The report, Whatever it takes - Greenpeace's anti-forestry campaign in Papua New Guinea, concludes that Greenpeace's attack on the company is a proxy campaign to replace commercial logging in PNG with eco-forestry and subsistence forestry. If successful, this strategy would cost PNG 10,000 jobs, reduce GDP by 5 per cent and reduce exports by half a billion Kina. The report also points out that PNG's forestry is not in danger of imminent destruction, as Greenpeace contends.

The report notes 'Greenpeace is not interested in developing sustainable commercial forestry or improving the economic welfare of the people of PNG. It has only two interests in PNG: first, to see it used as a model for its own view of how the world should look; and second, to secure a tactical victory to support its global campaign to stop commercial forestry'.

Greenpeace's accusations against the company are made in The Untouchables: Rimbunan Hijau's world of forest crime and political patronage, released in 2004 by Greenpeace International, and Partners in Crime: the UK timber trade, Chinese sweatshops and Malaysian robber barons in Papua New Guinea's rainforest, released by Greenpeace UK in 2005.

ITS Global was commissioned by Rimbunan Hijau to review Greenpeace's claims and assess them. Whatever it takes is an exhaustive and detailed analysis of the claims. To access the full text, click here.

12 July 2006: Greenpeace climbs building in protest
Greenpeace has staged a 12-hour protest on top of the UK government's Cabinet Office building, claiming that the latter is being refurbished using timber from Papua New Guinea. Greenpeace has long asserted that commercial forestry in PNG is "illegal". Labelling the UK government procurement policy on timber purchase as 'totally ineffectual', Greenpeace has demanded that the government imposes a total ban on imports of PNG timber. The story was covered by UK's Telegraph. Greenpeace's recollection of the event can be found here.

7 July 2006: Eight new projects for Tasmanian forestry industry
AU$14 million will be spent on eight new forestry projects established under the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement. $3.5 million will come in form of grants from Tasmanian and Federal governments, whilst the remaining funding will be provided by the industry. The grant money will be used for upgrades and purchases of new equipment, which 'will boost safety and efficiency, and enable many to meet the challenge of moving into new forest types', according to the Australian Forestry and Conservation Minister, Senator Eric Abetz. A media release by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) can be found here.

3 July 2006: Australian government under criticism from PNGFIA
Bob Tate, the executive officer of the Papua New Guinea Forest Industries Association (PNGFIA), has condemned the possibility of Australia banning timber imports from PNG. In an article posted on the PNGFIA website, Tate stated that such a move 'will be contributing to loss of jobs, rural development and income generation in rural PNG'. The comments come following an article in The Australian, which alleged that Australian Forestry Minister Eric Abetz labelled the "vast majority" of rainforest logging in PNG as "illegal". Bob Tate has denied the allegation.

22 June 2006: NAFI dismayed by the decision on sleepers
National Association of Forests Industries (NAFI) has voiced its disappointment at the decision by the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) to upgrade the North-South rail link between Brisbane and Melbourne using concrete, rather than timber sleepers. According to NAFI CEO Catherine Murphy, the move will result in the loss of 600 direct and 1200 indirect jobs and will have a negative environmental impact, as 'the production of 1.3 million concrete sleepers per year will result in the release of thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere'.

Ms Murphy also lamented the $10 million investment in mill upgrades, made in the anticipation of ARTC requirements. NAFI is planning to work with the New South Wales and Victorian timber industry to reverse the decision. Related press release can be found here.

20 June 2006: UN lifts ban on Liberia's timber exports
The United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to lift the ban on Liberia's export of round logs and timber, applauding the country's new President for her efforts in managing the nation's forests. The Council also praised Liberia's newly-imposed moratorium on timber exports and new concessions, pending the passage of appropriate forestry legislation. The Council's decision is to be reviewed after 90 days. Sanctions were originally imposed on Liberia in May 2001, after reports that the Liberia's natural resources were fuelling conflict in the region. The related news release from UN can be found here.

15 June 2006: EU adopts Forest Action Plan
The European Commission (EC) has adopted an EU Forest Action Plan, which provides a framework for forest-related actions at the EU and member-state level. The plan aims primarily at improving the long-term competitiveness of the European forest sector, through innovation and research activities, as well as training for forest-owners and forest workers. Increased use of forest resources for energy production is also proposed, as well as the development of a European Forest Monitoring System. The plan contains 18 key actions, to be implemented jointly with the member states during 2007-2011.

A full copy of the EC communication on the plan can be found here. A related press release by the European Commission, titled 'European Commission adopts an EU Forest Action Plan', can be found here.