News Archive 2009
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 Đ 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).
|
