|
Forestry & Development E-News: April 2010 |
|
Forestry & Development (F&D) is an online resource on sustainable forestry. It
supports commercial forestry as a viable source of economic growth which is
compatible with sustainability. |
Contents
Is Australia about to cave on
illegal logging? Rumours circulating in Canberra indicate that the Australian Government is about to implement a new policy on illegal timber imports. But the impending policy will have less to do with achieving positive environmental outcomes than political game playing – and the cost will inevitably fall on the Pacific’s poorest. REDD will do little for PNG according to leading economist One of the
Pacific region’s leading agricultural economists has argued that proposed
REDD schemes will do little to improve the livelihoods of local communities
in Papua New Guinea. Global deforestation slowing: FAO New
findings from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) indicate that the global rate of deforestation slowed over the last
decade. Illegal logging ‘virtually
impossible’ to measure: Chatham House One of the UK’s leading think-tanks on illegal logging declares that good evidence is hard to find. South Africa lashes
Greenpeace for lobbying efforts South African authorities hit back against environmental NGOs for their efforts to halt a World Bank loan investing in power plant infrastructure in the country’s failing energy industry. |
Is Australia about to cave on illegal logging?Rumours
circulating in Canberra indicate that the Australian Government is about to
implement a new policy on illegal timber imports. But the impending policy
will have less to do with achieving positive environmental outcomes than
political game playing – and the cost will inevitably fall on the Pacific’s
poorest. Canberra
sources indicate that Australia’s Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forests (DAFF) has finally sent to Cabinet proposals on how to implement Labor’s election commitment to ban the import of illegal
timber products. During the 2007 election campaign, Labor
made clear promises to “require disclosure at point of sale of species,
country of origin and any certification” and “identify illegally logged
timber and restrict its import into Australia”. Illegal
logging has been a cause celebre among
environmental campaigners in the Australia/Pacific region for the last
decade. The key target has been the forestry industry in Papua New Guinea.
The allegations against the industry from environmental campaigners have been
at best scurrilous. At worst they have bordered on racial vilification. There
have even been complaints in the Malaysian media about the unwarranted
emphasis by campaigners on the Chinese ethnicity of the owners of the
company. The
claims made by environmental campaigners – such as the claim that 90 per cent
of timber from PNG is illegally logged – have been grossly overstated. These
claims have been made with no supporting empirical evidence. Accurate
data on illegal logging is lacking. Seneca
Creek, the definitive study on illegal timber markets, places the total
global amount at roughly 10 per cent of global trade. Yet the authors admit
their report is “more art than science”. To date there is no sound empirical
research on the global extent of illegal logging. Duncan
Brack, one of the world’s cheerleaders for the illegal logging cause, has
even stated that it is close to impossible to obtain an accurate measurement
of the world’s illegal logging activity. The
Australian Government commissioned the highly respected Centre for
International Economics to complete a regulatory impact statement for an
Australian illegal logging policy. The
report concluded that the amount of ‘illegal’ timber entering Australia was
miniscule. It also concluded that any regulatory measure would do little
about levels of illegal logging in the region, and that it would impose a
cost on Australian consumers. It recommended that voluntary measures be
undertaken by the industry. Australian
forestry minister Tony Burke stated clearly that he rejected the findings of
the report – because it would mean not delivering on an election promise.
Never mind that the promise was ill-thought in the first place, or that much
of the data driving the debate have been unreliable. The
measures that the Australian Government is now considering amounts to a de
facto trade ban on imported forest products. Trade
bans fly in the face of the Government’s firm and repeated declarations that
it will not support environmental trade bans.
It would be far more effective just to work with them to improve
forestry practices, as Tony Burke has already promised when announcing other
programmes. Ordinarily
prudent politicians would run a mile from these odious Green-inspired
quagmires, particularly if they are created to advance imperious EU-style
trade bans. Yet,
one policy option reportedly before Cabinet is a ‘Clayton’s’ trade barrier on
timber imports from Asia-Pacific countries.
The idea is to mandate a trademark to verify the legality of any
timber product import. That will also likely fall afoul of WTO rules. Any
regulated control that discriminates against imports is out. Why,
then, is the Australian Government thinking of implementing a policy that is
based on spurious claims and that its own research did not recommend? It
is an election year. This may be suitable Green compensation for the
Government’s failing climate change and renewable energy policies. But rather
than ensuring positive environmental outcomes, such policy will serve to
undermine economic development in countries such as PNG. Our
developing neighbours know what DAFF has been slow to work out. This is not a
campaign to stop illegal logging, but one to pressure developing countries to
restrict their forestry industries. The
implications are serious. Pressuring
poor countries not to avail themselves of the right wealthy countries happily
once exercised – to gain from more productive use of forest land – is
imperious. Especially, as in the case of Australia’s three leading forestry
neighbours, more than enough forest area has already been set aside for
conservation. We
should not be surprised. The same tactic has been used against the Australian
forest industry. Harm to the environment has been exaggerated to foster
opposition to forestry. The
Australian Government seems to have bought the Green line, much to the
detriment of Australia’s immediate neighbours.. |
REDD will do little for PNG according to leading economistApril
2010: One of the Pacific region’s
leading agricultural economists has argued that proposed REDD schemes will do
little to improve the livelihoods of local communities in Papua New Guinea. Dr Colin Hunt, visiting fellow in the School of Economics at the
University of Queensland and author of Climate change and carbon sinks: forestry in the fight
against global warming, gave a presentation at ANU looking at
potential costs and benefits of a future REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and forest Degradation) scheme in Papua New Guinea. Hunt,
an advisor on forestry to the Papua New Guinea Government, argued that the
implementation of a REDD scheme posed serious threats to PNG, as the
financial benefits from forest credits had little chance of filtering through
to landowners. He further argued that it was unrealistic and immoral to
assume those currently working in the forestry industry could rely on REDD
welfare. Hunt’s estimates demonstrate
that the prospect of REDD generating economic returns for PNG, above
reasonable opportunity cost estimates, is remote. The presentation signaled a
departure from his previously published views. Hunt’s questioning of the
potential benefits for Papua New Guinea from REDD implementation,
specifically benefits to land owners and forestry workers, marks a
significant shift in the debate on REDD. In particular, it points to the fact
that many more governments and institutions are examining more closely the
claims surrounding the economic returns of REDD within developing countries, particularly
when compared with the returns from forestry and agriculture. |
Global deforestation slowing: FAOApril
2010: New findings from the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) indicate that the global
rate of deforestation slowed over the last decade. The report, covering 233
countries and areas, is FAO’s most comprehensive forestry study to date. The
report, delivered every five years, is considered to be the definitive
assessment of global forests. The release of the key findings precedes the publication of the complete Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010,
scheduled for October 2010. The
new data show that deforestation rates have decreased over the past 20 years.
Approximately 13 million hectares of forest were converted or lost annually
in the last decade, compared to a rate of 16 million hectares per year in the
1990s. The
study states that Brazil and Indonesia, which had the highest loss of forests
in the 1990s, have significantly reduced their deforestation rates.
Indonesia’s annual rate of deforestation fell to 0.5 million hectares from
1.9 million hectares over the past 20 years. The findings also indicate that tree planting programmes in countries such as China, India, the United States and Vietnam, in conjunction with areas of natural forest expansion, have slowed down global deforestation rates. The report states that the area of planted forest increased by about five million hectares annually from 2005 to 2010. In Asia alone, the rate of forest area growth increased by approximately 80 per cent. |
Illegal logging ‘virtually impossible’ to measureApril
2010: Illegal logging rates have
fallen in several countries according to a pilot study for a new research
project by Chatham House, a UK think-tank. Chatham House’s illegal logging
expert, Duncan Brack, further argued that it is “virtually impossible” to
accurately measure the amount of illegal logging in a presentation at a joint UNECE, FAO, and WTO conference on emerging
trade measures on timber markets. Brack’s
presentation outlined the current research project. The study aims to assess
the illegal logging sector by looking at: national levels of media attention
on illegal logging; government policy development and implementation to
address illegal logging and poor forest governance; private sector policy
development and implementation to address illegal logging; and poor forest governance;
and the actual level of illegal logging and trade (where available). The study also includes a survey of experts
within each respective country. The
preliminary results covering five countries showed what Brack describes as
“encouraging progress” in Cameroon and Indonesia from 2001-06. The pilot
study also found a reduction in imports of illegally-sourced timber in all
consumer and processing countries profiled in the research. The
first phase of the full study,
Measuring the Response to Illegal Logging: Indicators of Progress, is
expected to be published in June/July 2010. The research project is largely
funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID). |
South Africa lashes Greenpeace for lobbying effortsApril
2010: South African authorities hit
back against environmental NGOs for their efforts to halt a World Bank loan
investing in power plant infrastructure in the country’s failing energy
industry. Earlier this month, Greenpeace intensified lobbying efforts against
a proposed World Bank loan assisting the development of the Medupi coal-fired power station. Greenpeace failed to
stop the World Bank from eventually approving the US$3.7 billion loan. Pravin Gordhan, the South African Finance Minister, accused
environmental NGOs of trying to impose their priorities on a country lacking
the reliable power taken for granted by developed nations. “It is regrettable
that . . . developed countries and very small group of NGOs in South Africa
are putting their environmental concerns, which can’t be immediately
addressed, above the economic needs of South Africa and our need to grow the
economy so that all the people benefit.” Greenpeace
opposed the loan on the grounds that coal power adds to greenhouse gas
emissions, despite the project allocating $260 million for wind power and a
further $490 million to improve the plant's efficiency. According to a Greenpeace
Africa spokeswoman, “the victims of this
decision are the hundreds of thousands of impoverished people”. However,
proponents of the development say that what impoverished people in South
Africa need most is affordable and reliable power. Rather than further
harming the poor, they argue that the power station is essential to alleviate
poverty. The World
Bank, in approving the loan, argued that “without
energy, countries face very limited or no economic growth: factories and
businesses cannot function efficiently; hospitals and schools cannot operate
fully or safely; basic services that people in rich countries take for
granted cannot be offered.” |
|
You
have permission to forward this email newsletter to other interested persons
provided it is passed on in its entirety. Forestry
& Development E-News is published monthly by ITS Global (http://www.itsglobal.net). ITS Global are accredited
assessors for the International Programme for the Endorsement of Forest
Certification Schemes (PEFC) Questions and feedback can be
sent to forestrydevel@bigpond.com If you no longer wish to receive
this newsletter, please click here. © 2010. All
rights reserved
| Forestry
& Development Website | Contact |
|