|
Forestry & Development E-News: July 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. |
ContentsA new report from UK-based think-tank
Chatham House received significant international media attention when it was
released earlier this month. The New Zealand Charities
Commission has ruled that Greenpeace no longer has charitable status in that
country.
Another South Pacific Cruise for
Greenpeace? There are rumors that
Esperenza, one of Greenpeace’s blue water vessels is due for another tour in
the South Pacific. The last one went
badly, resulting in Greenpeace practicing piracy and perpetrating more
falsehoods. McKinsey's
Climate model in PNG It is reported that Australian aid money is supporting
adaptation of the “Low Cost Carbon Curve” model developed in the US by
McKinsey and Co for Papua New Guinea
Australia's Trade Policy
Inconsistencies In July Australia announced
trade will be a major focus in the revised development treaty with PNG. The
announcement was made during the annual ministerial meeting between PNG and
Australia recently held in Alotau. The PNG Government has
publicly distanced itself from a voluntary carbon trading scheme being
developed for East Sepik Province in PNG.
New FAO Papers on Climate, Forestry,
Poverty Two studies by the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) have shed light on the role of forests in development and global warming. |
Selling Illegal Timber PolicyA new report from UK-based think-tank Chatham House received significant international media attention when it was released earlier this month. The report, “Illegal Logging and Related Trade: Indicators of the Global Response” is different from most environmental policy reports in that it has a positive message: trade in illegal timber has fallen. Moreover, it hasn’t fallen by insignificant amounts. In some of the world’s largest timber-producing countries – specifically Indonesia and Brazil -- it has fallen by as much as 75 per cent. The results are noteworthy for a number of reasons. First, the European Parliament recently passed a measure on the sale of illegal forest products within the EU. A report that states illegal logging had fallen so dramatically without any official measures in place other than the EU Voluntary Partnership Agreements – which are still at the negotiating stage in many countries -- seems unusual. Second, the report bases its assessment on a number of indicators, one of which is ‘expert perceptions’ of various aspects of illegal logging. On nearly all counts, experts agreed that there had been less than a slight improvement in the extent of illegal logging over the past five years. This is at odds with the clear findings of the report – a fall of 75 per cent in two of the world’s largest timber producing nations is nothing short of remarkable. If the fall has been so dramatic, is there a gap between expert perceptions and the reality on the ground? Chatham House’s illegal logging program is funded significantly by the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID). DFID’s Forest Governance and Trade program is set to expire in the first half of 2011. The program started in 2006 and was originally funded to the tune of roughly USD40 million. It has created a strong base for forest policy in the UK, providing fertile ground for think-tanks such as the Tropical Forests Trust and Forest Trends. The report could therefore be read as a timely assessment of DFID’s program, and a pitch for a renewal of funding under a new Tory Government. The report’s information gaps give an indication of where future programs are likely to be headed: the Pacific. The report states that Papua New Guinea’s illegal timber exports have increased significantly since 2005. It attributes this to the way in which timber concessions are allocated. It does not include this as a criterion in its assessment of other countries. Why 2005? This was the year when two changes were made to PNG’s Forestry Act. The first was a small change that shifted the consultation process from one section of the Act to another; the second was the ability of the Forest Board to extend concessionaires’ rights beyond existing agreements, subject to certain applications and conditions. The lone group to protest this amendment – which was passed by PNG’s parliament – was the Eco Forestry Forum, a small campaigning group that objects to commercial forestry in Papua New Guinea. The objections were comprehensively rebutted by the PNG Government at the time, which stated that amendments served to improve consultations with landowners. In its recommendations, the Chatham House authors propose that future studies examine levels of ‘illegal logging’ in Papua New Guinea in the future. We would also note that the report seems not to have picked up two independent research studies commissioned this year by the Australian Government which found the rate of illegal logging in PNG was small. They did not draw the same conclusion as the Chatham House report. |
Greenpeace: Not Charitable
The New Zealand Charities Commission has ruled that Greenpeace no longer has charitable status in that country. The decision follows two previous cases in Canada where Greenpeace has also lost its charitable status. The Commission determined that Greenpeace’s activities had objectives that were overtly political, which could not afford it a tax-exempt status. The Commission also found that Greenpeace’s sanctioning of ‘non-violent protest’ also effectively sanctioned illegal activity – which could not be deemed charitable either. Already the decision has prompted more caution from the group worldwide. In May of this year maritime charges against Australian Greenpeace activists were dropped. Greenpeace Australia’s CEO Linda Selvey told the media she was relieved upon hearing the decision, as "There would have been potential implications for both our charitable status and our ability to use ships for our important campaigning work." Large corporations in Australia can possibly breathe a sigh of relief. Companies operating in developing countries – such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea – can simply expect more of the same. |
Another South Pacific Cruise for Greenpeace?There are rumors that Esperenza, one of Greenpeace’s blue water vessels is due for another tour in the South Pacific. The last one went badly, resulting in Greenpeace practicing piracy and perpetrating more falsehoods. During their last tour Greenpeace seized a vessel in the Gulf of Papua, declared it contained illegal timber and that the vessel belonged to Rimbunan Hijau. Despite reporting by timber export monitor and verifier - SGS - that showed the claims were wrong on both scores, Greenpeace continued to publicize these falsehoods. Last month, Greenpeace Australia Pacific heralded its South Pacific campaign as contributing to the passage of legislation by the EU that requires all purchases of timber to demonstrate they had established it was legally procured. As part of that campaign, Greenpeace took a PNG anti-forestry activist to London and scaled the Cabinet office to hang posters reading “Ban imports of illegal timber from PNG”. This was an inordinate response given PNG’s exports to the UK. Estimates of the value of PNG timber exports to the UK that year were about USD8 million out of an export total of around USD120 million worldwide, most of which were easily demonstrable as legal. Greenpeace that year reported that the Dutch Postal Lottery funded its Asia-Pacific forestry campaign. Forestry and Development wonders if the Dutch Postal Lottery is looking for a similar success this year. |
McKinsey’s Climate Model in PNGIt is reported that Australian aid money is supporting adaptation of the “Low Cost Carbon Curve” model developed in the US by McKinsey and Co for Papua New Guinea. The same model has been adapted in Indonesia and Guyana as well as other developing countries. It was even adapted in Australia where research by consultants, ITS Global, for Australian industry revealed that there were fundamental problems with the assumptions in the core model. Economic consultants, Charles River and Associates found the McKinsey model systematically understated the costs of switching to low carbon emission industries and overstated the benefits of new and replacement technologies. The modeling undertaken in Australia with assistance from Australian climate change officials incredulously found Australia could switch its electricity generation, from cheap coal to more expensive natural gas, without an increase in electricity prices. The McKinsey model was used in Indonesia to construct a model purporting to show that if forest conversions ceased, Indonesia’s emissions -- assessed as mainly from deforestation -- would fall dramatically. This would supposedly enable Indonesia to meet the Government’s dramatic commitment to reduce emissions by 26 percent by 2020 at virtually no cost. No other country outside the EU has made such a large commitment. Controversially, the work relied on an assessment of emissions based on the claim that Indonesia was the world’s third largest emitter. That claim has been demonstrated as unsupportable, although many environmental campaign groups continue to treat it as if it is real. Recent reports show that deforestation rates in both Indonesia and Brazil have fallen significantly. The FAO has reported that deforestation rates in PNG are low. Research by US-based NGO World Growth has found that figures for global emissions from forest conversion have been significantly overstated. Rather than the 17 percent claimed in the UK Stern Review in 2007 (inflated by Greenpeace to 20 percent) they are much more likely to be between 4 and 8 percent. The reality is that no dependable, overall assessment of Indonesia’s carbon emission from all sectors has been made. The extent of emissions from forestry has been considerably overstated; if Indonesia seeks to meet its target, emissions will need to be derived from other activities, such as farming, oil and gas extraction, mining and transport (in particular use of motorcycles). This would depress economic growth. If the same methodology is applied in PNG, pressure to reduce emissions might fall on similar areas. It is important to get the right baseline for land-use emissions in PNG. NGOs will no doubt push the controversial Shearman report on deforestation produced last year which has been panned by experts as a significant overstatement of the rate of deforestation. Greenpeace are fond of quoting it. Rather using a skewed model like McKinsey’s and undependable assessments like Shearman’s, PNG needs a detailed picture of the source of all emissions from activity in PNG. PNG needs to use the aid funding available to undertake an assessment of the carbon baseline in forestry using the well proven FAO methodology. |
Australia’s Trade Policy InconsistenciesIn July, Australia announced trade will be a major focus in the revised development treaty with PNG. The announcement was made during the annual ministerial meeting between PNG and Australia recently held in Alotau. Following recent criticism of Australia’s $450 million aid program, the big issue at this year’s meeting was development spending. Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith was forthright when he said a new approach is needed. The development treaty between the two countries is due to expire at the end of the year. Both governments are reportedly working on a new treaty that goes beyond aid to incorporate trade and economic development. But the Australian Labor Government’s latest commitment to trade with PNG has already found itself at odds with other government departments in Canberra. Australian forest minister Tony Burke has been under pressure to implement a policy on illegal logging that will limit one key PNG exports to Australia. The policy is expected to regulate timber imports through a ‘due diligence’ approach, similar to measures adopted by the EU. The Government’s own independent review, conducted by The Centre for International Economics, advised against such an approach, arguing that it was both costly and ineffective. According to news reports, there was no mention of the timber policy during the ministerial meeting. There were expectations the illegal timber import policy would be announced before Australia’s next national election, now due in three weeks. Industry has not been consulted on the preferred model of control nor, as Forestry and Development understands, were Australia’s other trading partners who have been accused of illegal logging by anti-forestry NGOs. There is now speculation in Canberra that it has been deferred until after the election. |
REDD Rears its HeadThe PNG Government has publicly distanced itself from a voluntary carbon trading scheme being developed for East Sepik Province in PNG. The Rainforest Management Alliance (RMA) is proposing to develop a carbon trading scheme for the April Salumei FMA in accordance with standards set up by the Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance. According to a public notice published by the RMA, one of the “project partners” involved in the scheme is PNG Government’s Office of Climate Change and Development (OCCD). However the PNG Government has been keen to deny any such involvement. Dr Wari Iamo, Executive Director of the OCCD, published an emphatic statement refuting the Office had offered any such support to the project. A similar carbon trading project has been developed for the Kamula Doso FMA by Nupan Trading Corporation. Nupan is run by former disqualified Australian horse trainer and Philippine cock-fighting syndicate operator, Kirk Roberts. Roberts has been accused by Papua New Guinea's former Forest Minister Belden Namah of running a carbon ''cargo cult'' in the country. The PNG Government was also put under close media scrutiny late last year after inconsistencies in the development of its own carbon conservation projects. New carbon scandals would be unwelcome for the government, and more hollow promises of ‘sky money’ would be unwelcome in forest communities. Both these schemes make grand commitments to conserve
forests, whilst delivering economic and social outcomes, yet there have been
no REDD schemes in Papua New Guinea that have delivered clear economic
benefits to local communities. |
New FAO Papers on Forestry, Climate and PovertyTwo studies by the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) have shed light on the role of forests in development and global warming. One study lead by Ririn Purnamasari of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and published in the FAO Journal unasylva, found a strong correlation between geographical isolation and high rates of deforestation within Indonesia. The research indicates that isolated areas with poor market access experience higher deforestation. The same study also found that higher levels of off-farm employment were associated with lower rates of forest clearing. The study proposed an ‘inverted U’ relationship between poverty and deforestation – with rising prosperity, deforestation initially increases followed by long term decrease. Whilst the study paints a nuanced relationship between poverty and deforestation, the findings are significant – rising prosperity, better infrastructure and improved transport are associated with reduced deforestation rates in the long term. A separate study published in a FAO forestry paper reaffirmed calculations that overall, the forestry industry has a beneficial impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The report, 'The impact of the global forest products industry on atmospheric greenhouse gases' was published in a FAO Forestry Paper. The study 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. |
|
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 |
|