|
Forestry and Development E-News: June 2009 |
|
|
Forestry and 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. |
|
Greenpeace
actions risk fanning anti-Chinese sentiment - reports in Malaysia
June 2009: 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 The following is an extract from a report in The
Star in 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. |
|
|
PNG
and climate change: US$2.4m in funding June
2009: 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. Also on
Forestry and Development
|
FSC
Australia seeks charitable status
June
2009: 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. Greenpeace's
timber policies questionable
June 2009: 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. |
|
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. © 2009. All
rights reserved
| Forestry
& Development Website | Contact |
|
|