The refusal of the Indonesian government to allow Rainbow Warrior, dubbed by some as Greenpeace’s environmental warship, to dock in Indonesia recently, reveals a growing impatience in Southeast Asia toward the attitudes and methods of Western environmentalists.

There are two sources of disaffection. The first is disregard of the poor and economic growth.

The second is distortion of science to make a political case.

The declared aim of Greenpeace and WWF is to see an end to all conversion of forest to any other purpose everywhere. There is no scientific case for this and a powerful economic argument against.

World Growth joined the global debate to argue for solutions that respected action to reduce poverty, not displace it. This has drawn criticism, as we expected, and we welcome it.

At last the impact of green strategies on poverty is now on the table.

To those who argue that biodiversity is threatened unless all conversion of forest land ceases, we ask the questions: “What biodiversity is expressly protected by global cessation of conversion of forest land to other purposes and how is that biodiversity scientifically measured?”

To World Growth’s knowledge, no scientific analysis supporting this position has so far been produced.

However, one political effort has been made to set how much forest should be preserved globally to be able to protect current biodiversity. 

Signatories to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity proposed at one point that 10 percent of the world’s forests needed to be set aside to protect biodiversity.

WWF has reported that that target has been met. The Food and Agriculture Organization reports that 21 percent of forest land in South and Southeast Asia has been set aside for biodiversity conservation (considerably more than the CBD’s proposed 10 percent).

The United Nations Environment Program has reported that 21 percent of tropical forests are in protected areas. In temperate forests the percentage is less than 13 percent, but even then we cannot be too precise.

For example, the FAO recently revised its deforestation figures for 2000-2005 downwards by more than 12 million hectares — half the area of Britain.

Two points to underline here are that plenty of forest land remains for productive activity and that globally the rate of deforestation is modest and declining.

The FAO reports the global deforestation rate has declined from 0.20 percent of forest land per annum to around 0.14 percent per annum over the past two decades.

This reflects historical and current empirical research on forests and economic development — that as societies become wealthier, deforestation slows, stops and eventually gives way to forest expansion.

That said, this is all educated guesswork. The technical basis of the measurement of global measure of forest cover could be significantly improved, and the FAO has been pressing for this to be done.

This would evidently be useful information. Instead of agitation for this from biodiversity activists and environmentalists, there is silence.

This is not surprising. Science is adduced to support a political case when it suits, not to establish facts.

Greenpeace and WWF have a long record between them of producing supposedly scientific reports where claims are not supported, even false and facts are misrepresented or distorted.

Greenpeace has been caught out twice in the last few months, producing heavily distorted reports about the pulp and palm oil industries. 

WWF’s record is little better. It has made claims about the rate of burning down Indonesian forests which have been publicly demonstrated as wrong.

The London Telegraph dubbed as “Amazongate” revelations that WWF had produced supposedly science-based reports on the adverse impacts of forestry in Brazil which could not  be supported.

There is a political campaign at work here. The aim is to brand the largest plantation operators in Indonesia as responsible for the bulk of the country’s deforestation.

The group of mostly biodiversity scientists who here challenge World Growth share that sentiment. It is not true.

The FAO routinely states that worldwide around two-thirds of forest land clearance is by the poor — to acquire fuel wood, to practice low-return agriculture or to acquire shelter.

The other third is converted to highly productive use — commercial agriculture (including palm oil) and forest plantations.

These activities are important contributors to economic growth. A large share of it is undertaken by large companies.

Most land clearing by the poor in most developing countries already flaunts local land use rules. It’s hard to see how a ban on deforestation driven by Western campaigners is going to make any difference. 

The answer to this problem, as we have noted before, is the postulation by Kenyan environmentalist and Nobel Price laureate, Wangari Maathai: End poverty.

It is the large corporations and the plantation industries which create the jobs which remove the incentive for the poor to clear land. Stopping corporations converting forest land to more productive uses removes the best tool (employment — and therefore food security) to stop wasteful conversion.

There has been a response to World Growth’s call to address poverty, but it borders on the disingenuous.

It was advanced by WWF and echoed by the biodiversity scientists that protection of the forest preserves the subsistence lifestyles of indigenous forest peoples.

But in fact, all this preserves is high rates of infant mortality, illiteracy and short life spans.

The forest dwellers might as well be in an open-range zoo established for the pleasure of environmental campaigners.

And how does that help the 40 million people in Indonesia still living below the poverty line?

Here, we arrive at the nub of World Growth’s position.

Apart from the fact that deforestation rates have been overstated, and that the leading cause has been misrepresented, humanitarianism dictates that we devise solutions to protect the environment without restricting our capacity to lift people out of poverty.

No reasonable person would object  to that.

A reasonable person would, however, object if solutions to environmental problems exacerbated rather than improved the condition of the world’s poor, unless they elected to subscribe to sort of morally unacceptable strategies to reduce population, which has been entertained by one of our critics, biology professor Paul Ehrlich. 

Alan Oxley is chairman of the Washington-based World Growth Institute and a managing consultant at International Trade Strategies in Melbourne. (By Alan Oxley)

Source: Jakarta Globe

(Reuters) - Indonesia could match Brazil's success in slowing  deforestation but needs far more aid from rich nations such as the United States, Japan and the European Union, Norway's environment minister said on Monday.

Norway has signed a $1 billion climate deal with Indonesia, under which Jakarta has agreed to impose a two-year ban on new permits to clear natural forests.

Norway has already released $30 million of the funds, with the bulk to be paid out later after Indonesia proves greenhouse gas emissions have gone down and an independent audit is done.

But more aid is needed to save Indonesia's forests, said Norwegian environment minister Erik Solheim.

"$1 billion is a huge amount of money but Indonesia needs quite substantially more to be able to conserve and sustainably manage its forests," Solheim told Reuters in an interview in Jakarta, where he is meeting Indonesian officials.

"The United States should come in, Japan, other European nations could come into this scheme to make it robust enough."

So far, Norway has been the biggest donor to protect tropical forests. At last year's Copenhagen climate summit, the United States, Australia, France, Japan, Britain and Norway agreed to provide a combined $3.5 billion from 2010-12 to help save forests.

Total pledges by rich donor nations rose to $4 billion in May, when members of a forest partnership met in Oslo.

Indonesia's vast tropical forests soak up enormous amounts of greenhouse gases but are threatened by agriculture and biofuel cultivation. Worldwide, deforestation is responsible for up to a fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions from human sources, according to U.N. data.

"The logic in the past was that you can make money from destroying the forest, you cannot make money from protecting the forest. That logic must be changed," said Solheim.

Oil-rich Norway has also allocated $250 million and $1 billion to forest conservation projects in Guyana and Brazil respectively.

"Brazil has reduced its deforestation rate by 80 percent from 2003 until 2010. That's a fantastic result. I think the prospects for Indonesia are of the same magnitude," he said.

Solheim said it was up to Indonesia, not Norway, to define which forests would be saved under the moratorium or whether existing permits to clear valuable forest would be honored.

"If Indonesia came to Norway to tell us how to do our oil and gas production, Norwegians would laugh," he said.

Palm oil firms such as Wilmar, SMART and Indofood Agri Resources have big expansion plans and vast land banks in Indonesia, the world's biggest producer of the oil used in cosmetics, ice cream and other products.

While Indonesian officials have said they would prefer for the $1 billion to be handled by an internationally reputable Indonesian institution, Solheim said Norway preferred an international institution such as the World Bank.

"This is a matter we have to discuss with the government of Indonesia," he said.

MARKET-BASED OFFSETS DISTANT

Part of Norway's donation will be used to set aside forests for pilot projects under a planned U.N-backed forest carbon offset scheme, called reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD).

So far, most REDD pilot projects are funded by governments. A market-based REDD scheme -- under which rich polluters could offset their emissions by paying poor countries not to chop down their trees -- was a distant prospect, Solheim said.

"That may come in 10 years time or so. It's much more likely we will get a market-based system in other areas such as energy," he said. "Some who are arguing that it should not be market-based can sleep peacefully because we are very far from a market-based system. Every single cent will come from taxpayers." (By Sunanda Creagh; Editing by Alister Doyle and Andrew Marshall)

Source: Reuters

The Indonesian government is imposing a moratorium on forest clearing in return for $1 billion grant from Norway to fund projects to curtail deforestation and land degradation.  Environmental groups and some businesses welcome the freeze.

Starting in January, Indonesia will bar companies from clearing native forest and peat lands for two years.  Timber, pulp and paper operations, and palm oil plantations will be banned from expanding onto new concessions.

The decision initially raised concerns that it would set off a rush of land acquisitions or hurt the economy.

But now many business people and environmentalists say timber industries can still develop land for which they already hold licenses, and they will be able to expand into areas that have been degraded by erosion or previous uses.

The timber and palm oil industries contribute to the destruction of around two-million hectares of Indonesian forest each year, the leading cause of the country's greenhouse gas emissions.

Environmental groups consider the freeze an opportunity for businesses to improve their forest management.

Bustar Maitar works with Greenpeace:

"This moratorium also is the opportunity for the industry to improve the productivity of their plantations," said Bustar Maitar. "The yield of production of Indonesian plantations is very low compared with Malaysian plantations."

Although Indonesia produces more palm oil than neighboring Malaysia, it yields less per hectare.  If companies become more efficient, Maitar says they could expand production without destroying the forest.  

Some environmental groups, however, say stopping plantations from expanding is unrealistic.  They say it is more important to set out clear regulations on forest ownership and land planning.

The government says around 40 million hectares of degraded land could be used for palm plantations, but it has not decided on a formal definition of what degraded land is or where it is located.

Indonesia pledged to reduce its carbon emissions by 26 percent by 2020.  Much of that reduction can come from protecting its forests and peat land.  They lock in carbon, but release it when they are used for planting.

Greenhouse gas emissions are thought to contribute to global warming.  Countries around the world are debating how best to reduce emissions without stalling economic growth.

Aida Greenbury manages sustainability programs at Asia Pulp and Paper, one of the region's largest paper companies. She says government and business must work together to save Indonesia's forests.

"No one company can single-handedly address the issues of protection of rainforest and climate change," said Aida Greenbury. "We are simply not large enough and we do not have influence over enough land."

Greenbury says her company sets aside 40 percent of its 2.5 million hectares for conservation and that it has invested in protecting tiger and orangutan habitats.

She says poverty is the leading cause of deforestation, and that by providing jobs, plantations help reduce illegal logging.

Forestry and its related industries account for about 5.5 percent of Indonesia's $515-billion economy.

Sinar Mas is Asia Pulp and Paper's parent company. Greenpeace accuses the group of clearing virgin forest and peat land and has pressured Nestle, Unilever and Burger King to sever palm oil contracts with the agribusiness giant.

Maitar says Greenpeace wants the government to weigh the costs to the environment against the economic benefits of the timber industry.

"For us Sinar Mas is the example," said Maitar. "Of course it is not only Sinar Mas.  We know there are many other companies also doing the same thing. What we want to show to the government is that this is a type of iceberg."

Forest protection groups say the moratorium gives the government time to clarify regulations on forest development.  At the same time, the government can determine guidelines for projects that can earn money from REDD, a global program that allows industrialized nations to pay developing ones to reduce their emissions from deforestation and land degradation.

Greenbury says the moratorium is a welcome breather in an industry that has moved very fast for 30 years.

"I think it is really good to have a break," she said. "From 80 [1980] until 2010, we have been under enormous criticism from all over the world.  So let us just stop everything, tell us where did we do wrong and let us analyze it, see where we can improve according to national regulations and then come up with a new set of regulations or system."

Indonesia is the world's third-largest greenhouse gas emitter.  The international community has lauded its commitment to reducing emissions from forestry, but enforcement is a major problem since the country's massive forests are difficult to police. (By Sara Schonhardt)

Source: VOANEWS.com

Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license

Nagoya (Japan): One hectare of a tropical forest yields us benefits worth $6,120 every year, far more than gained by cutting that forest down. But they continue to be cut down, and on Tuesday 192 countries still could not agree on how to arrest this.

The sustainable management of forests is one of the main issues at the Oct 18-29 UN biodiversity summit that is being held here under the shadow of a failed promise - in 2002 all nations agreed to halt biodiversity loss by 2010, but have failed to do so. India is also a participant at the summit.

Tim Christoferson of the secretariat for the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) said that even in many tropical forests where trees are standing, the animals in them have been killed for food. "This has a huge effect, because up to 75 percent of tropical plants depend on animals to disperse their seeds," he pointed out.

"It's also vital for human nutrition. In central Africa, up to 80 percent of households depend on forest animals for their animal protein." And the forests have fewer animals.

But international agreement on sustainable management of forests continues to be stuck over the issues of how much rich countries will pay poor countries for it, and over who will measure the success of any effort to arrest deforestation.

There is another bone of contention - global efforts to combat climate change have also focussed on forests, since deforestation accounts for about 20 percent of the excess greenhouse gases which are warming up the planet. The question here is how to safeguard biodiversity while arresting deforestation and who will do it. Some countries want the CBD to play an active role, while others want that debate to be kept within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

While the squabbling continues, experts say there are ways to slow the continuing biodiversity loss. Henrique Miguel Pereira and Paul Leadley led a 23-member team of scientists from nine countries to look at recent studies, and found "universal agreement across the studies that fundamental changes are needed in society to avoid high risk of extinctions, declining populations in many species, and large scale shifts in species distributions in the future".

Leadley, of the University Paris-Sud, said: "There is no question that business-as-usual development pathways will lead to catastrophic biodiversity loss. Even optimistic scenarios for this century consistently predict extinctions and shrinking populations of many species." He described the UN target of stopping biodiversity loss by 2020 as something that "sounds good, but sadly isn't realistic".

But the scientists were hopeful that slowing climate change and deforestation can go hand-in-hand to reduce biodiversity loss thanks to "significant opportunities to intervene through better policies, such as those aimed at mitigating climate change without massive conversion of forests to biofuel plantations", according to Leadley.

"But action must be taken quickly, as the study indicates the window of opportunity is closing rapidly, as differences in policy action taken now could either lead to an increase in global forest cover of about 15 percent in the best case or losses of more than 10 percent in the worst case by 2030."

The authors say the creation of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-like mechanism for biodiversity (to be called the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services -- IPBES) is "extremely important" for achieving commonly-agreed definitions and indicators for biodiversity and to inform decision making.

They note that changes in species distributions and population sizes should receive more attention because they are probably more critical to human well-being and better short-term indicators of the pressures of humans on ecosystems. For example the continuing overall decline in populations of large-bodied fish species due to over-fishing, the poleward migration of marine species at a rate of more than 40 km per decade due to climate change, and the 10 to 20 percent decline in the abundance of terrestrial species by mid-century primarily was due to land-use change.

IANS

Source: ZEENEWS.com

Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license