Brief comments
on ‘A Study of the Economic and Environmental Effects of Accelerated Tariff
Liberalisation in the Forest Product sector’ November 99
By Saskia
Ozinga
Fern
I. Was the analytic approach used robust?
The analytic approach is based on ) using two large scale forest prodcuts sector models ) literature study and 3) a review and assessment of public comments.
Ad ) The core material for the results of the study are coming from the two exercises using economic models, the GFPM model and the CGTM model. It is unclear what baseline projection has been used with both models. This baseline is not described in annex 5, nor are the parameters. Without knowing what baseline has been used it is difficult to judge the outcome. No explanation is given about the outcome. See II
Ad ) The literature studied on tariffs seems to be fairly complete, but the overall literature list seems biased. There are very few studies carried out by NGOs (WWF, WRI, WRM) on the list. Moreover not all literature listed is used in a balanced manner for the general analysis. See II
Ad 3) It is unclear how the public comments have been used in the study
The analytic approach is therefore not robust. However there is a more fundamental problem with the TOR for this study as well. To look at the environmental impacts of further tariff liberalisation the study should have developed criteria and indicators for this environmental impact. At the moment it is only the ‘timber harvest’ which is used as a ‘broad scale summary indicator of the environmental changes that may be triggered by the ATL’ (page iii) Therefore it is clear that this study can not be seen as a study of the environmental impacts of the ATL. This study should therefore be seen as a study of the economic effects rather than the environmental effects. To take into account the UNCED Forest principles, the IPF’s proposals for action to name just a few international agreements on forests, the study should have looked at the social impact of the ATL as well as at the environmental and economic impact.
It is impossible to see from Annex 5 whether the economic models used are appropriate. However even if they are, it is essential to see what the baseline is, which parameters are used etc to be able to judge the outcome. That information is lacking. This is particularly problematic as some of the outcome is against all expectations and no explanation is provided. Particularly in the case of Sweden and Finland it s very unlikely that timber harvest would increase with 7 to 11% because of the ATL. Current exploitation in both countries is high already, new stock in Finland is very young and therefore not available for the production of processed timber. Such an increase in timber harvest would expect that these countries would be the main beneficiaries for export to the Asian markets if tariffs came down which is very unlikely due to higher production costs than in the US and their geographical situation. It is totally out of the blue why an increase in timber harvest in Sweden and Finland would take place only in secondary forests. In both countries old growth forests are still being logged and an increase in timber harvest could very well affecr these areas. Another surprise is China, although the increase is little, China has developed a policy to increase timber imports rather the expand its timber harvest.
On the literature used. In
the executive summary some of the quotes like ‘international trade in forest
products is not a major factor affecting global forest conditions and
management’ are not supported by some of the literature quoted.
No distinction is made between forests and plantations by using the FAO
figure of forest loss( page 6)
The study states at several
places that the ATL will contribute to a shift away from harvests in primary
forests towards harvest in secondary forests and plantations. It is however not
clear what the basis for this assumption is.
The statement that plantations reduce pressure to harvest natural forests
has been challenged by several studies (see i.e. Carrere and Lohmann: pulping
the south).
III Was there a geographical balance?.
See comments under II. There
might be, but difficult to judge how it is being used.
IV. Was it balanced in terms of the scale of the amalysis.
Difficult to judge.
No the study refrains from
looking at any alternatives, nor qualifies any negative impacts. The study is
only looking at the economic impacts of the ATL in terms of change of direction
and magnitude of change in timber harvest and the location of that change.
In short:
·
The study does not provide any information about the
environmental (or social) effects of the ATL.
·
The study does provide some information about the
changes in timber harvest as well as the location where these changes take place
due to the ATL. However the information given about the models used to quantify
these changes is insufficient to judge the outcome. ‘What figures have been
fed into the model exercise’
·
The statement that there will be a shift from the
production of logs and paper and pulp to more processed timber could be expected
due tot the already low tariff levels on logs and paper and pulp.
·
Considering the current high tariffs in some Asian and
LA countries one would have expected that the ATL would benefit countries
exporting to these areas. However according to this study this is not
necessarily the case. The expected increase in timber harvest in Sweden and
Finland, and the lack of increase in the timber harvest in the US comes as a
complete surprise and is difficult to understand. Surely for price as well as
geographical reasons the US would be better suite to export to new markets in
Asia than Northern Europe.
·
The study seems to be biased in its wording. (see
above)
·
The study makes statements which are not backed up by
the research itself, or at least not in a transparent manner. I.e. the study
states at several places that the ATL will contribute to a shift away from
harvests in primary forests towards harvest in secondary forests and
plantations. It is however not clear what the basis for this assumption is.