July 3, 2003

The unkindest cut: 15 million hectares of forests disappear every year

By Saskia Ozinga, FERN.

At a party last week, I was asked about the claim that, in some parts of the world, forest area has actually increased over the last few decades. The implication of the remark was that the threat of forest destruction – once so urgent – had now diminished: sustainable development had come to the rescue in the form of well-managed forests, sensitive timber extraction and a burgeoning trade in certificated timber products.

Sadly, my friend’s optimism is very misplaced: the FAO figures he cited inaccurately equate plantations with forests. But the incident reminded me of how far the forests’ plight has fallen from the popular agenda since the heyday of the 1980s and early 1990s when shop rails were weighed down with colourful T-shirts urging us to ‘Save the Rainforests’.

The world now appears a very different place. Environmental concerns have entered the mainstream so successfully that the concept of corporate social responsibility is now enthusiastically flourished – if often misconstrued – in companies’ annual reports. But, beyond the corporate greenwash, what has actually changed for the world’s forests?

Deforestation is at an all-time high, with an annual loss of 14.6 million hectares. In Malaysia, there is virtually no old-growth forest left and protests by indigenous peoples against the logging continue to be met with serious human rights abuses by the government. Paper made from precious tropical rainforests in Indonesia entered the European market a few years ago. According to the Indonesian government up to 70% of its timber is illegally produced. Conflicts between forest-dependent peoples and logging companies are rife.

The fact is that illegal logging happens in most countries across the globe. Recent research shows that an estimated 50% of European timber imports from the tropics and nearly 20% from the boreal region, including from accession countries such as Estonia, is illegally sourced. And although, according to official figures, the forest area in the boreal region is either increasing or stable, this often means that centuries-old forests – such as the endangered Canadian temperate rainforest – are being replaced with large-scale mono-culture industrial tree plantations.

To some, plantations seem a blessing: Surely they are a ‘clean and ethical’ way of satisfying the North’s demand for wood without destroying old-growth forests and the communities that depend on them? In fact, large-scale plantations are seriously marred by a history of environmental and socio-cultural damage, particularly in the tropics. There is abundant evidence of a loss of biodiversity and forest-dependent medicines and food, of land-rights disputes, and of the general exacerbation of poverty. Job creation, when it exists, is usually temporary and benefits only a small number of people – rarely those who stand to lose most from the land-use changes.

Somewhere along the line the impetus to halt the forest crisis became stalled. And while some of the responsibility for this appalling situation can be laid at the door of the timber and paper and pulp industries, lack of government control, excessive consumption patterns and the financial mechanisms that underpin the exploitation of forests are also implicated. In all of these areas, the EU and its member states have an obligation to improve matters.

EU-based Export Credit Agencies, which underwrite ‘risky’ projects, support a number of ventures that destroy forests and displace people. A prime example is Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) in Indonesia: a pulp producer which amassed debt of over 13 bn USD and destroyed large tracts of primary forest. EC development co-operation is equally implicated. The 9 bn Euro a year aid programme could contribute to true sustainable development if all effected parties were allowed to participate in setting priorities. However, research by FERN and Eurostep has shown that priorities are set overwhelmingly by the recipient government and the EC delegation, with little or no input from the people on the ground. Clear action in these areas would be a significant step towards responsible financing – a long-term goal that would, nevertheless, be a real lever for change.

In other arenas, the EU can act quickly and effectively. Climate change is expected to place even more pressure on the world’s dwindling forests, as up to two-thirds are predicted to be negatively affected by global warming. The EU is faced with a stark choice: it can either achieve its targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through reducing fossil fuel consumption, or it can buy into the scientifically flawed concept of carbon sinks – of planting trees to soak up the carbon released from fossil fuels. This latter approach is already leading to more large-scale monoculture tree plantations with their serious environmental and social consequences and without any clear benefits for the climate.

Forest certification schemes link timber production with responsible consumption. The area of forest certified as well managed has grown considerably in the last decade, particularly in Europe. However, some of the certification schemes are better than others, and some are clearly bogus. Any credible scheme has to ensure that vested interests cannot hijack the standard-setting process. Yet in most existing schemes, the certification standards are set by the forestry industry, which clearly undermines the schemes’ integrity. Governments need to take into account the governance aspect of the different certification schemes when deciding their credibility. And the onus is on the EU to do this as well.

But no matter how perfect a forest certification scheme, it cannot counter the ever-increasing destruction caused by illegally sourced and imported timber. The EU’s recent Action Plan on measures to prevent illegal logging, published in May 2003, is a welcome first step. However, to address this issue seriously, much more is needed: the political will to address the issue of land-rights and sufficient funds to support independent monitoring activities, to name but two. The logging industry and paper and pulp manufacturers have been lamentably silent in response to the Action Plan – but perhaps they have been busy writing the ‘environment chapter’ of their annual reports. Let’s hope that sooner rather than later their words become deeds and I will be attending parties where news of the world’s forests is genuinely good.